ISBP D7 On Boar Notation On Multimodal Transport Document

[CDCS2015]

ISBP D7 ON BOAR NOTATION ON MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT DOCUMENT

QuoteWhen a credit requires shipment to commence from a port, i.e., when the first leg of the journey, as required by the credit, is by sea, a multimodal transport document is to indicate a dated on board notation, and in this event paragraph E6 (b-d) will also apply.Unquote

Source of : The ICC document “Recommendations of the Banking Commission in respect of the requirements for an On board Notation” can be downloaded here:

http://www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-an ... -Notation/

Question 1: How do we know if the documentary credit calls for shipment from a port to a place of final destination? Is it when documentary credit mention just the port of loading name under field 44E without specifying a place of receipt under field 44A and then name a port of discharge under field 44F as well as a place of final destination under field 44B or just name a place of final destination under field 44B (leaving field 44F blank)?

Question 2: What is the rationale for having to indicate a dated on board notation on the face of a multimodal transport document such as a multimodal bill of lading when the documentary credit calls for shipment to commence from a port to a named place of destination? I understand that a multimodal transport document can be issued out at the seller's premises such as a warehouse, oil refinery etc. Where a multimodal transport document is issued out at a warehouse, then "place of receipt" field will most probably name the warehouse address/place and date of issuance of multimodal BL is merely the date of receipt of cargo at the warehouse (not shipment date). Is the rational due to the reasoning that if a port of loading (under field 44E) is named under "place of receipt" field, it merely just say cargo had been handed over by shipper to the performing/actual carrier at the named place of receipt (load port) and cargo is not said to be loaded on-board yet. Hence, there is a need to stamp a dated on-board notation on the face of the multimodal transport document to indicate cargo have indeed been loaded on board? What if the face of the multimodal transport document already bears a ON-BOARD NOTATION stating name of the vessel (same as vessel name stated on multimodal BL)and name of load port (same port of loading named under field 44E) or pre-printed wording "SHIPPED ON BOARD"? Is there still a need to indicate a dated on-board notation on the multimodal BL?

Official opinions from Banking Commission & ISBP745:


(1) If credit intended shipment from a load port to a named place of destination, then dated on-board notation must be indicated on face of multimodal transport documents. The dated on-board notation must be accompanied by name of vessel and name of load port (under field 44E) IF port of loading name is indicated under "place of receipt" field. - ISBP 745 D7

(2) If credit intended shipment from a load port to a named place of destination, then dated on-board notation must be indicated on face of multimodal transport documents. The dated on-board notation must be accompanied by name of vessel and name of load port (under field 44E) IF the "place of receipt" field and/or "port of loading" field shows a different place from field 44E. Exception to this rule is when the multimodal transport bears a "on board notation" or "SHIPPED ON BOARD" pre-printed wording provided we can tell from the face of the multimodal transport that the "on board notation" or "SHIPPED ON BOARD" pre-printed wording reflect loading taking place at the named port of loading (field 44e) onto named vessel (vessel name as named in multimodal BL). - Banking Commission opinions

How about a multimodal BL pre-printed with the wording 'SHIPPED ON-BOARD" with both "PLACE OF RECEIPT" field and "PORT OF LOADING" fields (name of another port named; different from 44E) reading different places from field 44e of documentary credit? Does the "SHIPPED ON BOARD" refer to the cargo shipped on-board at the named "PLACE OF RECEIPT" field, at the named place stated under "PORT OF LOADING" field, OR cargo loaded on-board the port of loading stated under field 44E?

[ucp800]

At the outset no on board notation is required where the L/C calls for a multimodal transport document. The requirement is merely that the document must “indicate that the goods have been dispatched, taken in charge or shipped on board at the place stated in the credit.”2
It should be noted however that a dated on board notation is required when the documentary credit requires that. The same is required in the cases where the documentary credit requires shipment from a port i.e. where the first leg of the journey, as required by the documentary credit, is a sea leg.

If a multimodal transport document nonetheless evidences a place of receipt that is different to the place stated in the credit, and that place stated in the credit is a port, the dated on board notation will require the addition of the name of the vessel and port of loading, unless the transport document evidences that the on board notation or pre-printed shipped on board wording applies to the named vessel and port of loading.

For example:
An L/C that requires:
• a multimodal transport document showing shipment
• from Hong Kong
• to Copenhagen
and the presented transport document indicates: Pre-carriage Place of receipt
Ocean Vessel & Voyage No.
Sea pride v.1234 Port of loading
Hong Kong
Port of discharge
Hamburg Place of delivery
Copenhagen

Place of B(s)/L issued
Hong Kong Date
1 August 2010
RECEIVED by the Carrier from the Shipper, as far as ascertained by reasonable means of checking, in apparent good order and condition. IN WITNESS where one(1) original Bill of Lading has been signed if not otherwise stated above, the same being accomplished the other(s), if any, to be void. One(1) original Bill of Lading must be surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or delivery order.
DC Shipping International, As Carrier

Since the first leg of the transport as required by the L/C (Hong Kong) is a sea leg (indicated as a port) a dated on board notation is required, e.g.:
“Shipped on board: 5 August 2010”
In such case the date of the on board notation (i.e. 5 August 2010) is deemed to be date of shipment.

Another example:
An L/C that requires:
• a multimodal transport document showing shipment
• from Hong Kong
• to Copenhagen
and the presented transport document indicates:

Pre-carriage Place of receipt
Xingang
Ocean Vessel & Voyage No.
Sea pride v.1234 Port of loading
Hong Kong
Port of discharge
Hamburg Place of delivery
Copenhagen

Place of B(s)/L issued
Hong Kong Date
1 August 2010
RECEIVED by the Carrier from the Shipper, as far as ascertained by reasonable means of checking, in apparent good order and condition. IN WITNESS where one(1) original Bill of Lading has been signed if not otherwise stated above, the same being accomplished the other(s), if any, to be void. One(1) original Bill of Lading must be surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or delivery order.
DC Shipping International, As Carrier


Since the multimodal transport document evidences a place of receipt that is different to the place stated in the L/C, and that place stated in the L/C is a port, a dated on board notation showing the name of the vessel and port of loading is required, e.g.:
“Shipped on board Sea Pride v.1234 from Hong Kong 5 August 2010”
In such case the date of the on board notation (i.e. 5 August 2010) is deemed to be date of shipment.

Summary
As appears from the above there are 3 different types of on board notations:
1) A pre-printed shipped on board notation, e.g.:
“SHIPPED, as far as ascertained by reasonable means of checking, in apparent good order and condition”.
This is acceptable in the cases where:
• There is no pre-carriage and
• The Port of loading required by the documentary credit is indicated in the port of loading filed of the bill of lading and
• The bill of lading does not indicate that the port of loading is an “intended” port.



2) A dated on board notation, e.g.:
“Shipped on board: 5 August 2010”

This is required in the cases where:
• The bill of lading is received for shipment and
• There is no pre-carriage and
• The bill of lading does not indicate that the port of loading is an “intended” port.

This would also be required where the L/C calls for a multimodal transport document and the first leg of the journey, as required by the credit is a sea leg


3) An on board notation showing date of shipment, name of vessel and port of loading, e.g.:
“Shipped on board Sea Pride v.1234 from Hong Kong 5 August 2010”
This is required in the cases where:
• The documentary credit port of loading field is mentioned in the “place of receipt” field, or
• The documentary credit port of loading is mentioned as “intended”, or
• The bill of lading indicates a pre-carriage.

ICC Opinion TA.629
Links:
UCP 600: Article 19, article 20
ISBP 745: Paragraph D6, paragraph E6
Details of the query:
L/C information:
1: Full set of at least 3/3 original clean on board marine bill(s) of lading …
2: SWIFT transportation fields:
Field 44E: Port of loading/airport of departure: Umea, Sweden
Field 44F: Port of discharge/airport of destination: Port Jebel Ali, Dubai by vessel
3: Additional conditions:
Multimodal transport document is acceptable
Presentation information:
The presented bill of lading indicated:
1: Place of receipt: Umea, Sweden
2: Ocean vessel: “vessel XX” – Port of Loading: Hamburg
3: Port of discharge: Port Jebel Ali, Dubai by vessel.
4: The bill of lading indicated that goods were “received for shipment” not containing any on board notation.
Refusal information:
The issuing bank refused the documents citing the following discrepancy:
“B/L doesn’t show port of loading as required under L/C field 44E.”
ICCs Opinion:
Since the documentary credit allowed for a multimodal transport document, and the presented transport document covered a multimodal transport between Umea and Jebel Ali, the transport document complies.
Since it is a multimodal transport it is not required that Umea is shown as the port of loading but may be shown as place of receipt. Likewise, since a multimodal transport document has been presented the transport document may be marked “received for shipment.”


ICC Opinion TA.635rev (query 3)
Links:
UCP 600: Article 20(a)(ii)
ISBP 745: E6
Details of the query:
Does art. 20 UCP apply to a bill of lading showing an inland place of receipt and two different modes of transport?
The ICC Opinion:
A bill of lading may include reference to a place of receipt or taking in charge that is different from the port of loading. In that case it must be evident from the bill of lading that the shipped on board statement applies to the vessel and the port of loading as required by UCP 600 article 20(a)(ii) and explained in ISBP 745 E6.

ICC Opinion TA.650rev
Links:
UCP 600: Article 19(a)(ii)( iii)
ISBP 745: D7
Details of the query:
An L/C required a clean on board multimodal transport document and shipment from a USA main port. The on board notation on the transport document, added separately, was not dated.
The document showed:
Place of receipt: Memphis
Port of loading: Long Beach

Did the document comply?
The ICC opinion:
No, a dated on board notation is required when the credit so requests and when the document evidences the first leg of the carriage as a sea shipment from the place stated in the credit.

ICC Opinion TA.666rev
Links:
UCP 600: Article 19(a)(ii)
ISBP 745: D7
Details of the query and ICCs opinion:
In which of these cases – on a multi modal transport document – is a dated on board notation required (the L/C requires shipment from X port to the inland place M):

Case A:
Pre-carriage by
Place of receipt: X Port
Ocean Vessel: Vessel V
Port of loading: X Port
Port of discharge: R
Place of delivery: M
Pre-printed wording: “Taken in charge …”
A dated on board notation is required.

Case B:
Pre-carriage by
Place of receipt: X Port
Ocean Vessel: Vessel A
Port of loading: Y Port
Port of discharge: F
Place of delivery: M
Pre-printed wording: “Taken in charge …”
A dated on board notation is required indicating the name of the vessel from X Port and port of loading ‘X Port’.

Case C:
Pre-carriage by
Place of receipt
Ocean Vessel: Vessel B
Port of loading: X Port
Port of discharge: G
Place of delivery: M

Pre-printed wording: “Taken in charge …”
A dated on board notation is required.

Case D:
Pre-carriage by
Place of receipt
Ocean Vessel: Vessel C
Port of loading: X Port
Port of discharge: K
Place of delivery: M
Pre-printed wording: “Received in apparent good order …”
A dated on board notation is required.


ICC Opinion TA.743
Links:
UCP 600: Article 20(a)(ii) and (iii)

ISBP 745: Paragraph E6
Details of the query:
Case Information:
L/C requirements:
Field 44E: Sibu, Malaysia
Field 44F: Hong Kong
Field 46A: Full set marine ocean bills of lading ......
Presentation information:
Bill of lading:
Pre-Carriage by Navasco
Place of receipt Sibu, Malaysia
Ocean Vessel Lan Hai
Port of loading Sibu, Malaysia
Port of discharge Hong Kong
Place of delivery Hong Kong
Shipped on board MV Navasco at Sibu, Malaysia on 18.11.2010 for transhipment via Bintulu on MV Lan Hai
Refusal information:
+ On board notation not showing goods loaded on board the ocean vessel (MV Lan Hai)
Is the refusal correct?
The ICC Opinion:
The on board notation indicates that:
* The goods has been shipped on the “pre-carriage vessel” (Navasco),
* At the port of loading stated in the L/C (Sibu).
* In addition the on board notation indicates, that the goods will be transhipped on the vessel Lan Hai.
For this case the information in the on board notation provides the applicable interpretation of the data appearing in the respective bill of lading fields.
The refusal is not correct.

ICC Opinion TA.773
Links:
UCP 600: Article 20(a)(ii)
ISBP 745: E6
Other: The ICC Banking Commission recommendation paper in respect of on board notations
Details of the query:
On a shipped on board bill of lading there is a box titled “Shipped on Board Date” as well as a box titled “Date of Issue”
A bank refused the presentation for the following reason:
“Documents were presented later than 21 days from bill of lading date.”

The background for the refusal was that they consider the date of issuance as the shipment date. If they were to consider the date in the “shipped on board date” box to be the date of shipment, they would need an additional stamp or notation of the shipped on board date.
Is the refusal correct?
The ICC Opinion:
Reference is made to UCP 600 and the article 20(a)(ii) The ICC Banking Commission recommendation paper in respect of on board notations - section 6 – that deals with this scenario. The paper indicates that the date of the on board notation is considered to be the date of shipment – whether this is evidenced by a separate notation or a date shown in a box titled “shipped on board date”.
The refusal is not correct.