I have a circumstance that need for your kind help !
We receive a L/C that required "2/3 SET OF ORIGINAL CLEAN ON BOARD PELORUS OCEAN LINE BILL OF LADING TO BE ISSUED BY HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD. MADE OUT TO ORDER OF ..."
The B/L presented by Ben to us have some informations as following:
+ the logo at the right corner: PELORUS OCEAN LINE LIMITED
+ at the signatuer box say that:
Sign on behalf of the carrier: PELORUS OCEAN LINE
A stamp and hand signature stated: HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS
In my opinion that B/L is in conformity with condition of L/C but there some my colleague's opinion say that: "B/L not be issued by HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD as L/ required". Their say base on ISBP paragraph 22 Issuer of Documents: "...It may appear to be issued by a name person or entity by use of its letterhead, or if there is no letterhead, the documents appears to have been completed or signed by, or on behalf of, the name person or entity.
I have not been persuade by this view. Can anybody give me the advice in this case ? Can we base on ISBP paragraph 22 to raise the discrepancy ?
do the issuing and signing are matching ?
-
pebble
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:42 pm
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 0
- Contact:
-
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
BL status
The Letter of credit was issued with conflicting terms:
On one hand it is required a "PELORUS OCEAN LINE BILL OF LADING" which invariably means the documents must appear to be issued on PELORUS letterhead and furthermore interpreted as issuer of the bill of lading
On the other hand it was stated : TO BE ISSUED BY HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD which have the same equivalent as above described.
As per art. 2 of ISBP the applicant is ultimately responsible for any ambiguity in the instructions.
.
My personal point of view without any responsability whatsoever: If HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD appears as an authorized party (i.e agent of carrier PELORUS) the document in question is OK and I think that was the intention of the issuing bank (BL issuer PELORUS and signed and released to shipper by their agent HELLMAN...) although the LC wording does not convey the same meaning and it is an obvious mistake of the issuing bank. The issuing bank cannot claim what your colleagues thought to be applicable. It's just like requiring shipment from any 'HUNGARIAN seaport' which notwithstanding the two words are perfect true when taken separately , they cannot stand together as a logical information as no sea is in Hungary.
Hope it helps for you.
Brgds
Cristian
On one hand it is required a "PELORUS OCEAN LINE BILL OF LADING" which invariably means the documents must appear to be issued on PELORUS letterhead and furthermore interpreted as issuer of the bill of lading
On the other hand it was stated : TO BE ISSUED BY HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD which have the same equivalent as above described.
As per art. 2 of ISBP the applicant is ultimately responsible for any ambiguity in the instructions.
.
My personal point of view without any responsability whatsoever: If HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD appears as an authorized party (i.e agent of carrier PELORUS) the document in question is OK and I think that was the intention of the issuing bank (BL issuer PELORUS and signed and released to shipper by their agent HELLMAN...) although the LC wording does not convey the same meaning and it is an obvious mistake of the issuing bank. The issuing bank cannot claim what your colleagues thought to be applicable. It's just like requiring shipment from any 'HUNGARIAN seaport' which notwithstanding the two words are perfect true when taken separately , they cannot stand together as a logical information as no sea is in Hungary.
Hope it helps for you.
Brgds
Cristian
-
pebble
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:42 pm
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 0
- Contact:
I agree
Many thanks for your enthusiasm reply ! I completely agree with your explanation !
I just wonder that for the bill of lading, in many case we still accept the letterhead and the signature be taken separately different. UCP Art 19-24 just indicate the name of carrier and the capacity of signature, not caring about the letterhead. So I think it's hardly treated if use ISBP paragraph 22 to raise discrepancy for this B/L. Can we have an easy view for the requirement of issuing B/L like that ?
I just wonder that for the bill of lading, in many case we still accept the letterhead and the signature be taken separately different. UCP Art 19-24 just indicate the name of carrier and the capacity of signature, not caring about the letterhead. So I think it's hardly treated if use ISBP paragraph 22 to raise discrepancy for this B/L. Can we have an easy view for the requirement of issuing B/L like that ?
-
jmitra
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:16 pm
- First Name: jasmit
- Last Name: mitra
- Organization: bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: India
tricky issue
its a very tricky issue indeed. i will consider the statement,
in having two requirements
1. The BL is a CLEAN ON BOARD PELORUS OCEAN LINE BILL OF LADING
2. TO BE ISSUED BY HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD.
the 2nd requirement is quite clear. to agree with cristian, i must some how mange to show that the requirement for 1. comes first. well to honest, i cant see any reason for that. because no. is appearing before the 2 does not mean that 1 has more importance than two. in fact i fail to see 1. as a standing alone clear requirement. therefore i will ignore 1 and go for 2. the BL is discrepant.
please dont think that im biased by the following statement as i found it after commenting the above.
"2/3 SET OF ORIGINAL CLEAN ON BOARD PELORUS OCEAN LINE BILL OF LADING TO BE ISSUED BY HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD. MADE OUT TO ORDER OF ..."
in having two requirements
1. The BL is a CLEAN ON BOARD PELORUS OCEAN LINE BILL OF LADING
2. TO BE ISSUED BY HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LTD.
the 2nd requirement is quite clear. to agree with cristian, i must some how mange to show that the requirement for 1. comes first. well to honest, i cant see any reason for that. because no. is appearing before the 2 does not mean that 1 has more importance than two. in fact i fail to see 1. as a standing alone clear requirement. therefore i will ignore 1 and go for 2. the BL is discrepant.
please dont think that im biased by the following statement as i found it after commenting the above.
Hellmann Worldwide Logistics GmbH & Co. KG
Osnabrueck, , Germany
Logistic Products - Services,
Proprietorship Firm Since 1871
Founded in 1871 by Carl Heinrich Hellmann in Osnabruck, northern Germany, the company started as a one - man business delivering parcels with a horse-drawn cart.
Thinking ahead - moving forward - This is our guiding principle at Hellmann as we move through the fourth generation of our existence. Our goal is to think ahead and actively shape the future through innovation, efficiency and customized logistics solutions. We seek to achieve speed, endurance and to overcome vast distances as a result of thorough preparations, unbroken communication and, above all, loyalty to our partners. The wild geese that can be seen in our company logo symbolize these values.
Products :
We Provide services of Transport. Services :- (1)Transport Services :- Additional information on these and other services can also be found in the country presentations. 1)Hellmann airfreight :- IATA direct loading, regular grouped consignments and crosstrade shipments (customer at A orders transportation from B to C). Country and Product Information. 2)Hellmann seafreight :- LCL and FCL loading to and from all major business centres in the world. Country and Product Information. 3)Hellmann sea-air :- Economical combinations of air and sea freight. Country and Product Information. 4)Hellmann domestic distribution :- Nationwide door-to-door transportation within 24/48 hours in Poland, Singapore, North America and Vietnam. Country and Product Information. 5)Pelorus Ocean Line (NVOCC Service) :- Complete project management and sea transport service. Country and Product Information. (2)Courier Express Parcel Services :- hot.Tp time priority, hot.X express. (3)Special Services :- Hellmann automotive logistics, Hellmann beverage logistics, Hellmann marine solutions, Hellmann Inter Africa, hpl hellmann perishable logistics, Hellmann fashion logistics. (4)Warehouse Consulting :- Hellmann contract logistics & consulting. (5)IT Services :- HIS - Hellmann Information Service, HIT - Hellmann Information Tool, HIS Online Archive, Hellmann connect, Hellmann hellogic, Hellmann eBusiness, PCO. Tracking + Tracing :- The Hellmann Information Tool is your personal portal to the World of Hellmann. Detailed Tracking & Tracing, Account queries and Warehouse Management Systems are all available to you.
-
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
Doubts
Dear Jmitra,
Based only on the construction of the credit it is quite obvious that both parties have the equal status. A XXX (i.e. PELORUS)company document is undoubtless a document that is created (issued) by a such company.
On the second stage an 'XXX issued document' -should be issued by YYY (HELMAN) company??????!!!
Therefore as both parties have the equal status why don't we ignore 2 and go for 1?
I still consider document correct in connection with LC terms and conditions.
Regarding your quoting of that article... Well done jmitra for such an information but I think it is an additional piece for which I see no connection with the above... We are not talking about the capacity of parties (i.e. carrier, NVOCC, agents, etc) but merely the issuer of such a document.
On the other hand I don't give full credit for this as we don't know it is an updated info... In today's world mergers and aquisitions , cooperating agreements and other forms under joint ventures happen very often and very fast. That's why we are not required not permitted to go beyond the documents to see how was in fact produced as well as the status or creditworthiness of third parties involved.
Based only on the construction of the credit it is quite obvious that both parties have the equal status. A XXX (i.e. PELORUS)company document is undoubtless a document that is created (issued) by a such company.
On the second stage an 'XXX issued document' -should be issued by YYY (HELMAN) company??????!!!
Therefore as both parties have the equal status why don't we ignore 2 and go for 1?
I still consider document correct in connection with LC terms and conditions.
Regarding your quoting of that article... Well done jmitra for such an information but I think it is an additional piece for which I see no connection with the above... We are not talking about the capacity of parties (i.e. carrier, NVOCC, agents, etc) but merely the issuer of such a document.
On the other hand I don't give full credit for this as we don't know it is an updated info... In today's world mergers and aquisitions , cooperating agreements and other forms under joint ventures happen very often and very fast. That's why we are not required not permitted to go beyond the documents to see how was in fact produced as well as the status or creditworthiness of third parties involved.
-
iLC
- Posts: 504
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:33 pm
a modifier
Dear Cristian,
its really good to see you prominent presence after a long time. i always miss something without you
.
i agree with you that both the sides have chance; but may not be equal. do you remember the "come by chance" port case. in that light, unless a word clearly states what they are intended for, i will not go for that. what if the word is not pelorus there. i was wondering what would be the case if i put the word "surrender" (another debate is going on it, i have seen). in fact, at the first reading i didnt read the sentence as "PELORUS OCEAN LINE" rather read PELORUS OCEAN LINE (three different words). however i will not dare to comment anyone as right or wrong.
its really good to see you prominent presence after a long time. i always miss something without you
.i agree with you that both the sides have chance; but may not be equal. do you remember the "come by chance" port case. in that light, unless a word clearly states what they are intended for, i will not go for that. what if the word is not pelorus there. i was wondering what would be the case if i put the word "surrender" (another debate is going on it, i have seen). in fact, at the first reading i didnt read the sentence as "PELORUS OCEAN LINE" rather read PELORUS OCEAN LINE (three different words). however i will not dare to comment anyone as right or wrong.
-
berry
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:36 pm
Bill of lading issued by freight forwarder
i have a question. if the credit says that "bill of lading issued by freight forwarder not allowed" then can the freight forwarder sign as a freight forwarder while using the letter head of the carrier?
-
picant
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm
ICC Opinions clear
Hi Pals,
Opinion TA572 ,oct. 2000, and recently TA669 state: The bank would be obliged to accept a bill of lading that was signed "as carrier" irrespective of any knowledge it may have as to the capacity of issuer, i.e even when the transport document was entitled FBL Bifa Negotiable FIATA multimodel transport document. So, IMHO, Bill of lading, signed by Freight forwarder, as carrier or as agent of a named carrier, in a carrier letterhead or not, must be accepted by L/C issuing bank also if claused "Freight Forwarder Bill of lading not acceptable".
Other comments appreciated
Ciao
Opinion TA572 ,oct. 2000, and recently TA669 state: The bank would be obliged to accept a bill of lading that was signed "as carrier" irrespective of any knowledge it may have as to the capacity of issuer, i.e even when the transport document was entitled FBL Bifa Negotiable FIATA multimodel transport document. So, IMHO, Bill of lading, signed by Freight forwarder, as carrier or as agent of a named carrier, in a carrier letterhead or not, must be accepted by L/C issuing bank also if claused "Freight Forwarder Bill of lading not acceptable".
Other comments appreciated
Ciao