Why UCP Allow Different Place Of Final Destination In Art 20

[shahriar]

i will appreciate your comment on the following

commentary on UCP600

"A bill of lading evidencing a place of final destination different from the port of discharge as stated in the documentary credit would be acceptable. "

regds

shahriar

[Md.zakir Hossen]

Dear Shariar:
Pls see my posting on this forum on June 07 title:Port of loading vs port of discharge.My intention was to gahter some idea on this matter.However for some official complexity I forget it..

The document examiner considered place of final destination (delivery) different from the port of discharge only when these two two places are not too far away and can be connected through "on carriage" by rail, Truck or barge in inland waterway.
According toT.O.Lee this " not intended to cover two seaports 1460 nautical miles apart and the waterway between them is navigated only by ocean freighter of 190 TEUs (Gross Tonnage 1600) up in "China Sea Seasonal Tropical Area." Hence it is more appropriate to call this carriage as "transhipment" than "on carriage"

[Mehdi]

Isn't it related with multimodal trasportation? A shipment is, for example, destined to Phyladelphia (PHL) routed via Newyork (NYC) by sea for which MTO/Forwarder issues HB/L quoting PHL as final destination. But the carrier's B/L will be cut up to NYC. From NYC to PHL, the shipments will be carried by surface transportation based on HB/L. However, whatever modus, it must be allowed by the credits.

Regards.....Mehdi

[nesarul]

Dear zakir Bhai,
thanks for nice posting. it will add.
regards
nesar