on- board notation

The forum is dedicated to all who deals with LCs. Please share your experiences, problems and opinions with us. You are requested to be confined to LC related issues only. Let us together discover the beauty of Letter of Credit. Thank and regards – admin; besttradesolution.com
Post Reply
User avatar
loankim
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:29 pm
First Name: Loan
Last Name: Nguyen
Organization: VIB
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Viet Nam

on- board notation

Post by loankim » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:37 pm

hi all
If the B/L shows 1 named vessel in vessel field ( not pre-carriage vessel field or ocean vessel field) , and within the body of the bill of lading including a sentence likes that “ intended transhipment will be effect at ABC port ( not named port of loading ) on vessel XYZ.
Is this acceptable if an on borad notaion only showing the date of shipment ?
If the above sentence is replaced with “ intended connecting vessel XYZ “ or “ intended mother vessel XYZ” .
What information should an “ on board notaion “ contain ?
your comments are welcome!

rgds,

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

UCP 600 prevails

Post by cristiand969 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:31 pm

The minimum amount of information in B/L should be as per art.20 ii last paragraph of UCP 600. There is no specific instruction as to where an ' intended vessel' should appear but merely in case the B/L shows an intended vessel. Therefore the on board notation should include also the actual vessel the goods have been loaded.

User avatar
loankim
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:29 pm
First Name: Loan
Last Name: Nguyen
Organization: VIB
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Viet Nam

also think that but....

Post by loankim » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:09 pm

Hi Cristiand,

I also think that so i always need to see the actual on-board vessel at on-board notation. But i have just read some comments which are similar with those, and it is opposite to my thought.
they are private opinions of specialists not ICC opinions and i doubt whether if it can be accepted . anyway, i am being persuaded by them .

rgds,

Post Reply