Multimodal Transport B/L Or Port To Port B/L?

[ruoitrau]

Multimodal transport B/L or port to port B/L?

Our bank received a B/L with the title: port to port B/L of multimodal transport B/L and boxes for Place of receipt, place of delivery (which are clearly shown with a pre-printed sentence: applicable only when doc used as multimodal transport B/L )filled deffer with port of loading and port of discharge.

I wonder whether it is considered as multimodal transport B/L or port to port B/L?
Note that: LC required a port to port B/L

thanks
ruoitrau

[shahriar]

dear ruoitrau,

the very first line of UCP600 article 20,

a. A bill of lading, however named, must appear to;...

so as far as title is concerned, it is acceptable.

further 20 iii

iii. indicate shipment from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the credit.

further commentary on UCP 600 has revealed at a number of places that place of final receipt and place of final destination may be different from the port of loading and discharge. but when the place of taking in charge is different from the port of loading, the on board notation must clearly indicate that the goods were shipped on board the port of loading. so you have to check the on board notation.


now whether its a multimodal or a port to port. its a multimodal document. my personal opinion is that pure port to port bill of lading is becoming rare now a days. As reflected in UCP 600, the article for multimodal transport being placed ahead of the article for bill of lading, multimodal transport is now the mainstream of transport involving a sea carriage. to protect the honest carrier who has revealed the fact that the place of receipt of receipt is different from the port of loading, UCP600 has deleted the requirements in case of bill of lading states a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading.

hope that will help

regd

shahriar

[ruoitrau]

Thanks for your share!

Refer to my question, I want to port one case.
LC requires:
- port to port bill of lading required
- port of loading: any port of thailand
- port of discharge: haiphong port, vietnam
Docs presented as follow:
- A shipped B/L presented with title multimodal transport B/L or port to port B/L
- place of receipt (marked: applicable only when document used as multimodal transport B/L): bankok, thailand
- port of loading: Laem chabang, thailand
- on board notation show shipped on board date only.

whether i can raise the discrepancy: 1. multimodal transport B/L presented I/O port to port B/L as LC required OR 2. on board notation not show the actual port of loading in which goods shipped?

best regards
ruoitrau

[jmitra]

the Bill of lading is acceptable. i understand you are concerned over the condition (applicable for MMBL). but unlike article 19, article 20 only requires that the port of lading and discharge is as per LC. i think your bill of lading is meeting than requirement. you have also mentioned about the on board notation. i am unsure about it unless the i can examine it. could you please scan it and post. anyway UCP says that the on board notation must relate to the port of loading. a perfect on board notation should show "shipped on board at xxx port of loading on xxxx"

regd

mitra

[iLC]

agree with the answers. just for reference ICC opinion 635

A bill of lading ...is not necessarily limited to, transport by sea from a port of loading to a port of discharge. ...there will still be occasions when the shipping company or its agent will include reference to a place of receipt or taking in charge that is different from the port of loading. ...the document will not be considered as a combined transport document ...

iLC

[cristiand969]

I would say information given is insufficient to ascertain compliance of document. As Bangkok is a port in Thailand as well and credit stated any port in Thailand which do you consider to be the port of loading in the light of UCP 600: Thailand with transhipment in Laem Chabang or Laem Chabang? Are there 2 vessels mentioned on transport documents (i.e precarriage by .... and ocean vessel or similar statements)?
So the best way for providing you a correct answer you have to scan a copy of BL erasing of course particulars information.
best regards
Cristian

[iLC]

dear cristiand,

thanks for your input. i agree with you that its but tough to say anything about the on board notation since there are hundreds of possibilities. in my opinion i just tried to say that a bill of lading showing place of receipt different from the port of loading is acceptable.

iLC

[cristiand969]

Dear ILC
I agree with you in every aspect. However this situation must be taylored on the basis of credit terms, document presented and actual facts. Given the facts that both are ports located within the permitted geographical area i.e. ANY PORT IN THAILAND one must be able to determine which was in fact the port where loading was occured in the line with UCP600. If the credit stated LAEM CHABANG as port of loading regardless the place of receipt is a PORT or an INLAND PLACE the port of loading filled with LAEM CHABANG would always make B/L in question as port-to port Bill of lading subject to art.20. But in the situation presented we don't know if it was a transshipment IN LAEM CHANBANG or it was actually the loading port in the light of UCP600 for reviewing compliance with regard to the ONBOARD notation. Not to mention missing information regarding how many mode of transport have been utilized. Is it clear that transport has been effected on sea only or include reference to a different pre-carriage mode? To sum up, that B/L is to be considered Combined BL if the document contain and reference to more than 1 different mode of transport.
Nevertheless I would refrain from comments on this particular case as long as a copy of B/L is not sent for review
regards
Cristian

[iLC]

dear Cristian,

i also agree with you. i remember ICC opinion R350 where the on board notation was required to show the port of lading.... but i never understand why there is so much fuzz around this issue. when a carrier adds a on board nation, that should be enough since the carrier is accepting a huge liability. what will be the case if the pre carriage is by truck? will you still seek for a on board notation? i think yes because thats what UCP tells us. but could you sight an example where modes of transport other than sea use the term 'on board'? at least i havent seen one. even when i look at UCP600, i find no clue.

iLC

[jmitra]

dear iLC,

about your last posting. arent you forgetting something? any opinion?
i am sure with that you will want to change your post!!

regards

mitra

[Jessie]

Dear iLC,

I have a concern on the pre-printed 'applcicable used only for multimodal transport'. Is this clause meant that if the box of pre-printed 'applciable ... multimodal transport document' is filled in, it is a multimodal document transport? Or Is it meant that the pre-printed is understood as a part of title bill of lading, which can be applied to 'however named', then although the box of pre-printed 'applicable ... multimodal transport document' is completed, provided that port of loading and port of discharge are stated as L/C required, it is a bill of lading?

Could you share your opinion on that question?