The forum is dedicated to all who deals with LCs. Please share your experiences, problems and opinions with us. You are requested to be confined to LC related issues only. Let us together discover the beauty of Letter of Credit. Thank and regards – admin; besttradesolution.com
-
dholat
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:01 pm
Post
by dholat » Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:32 pm
today is a question day
dear all,
ISBP
89. If a credit states that costs additional to freight are not acceptable, a multimodal transport document must not indicate that costs additional to the freight have been or will be incurred. ... A reference in the transport document to costs which may be levied as a result of a delay in unloading the goods or after the goods have been unloaded, e.g., costs covering the late return of containers, is not considered to be an indication of additional costs in this context.
does that mean that any other document may show that there is a cost in addition to freight?
-
cristiand969
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
- First Name: Cristian
- Last Name: D.
- Organization: Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: RO
Post
by cristiand969 » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:59 pm
I don't see any reason behind your question as to why other documents need to show additional costs to the freight charges unless the real intent is avoid a prohibition clause of LC while the freight has been arranged as FREE OUT or the like (less costs than LC requires - i.e. without additional costs).
Usually, only BL should show that because it is a contract of carriage and the consignee must adhere to such conditions of carriage and goods won't be released until such additional costs are paid. B/L is prima facie evidence that freight has been prepaid or is collect.
However, to reply to your question I would consider other documets mentioning additional costs as discrepant as they are inconsistent with freight charges on B/L clearly defined in the article you have quoted.
Regards
Cristian