shipping mark on bill of lading

jabra · Post by **jabra** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:40 pm

dear sir,

would appreciate your opinion on this case.
we issued a letter of credit which also include a shipping mark under 47a but did not mention that any document has to show these marks. now the presented bill of lading has a space for shipping mark but its blank. is this document complying?

i know that bill of lading may show the container number only as a shipping mark. does this apply if shipping mark is specifically mentioned on the credit?

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:59 pm

Art. 14 h of UCP states: If a credit contains a condition without stipulating the document to indicate compliance with the condition, banks will deem such condition as not stated and will disregard it.
Also note that "Shipping marks' is not stated in the way you want to link with that in the L/C . This is a a standard format document where such wording is preprinted and, without any special direction, it may be left blank. Therefore it does not contradict anything. The reverse of it would have been that BL had indicated a shipping marks other than that specified in the credit. This would lead to a long debate although at first glance BL would appear discrepant.
regards
C

ldt5205 · Post by **ldt5205** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:36 am

PLS refer to ISBP681 ART34.
"...If a credit specifies the details of a shipping mark,the document mentioning the marks must show these details,..."
Since the presented bill of lading has a space for shipping mark ,mentioning the marks by preprinted words,the BLmust show the shipping stipulated shipping marks.
more comments,please
BEST REGARDS

ldt5205 · Post by **ldt5205** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:42 pm

If the lc specifies the details of a shipping mark，the BL shows a container number under the heading“Shipping Marks”instead.
Does this constitute a discrepancy?

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:52 pm

My best guess is that UCP prevails over ISBP and the fact that a document has a preprinted box it does not necesarily mean it must be completed unless required in the credit. Would you consider that art. 34 of ISBP invalidate art. 14h of UCP?

ldt5205 · Post by **ldt5205** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:50 am

Dear cristiand969 :
I agree with you in that UCP prevails over ISBP .
But it is hard to tell whether the terms in FIELD 47 can be regarded as non-DOCUMENTARY.

In my opinion,the presented bill of lading mentioned marks by having a space for shipping mark.
So according to ISBP681 ART34."...If a credit specifies the details of a shipping mark,the document mentioning the marks must show these details,...",the BL must show the stipulated shipping marks.
By the way ,what is your answer for the following question:

ldt5205 wrote:If the lc specifies the details of a shipping mark，the BL shows a container number under the heading“Shipping Marks”instead.
Does this constitute a discrepancy?

best regards

nesarul · Post by **nesarul** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:07 pm

Dear,
Very interesting topic indeed.
According to ISBP paragraph 34 :

.....If a credit specifies the details of a shipping mark, the documents mentioning the marks must show these details........,

.
From my point of view, the above two ISBP paragraph has a sharp correlation. and the first line "If a credit specifies the details of a shipping mark," is independent on which action the following line "the documents mentioning the marks must show these details" is depended.
.

In order to tastify the 2nd line of above paragraph, first of all, we have to consider whether the first line as stipulated on the credit is documentary or not.
I think in our case, the first paragraph is not documentary condition, so the question of considerring 2nd paragraph to raise a discrepancy for pre printed wording on a document "shipping mark" is not logical [to me]. pls be note that my above logic is subject to sub article 14(d) .
.
If i go in wrong way, pls ractify me.
regards
nesar

Judith · Post by **Judith** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:58 am

Good to see you back

In my opinion Para 34 / ISBP compliments 14(h) of UCP rather than over-riding it.
So, while in general, a non-documentary condition is to be disregarded, there are certain instances which cannot be ignored.

I believe Para 34 is one of them.

Another instance where non-documentary conditions cannot be ignored is when the beneficiary themselves add information in documents that contravene the non-documentary condition (Article 14(d))

Other comments appreciated.

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:32 pm

Thanks for your welcome!

I also missed your exceptional posts but enjoyed a lovely vacation...

As far as I could find until now is an ICC opinion stating that if there is an additional condition regarding origin of goods, a required certificate of origin must not show other origin ,which fairly seems to me correct and simple to be understood.
My mind went on as to the question: what if the BL format has no preprinted mention shipping mark, could we consider discrepant. I guess no. Going further on, the carrier couldn't guess when drafting his format maybe long time ago that one of a prospective customer will receive a LC in such form that preprinted shipping mark on BL could give rise whether or not a payment could be stopped.
it is widely recognized that ISBP and UCP cannot cover any situation. I saw very surprising ICC decisions which contradict to some extend what we use to understand from a/m Publications. Therefore I always thought the logic will prevail.

ajoy · Post by **ajoy** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:05 pm

Agreed with your posts and especially your observations that UCP and ISBP cannot cover all possible situations and logic prevails in ICC opinions.

That said , there are ICC opinions which are decided on majority votes so obviously even the experts donot necessarily follow the same logic. The same goes for court opinions.

we dont always have to agree with each and every ICC opinion or court decisons or at least the interpretations associated with them..

By and large logic should and does prevail and people find a way to do business in line with or despite the guidelines...

Hope I am not rambling too much....

Cheers

Ajoy

ldt5205 · Post by **ldt5205** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:22 pm

Sometimes,however,a condition appears in a documentary credit which can be clearly linked to a ducument stiputed in that documentary credit.Such a condition is not then deemed to be a non-documentary condition.

Judith · Post by **Judith** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:31 pm

I don’t quite know why ISBP decided to dedicate a paragraph to shipping marks but not to non-documentary condition relating to country of origin or anything else.

Maybe country of origin is important but shipping marks are super duper important?!

Anyway, here’s how I would apply this:

LC states: Goods to be of X origin.
Documents do not state anything – Compliant
Invoice has a field stating “Origin of Goods” but is blank – Compliant
Invoice has a field stating “Origin of Goods” which states “Y”– Discrepant (UCP 14(d))

LC states: Packages to be marked with shipping marks “X”Documents do not state anything – Compliant
B/L (or any other document) has a field stating “Shipping Marks” but is blank – Discrepant (ISBP 34)
B/L (or any other document) has a field stating “Shipping Marks” which states “Y”– Discrepant (UCP 14(d))

iLC · Post by **iLC** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:13 pm

Judith wrote:Maybe country of origin is important but shipping marks are super duper important?!

good one dear judith

my personal opinion is its not a discrepancy. an impression has been given by the ICC that a place holder does not itself require a data in it for compliance. hence if the BL has a place for a shipping mark but is blank, it should not be a reason for refusal.

further, if a shipping mark is mentioned on the credit without requiring a document to show them, its certainly a non documentary condition. if they are shown on a document, they will be subject to examination. now blank shipping mark place on the BL could have maximum two meaning; 1. there is no shipping mark 2. the shipping mark is in fact on the cargo but is not mentioned. from the Bl i guess we cant say for sure that there was no shipping mark and benefit of doubt goes to the beneficiary.

Judith · Post by **Judith** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:15 am

iLC: glad you got a laugh out of my post!

Also, I have second thoughts on my reply as well. I don’t think it’s a discrepancy either.

I guess the key issue here is how to interpret “documents mentioning the marks” in Para 34.
Does it refer to documents that have fields for shipping marks? Or does it refer to the actual shipping marks shown?

Honestly, I don't know

ajoy · Post by **ajoy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:12 pm

Hi Judith,

When I read your post below I thought you had made a foolproof point through para 34 and I did convert to your side:

Anyway, here’s how I would apply this:

LC states: Goods to be of X origin.
Documents do not state anything – Compliant
Invoice has a field stating “Origin of Goods” but is blank – Compliant
Invoice has a field stating “Origin of Goods” which states “Y”– Discrepant (UCP 14(d))

LC states: Packages to be marked with shipping marks “X”Documents do not state anything – Compliant
B/L (or any other document) has a field stating “Shipping Marks” but is blank – Discrepant (ISBP 34)
B/L (or any other document) has a field stating “Shipping Marks” which states “Y”– Discrepant (UCP 14(d))

But I read the next post by ILC and then your response to it - all three posts in one stretch - and I am back to my old stand i.e reconverted almost simultaneously.

I think I belong to the I dont think it is a discrepancy group......

Wait a minute I hope i am posting in the right thread....
I think I am..

yes Idont think it is a discrepancy.....

God You two are not trying delibrately to confuse me... are you?

Judith · Post by **Judith** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:47 pm

To iLC, Ajoy and Christian

I stand corrected. And in this case I am happy I stand corrected because after my last post, I had this nagging feeling it wasn’t quite right and spent all night tossing and turning. (Kidding!)

As I said, the key interpretation to Para 34 is the meaning of the words: “documents mentioning the marks…”

I was a victim of over-analysis. It obviously refers to the actual content of shipping marks if any and not a field stated “shipping marks”.

I also got the following response from a trade adviser:
In effect, the wording represents a non-documentary condition. As far as I can see, your only concern will be if one or more of the presented documents shows the marks that are on the packages and these differ from the condition in the LC, but this will be a conflict under sub-article 14 (d)… The wording in paragraph 34 refers to shipping marks that are shown in any context on a stipulated document.