shipping company cert signed by different agent

ucp800 · Post by **ucp800** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:04 am

Dear Expert,

May I ask for your opinion of the following :

L/C 46A:

A certificate issued by Shipping Co or their agents certifying that shipment has been effected by conference line and/or regular line vessels only covered by institute classification clause to accompany the documents.

Document presented :

B/L issued by Maersk Line, signed by MAERSK LINE UK as agent for the carrier MAERSK LINE

Shipping Co. Cert. issued by MAERSK LINE,
Signed as follows :

Quote

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF :
THE MAERSK COMPANY LIMITED
AS AGENTS

unquote

ISSUING BANK QUOTED THE DISCREPANCY :

Shipping Co. Cert. signed by Agent differ from the name of agnet on B/L.

Please comment whether it is valid or not.

Thank you for your assistance.

Regards,
ucp800

cvrkswami · Post by **cvrkswami** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:22 pm

The condition of the LC is that the BL should be signed by shipping company or its agent. Here apparently the signature does not appear to be that of the agent letter by letter. The spirit of the signature indicates that it is also a group company of the liner. I would not consider this as a discrepancy.

berry · Post by **berry** » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:25 am

22. If a credit indicates that a document is to be issued by a named person or entity, this condition is satisfied if the document appears to be issued by the named person or entity. It may appear to be issued by a named person or entity by use of its letterhead, or if there is no letterhead, the document appears to have been completed or signed by, or on behalf of the named person or entity.

in our case the document is correctly issued by the maersk line. but the problem is with the signature. the document on its face indicate that the issuer and the signatory is a whole different entity. in my opinion the discrepancy here is that the certificate is not signed by proper authority.

cvrkswami · Post by **cvrkswami** » Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:45 pm

I do agree that Maersk line uk is different from maersk company limited. You can consider this as discrepancy if you want to be safe. However my view emanated from the fact that the company by using maersk indicates that this may be one of the group companies. I do agree that that line of thinking is little bit aggressive.

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:01 pm

berry wrote:
22. If a credit indicates that a document is to be issued by a named person or entity, this condition is satisfied if the document appears to be issued by the named person or entity. It may appear to be issued by a named person or entity by use of its letterhead, or if there is no letterhead, the document appears to have been completed or signed by, or on behalf of the named person or entity.
in our case the document is correctly issued by the maersk line. but the problem is with the signature. the document on its face indicate that the issuer and the signatory is a whole different entity. in my opinion the discrepancy here is that the certificate is not signed by proper authority.

You may want to add also art. 40 of ISBP whereby ' unless otherwise stated' shall prevail.

halafarrag · Post by **halafarrag** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:46 pm

Dear All,

In rule # 39 in ISBP, i dont have the wording of the rule it self but here is the contect "Signature not required to be by hand, even if the LC require a documents and to be signed; having this document on the issuer letter head, perforate, stamped by a live stamp or having the logo of the issuer; meaning that its already signed"

While in this case the LC dont require it to be signed

"L/C 46A:

A certificate issued by Shipping Co or their agents certifying that shipment has been effected by conference line and/or regular line vessels only covered by institute classification clause to accompany the documents"

Pls opine

Thanks,
Hala