Bill of lading examination

shahriar · Post by **shahriar** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:55 pm

Dear friends,

I have received the attached bill of lading today. to me its discrepant for two reasons.

1. The shipped on board notation does not show the word "shipped on board" or similar qualification
2. The bill of lading does not show the number of original issued.

your opinion please

Navi · Post by **Navi** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:31 pm

Hi friend,
.
I completely agree with your 2nd discrepancy but have doubt for the first one.

As per UCP600 20-a-ii, BL should indicate that goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading...by either a preprinted wording or an on board notation indicating the date on which the goods have been shipped on board...

On the document we see a date, name of vessel and the port of loading. I think we can consider this notation as on board notation even though wording "on board" misses...

Other comments appreciated...

Regards

picant · Post by **picant** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:54 am

Hi Navi

please note that the bill of lading has been issued in a SOLE original .

Ciao

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:45 pm

From the content of Bill of Lading submitted it is clear that the goods were loaded on board the vessel YANTRA BHUM at Bangkok, and a transhipment will be involved during the carriage of goods on M/V HANSA CALYPSO.
Now, regarding first Shahriar discrepancy: I differ in opinion. There is indeed a preprinted 'Shipped on board' notation dated 25 Dec 2008 right above the declaration: 'RECEIVED by the carrier....' which is clearly linked to the statement: CY/CY DECEMBER 25,2008 BANKGOK THailand, YANTRA BHUM V.711S' stamped and signed by the agent. Having said that the conditions of art. 20 (ii and 3) UCP 600 were met.
Regarding second discrepancy, it is clarly stated : In withness whereof 1 original BL was issued if not otherwise stated above. Therefore the second discrepancy is also invalid.
There is no discrepancy out ot the two mentioned. Doc complies in this respect.
Cristian

shahriar · Post by **shahriar** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:02 pm

i got your point regarding the two discrepancies. i agree. but i have one further query -

what will be the position if a set of three bill of lading is presented?

regd
shahriar

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:34 pm

Dear Shahriar,
If the case is as you inquired about then the B/L is discrepant. The discrepancy is between the number of originals presented and the declaration that 1 B/L was issued only.
Rgds
Cristian

jim · Post by **jim** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:07 am

Dear Sir,

I am bit confused. do we really need to examine those fine print terms and condition? i mean sometime they are considered as a terms and condition which a banker need not to review.

Ozoda · Post by **Ozoda** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:24 pm

Dear Jim,

As per UCP 600 bank must not check the terms and conditions of carriage.
They are indicated below the "Shiped on Bord December 25, 2008" column.

Banks must examine documents in accordance with UCP, ISBP and the credit terms.
UCP and ISBP have a lot of requirements to transport documents, which must be examined.