Consignee Detail On Certificate Of Origin

[dholat]

Dear all,

LC issued by us call for a certificate of origin issued by the chamber of commerce. the bill of laing is to be issued to the order of issuing bank. now the certificate of origin we received shows XYZ as the consignee which is not the applicant of the credit. i consider this a discrepancy as per ISBP. your opinion please

[bayemibo]

i don't think ur claim is correct, see the article 184 of ISBP

184) Consignee information, if shown, must not be in conflict with the consignee information
in the transport document. However, if a credit requires a transport document to be
issued “to order”, “to the order of shipper”, “to order of the issuing bank” or “consigned
to the issuing bank”, the certificate of origin may show the applicant of the credit, or
another party named therein, as consignee. If a credit has been transferred, the name of
the first beneficiary as consignee would also be acceptable.

[shahriar]

in my opinion, the certificate of origin is discrepant. in case where the LC calls for a bill of lading issued to the order of issuing bank, certificate of origin may show the name of applicant or any other name as mentioned in the credit.

other comments appreciated

[cristiand969]

I would be reluctant in giving an opinion to this case without reviewing the credit as the quoted article of ISBP stated also:

or
another party named therein, as consignee

Who is actually the consignee on certificate of origin and is it stated in the credit, whether an agent, intermediary, the beneficiary (when c.o show a third party as supplier) .
.
My opinion is also based on the fact that the function of a certificate of origin is primarly focused on certifying the origin of the goods, and this is for me the most critical information to review.

[shahriar]

dear cristian,

the consignee information sometimes does become important. let me share you an experience of mine. the presented certificate of origin shows -

1. shipper - a third party
2. consigee - the beneficiary
3. different invoice no
4. different LC no
5. additional merchandise shown

now how can one relate this certificate of origin to the credit in question

[cristiand969]

Very tricky indeed your example

If different L/C no. and/or additional merchandise is shown it is clear that you have a discrepant document. Either it is not related to such L/C or show inconsistency with other documents.
If we mix all these with the original query we are going to have a long debate and run off-topic.
have a nice day.
As far as the different invoice is concerned I am sure you came accross with ICC opinion that said if consignor is a tird party it is normal that CO to show his invoice rather than benef invoice and in this way it does not create a discrepancy.

[iLC]

i believe that the certificate of origin is discrepant. ISBP does not allow anybody's name to show as a consignee. i believe you are confused with the term named therein. this does not mean that any name, but in means those name that are mentioned in the LC. we need to consider that a consignee can be different from the applicant. ISBP deals with this case.

about the last case posted by shahriar
1. shipper - a third party - no discrepancy
2. consigee - the beneficiary - discrepancy
3. different invoice no - no discrepancy
4. different LC no - no discrepancy (for the same reason of point 3)
5. additional merchandise shown - discrepancy

[dinesh2476]

Dear Experts,

Please confirm the reason for the highlighted clause in the ISBP, what are the possibilities other party name to be there in other than the applicant.

184) Consignee information, if shown, must not be in conflict with the consignee information
in the transport document. However, if a credit requires a transport document to be
issued “to order”, “to the order of shipper”, “to order of the issuing bank” or “consigned
to the issuing bank”, the certificate of origin may show the applicant of the credit, or
another party named therein, as consignee. If a credit has been transferred, the name of
the first beneficiary as consignee would also be acceptable.

Regards
Dinesh Kumar

[dinesh2476]

Dear Experts,

Any opinion welcome.

Thanks.

Regards
Dinesh Kumar

[picant]

Hi Pals,

a part the original query, but now we have ISBP 745 that at para. L gives specific answer to the
question.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao