final destination on B/L

[MIA19]

Hi,
if an LC is calling for full set on board bill of lading requiring port of loading and port of discharge and presented B/L showed beside required ports in field for final destination another place would you say that a document is discrepant?


For me the document is discrepant as it shows place of final destination additionaly to port of discharge. There used to be an art 23 iii. in UCP 500 which said 'indicates the port of loading and the port of discharge stipulated in the Credit, notwithstanding that it:(a) indicates a place of taking in charge different from the port of loading,and/or a place of final destination different from the port of discharge'
There is no such article in UCP 600. There is some explanation in Commentary on UCP 600 but they say for themselves that Commentary is not official publication of UCP so any decisions cannot be made on Commentary.
Your comments?
regards
Snježana

[shahriar]

to raise a discrepancy, we must show that the bill of lading is violating any clause of UCP600 or LC. now UCP 600 simply requires the bill of lading to indicate shipment from the port of loading to the port of discharge as stated in the credit. but there is no UCP terms that restrict showing place of final destination in addition. thus if there is place of final destination different from the port of discharge, that would not be violating UCP 600. so it will not be a discrepancy.

[picant]

Hi Pals,

We have to refer to tne "new Concept": data in documents "not conflicting with" instead of "inconsistent with ".
Many discrepancies were groundless and used to stop payment, and to stop the use of l/c.
So the aim of the ICC is to reduce worthless discrepancies.

Other comments appreciated
Ciao

[MIA19]

Hi,
thanks for your comments,
but I would have to add something to it.
By requiring port to port B/L the applicant is requiring transport document which shows that goods have to be delivered to him at quoted port of discharge. B/L which shows an additional place of delivery (maybe another port or even inland place) force the applicant to pick up their goods in the place that they didn' want (it could be a significant distance between port of discharge and place of final destination).
So is it really worthless discrepancy?
regards
Snježana

[abrar]

The ICC endorsed commentary to which you refer, states " 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" .

One would presume that an extension of the contract of carriage from the port of discharge to an inland point of final destinantion would have resulted from an agreement between the beneficiary and applicant. However, the consignee is perfectly entitled to collect the goods from the port of discharge against production of the B/L, should they so choose. In most cases, it is expected that the B/Ls would be in the consignee's possession before vessel arrival, so the likelihood of the goods continuing on its overland transit, prior to collection at port of discharge, would be minimal

[MIA19]

yes, what I was referring in Comentary is the sentence that you have quoted. But I must say that although your explanations are always very logical to me, I regret to say that this one didn' convince me.
First of all
('One would presume that an extension of the contract of carriage from the port of discharge to an inland point of final destinantion would have resulted from an agreement between the beneficiary and applicant.')
If this is based on agreement between applicant and beneficiary, why it wasn't incorporated in l/c by requirement for multimodal transport document or if it is agreed later, by amendment.
Banks are not supposed to presume what is to be probable agreement between applicant and beneficiary, but have to follow terms and conditions of l/c and respecitve amendments.
Furthermore,
('the consignee is perfectly entitled to collect the goods from the port of discharge against production of the B/L, should they so choose') Presuming that inland point is something that applicant has asked for, why at the sudden would he choose to collect their goods before that final point. And I am not sure that carrier who has obliged themselves to deliver goods to agreed point would deliver goods before it. (maybe he would have some technical problems to isolate goods which are designed to be delivered somewhere else).
What about charges that are for example to be paid or are paid against contract of carriage which included transport till inland point?
I assume that there should be something more behind it, and I still don' get it.
have a nice day
regards
Snježana

[abrar]

Having looked at this again, I consider there is a lot of merit to your argument, and in fact, I came across a similar argument under UCP500.

The argument was that a B/L presented under an L/C is required to evidence the carriage from the port of loading to the port of discharge as stipulated in the Credit. The indication of a place of receipt different from the port of loading, or a place of final destination different from the port of discharge can be considered as additional information. Even though this information is optional, the place of final destination should not be different from the place of discharge.

Although the place of destination is permitted to be different from the port of discharge, the rule may need to be interpreted narrowly (i.e where the final destination is perhaps a CY within the same locality as the port of discharge). The holder of a ocean B/L has a claim for delivery of the goods at the port of discharge and should not be obliged to claim the goods elsewhere. However, as to how the goods arrive at the port of loading is of no concern to the consignee, which is why it would be acceptable for the B/L to show a place of receipt different to the port of loading.

However unfair the position may be for a consignee, I doubt that faced with a similar situation, one would be able to argue the point under any provisons of UCP600

[cristiand969]

To save some time one should consider the following:
1.Changements from UCP 500 to UCP 600 does not detract the previous clause 'notwithstanding that it:(a) indicates a place of taking in charge different from the port of loading,and/or a place of final destination different from the port of discharge'
.
2. The banks are not required nor permitted to speculate by going beyond documents to see the implications/effects .
.
3. I am sure that by following such line of interpretation , we can also find another trap here: is it the right document presented as the indication of a final place of destination can render the transport document as Multimodal i/o B.L required. Could we raise another discrepancy?
.
4. B/L deal with POL and POD. Hence the port of final destination is not critical but merely additional. You got involved too much in commercial part of the problem.
5. Finally, you are looking into a leg of carriage which was not required in fact in the credit: FROM PODischarge to POFDestination
best regards
Cristian