Air Waybill

sebijohn · Post by **sebijohn** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:12 am

An airwaybill is signed by XYZ as agent for carrier XYZ. Both the Agent and Carrier is identified as XYZ.
Is this legaly acceptable?
Is this document accepatble under UCP 600 with regard to signing?

nesarul · Post by **nesarul** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:29 pm

Dear,
Thanks for interesting first posting... i really like it...
I think acceptable but confuse a bit whether similar opinion of ICC on bill of lading is applicable on it or not..
Nesar

cvrkswami · Post by **cvrkswami** » Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:34 pm

"If an agent signs a transport document (Bill of Lading, multimodal transport document, air transport document) on behalf of a carrier, the agent must be identified as agent, and must identify the carrier on whose behalf it is signing, unless the carrier has been identified elsewhere on the face of transport document (Bill of Lading, multimodal transport document, air transport document)."

So says publication 645 of ISBP. Here the carrier is identified and agent is also identified clearly. there should not be any problem in treating this as a valid airway bill.

LCstudent · Post by **LCstudent** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:55 am

Dear friends !
I do not agree with the posted views: I think there is a conflict between agent and carrier
both named as XYZ. IMHO they can not be inserted in the stated function, for me personally
this is not ok and creates questions concerning the signing.
Other views appreciated.
Rgds LC Student.

Tarzan · Post by **Tarzan** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:42 pm

Dear Sebijohn,
Thank you for your topic.
As per Sub-Article 23(a)i of UCP 600, 'any signature by an agent must indicate that the agent has signed for or on behalf of the carrier'. So it should be determined that the carrier and the agent is of different identity. different identity means different names,chops of or other identification marks.
Since both the carrier and agent is named XYZ, the document creates confusion.
The document is acceptable in the sense that the carrier has signed the document and the agent will be ignored as it is not identified.
Thanks all for nice views.
Tarzan

M.A.Chowdhury · Post by **M.A.Chowdhury** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:04 am

Dear All,

Lets analyse the case with an example.
.
MARKS Shipping Line
Sd/-
...........................
An agent on behalf of MARKS Line, the carrier.
.
Here MARKS Shipping Line is a sister concern of MARKS Line, which has a separate identity. In this case, i dont think there is any confusion.
.
Monir

LCstudent · Post by **LCstudent** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:41 pm

Dear Monir !
Sorry that I d not share Your point of view: For me the given parties are definetely NOT the same.
A doc checker is not obliged to check the company internal affairs (mother /daughter/sister connection). Always keep in mind: in D/Cs all concerned parties deal with docs and do not refer to any other basics (well, I do not know the exact wording in UCP 600 and the relevant article). For me this would be point for clearance with ben or doc presenting bank. Please decide only out of the docs. Other views appreciated.
have a great further day. Rgds LC Student.

M.A.Chowdhury · Post by **M.A.Chowdhury** » Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:22 am

Dear LCstudent,

What is ur opinion? In my given example, is the BL is compliant or not?

Thanks in advance for ur reply.
.
Monir.

LCstudent · Post by **LCstudent** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:43 am

Dear Monir !
Referring to the basic topic concerning the AWB construction I remain to by view -
the given parties are the same creating conflicts.
In the example of B/L as shown I feel all is ok.
Although "Marks Shipping Line" acts "as agent for Marks Line, the carrier" this combination
seems to be a little bit strange, but the requirement of UCP are fulfilled in my view:
one is the agent, the other one is the carrier - ok.
Other views are highly appreciated.
rgds LC Student.

sln_1980 · Post by **sln_1980** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:30 am

It is acceptable.

Please do refer ICC opinion ( revised TA 625)

As per the opinion, a party can sign as agent for itself. i.e ABC Co. Ltd as agent for ABC Co. Ltd, the carrier.
.
regards
sln

LCstudent · Post by **LCstudent** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:41 am

Dear sln_1980 !
Please excuse my lines now - but I do not think, that all participants here on the forum have entrance to TAs at ICC Banking commission - for myself - I definetely have NOT. So for deciding I refer to my already posted view: only out of docs, L/C and UCP 600 Rev. 2007 of ICC Paris considering ISBP 681 to UCP 600.
I can not imagine, that in such a case a bank will accept this source, which is not freely available.
Furtheron this is a TA based on one single item due to my experience, which did not find entrance in any official announcement through ICC Banking Comm. Other views are appreciated. Wish You all the best.
Warm regards LC Student.

picant · Post by **picant** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:48 am

Hi Pal,

Official opinions are at disposal by payment. These opinions represent true cases of which an opinion is requested to settle the matter. So they represent a sort of Jurisprudence and tried to give a uniform interpretation of the UCP. Cost of uptodate is to be borne by banks that have economic advantage in handling l/c.
Other comments appreciated.
Ciao

ucp800 · Post by **ucp800** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:29 pm

Please refer the ICC opinion :

R674 (TA625REV2)
SIGNED AS AGENT FOR THE CARRIER(印就)
SIGNED AS AGENT FOR THE CARRIER:ABC CO LTD(加打文字)

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF:ABC CO LTD(签字盖章)
XXXX(AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE)

QUOTE

(1)
Dear Mr.Gary Collyer,

Can you accept this B/L?

In this case, the B/L has been preprinted the carrier name as "infinity cargo logistics (china) ltd.", but the final signature is shown that "infinity cargo logistics (china) ltd guangzhou branch".

I think that the signature is no problem because it is the same person to sign the B/L, however, my colleague reject it because the name "infinity cargo logistics (china) ltd guangzhou branch" did not identified as the agent of the carrier. Your opinion please.
.
ANSWER FROM MR. GARY COLLYER
I agree with you. The addition of the branch name only serves to identify the branch of the carrier from where the document has been signed. It is like you signing a document on behalf of CCB. If you sign on behalf of Shanghai branch or Beijing, you are still signing for CCB - it is not a different organisation.
Regards
Gary

(2)
The B/L has been indicated the carrier's name on its face. I.E. "U-OCEAN(SHANGHAI) LIMITED AS THE CARRIER". But, its signature was made as follows:

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
U-OCEAN(SHANGHAI) LIMITED -SHENZHEN BRACH (in the manner of a chop)
xxxxx (handsigned)
SIGNATURE OF THE CARRIER OR ITS AGENT (pre-printed wording)
.
I consider it is a discrepancy because the capacity of the signing person is unclear. Do you agree with me?
.
REGARDS
。
ANSWER：
You say that the BL indicates that the carrier is U-Ocean (Shanghai) Ltd and that it is signed for and on behalf of U-Ocean (Shanghai) Ltd, Shenzhen Branch. If it is just signed then the signature is that of U-Ocean (Shanghai) Ltd who are the carrier.
Regards
Gary

UNQUOTE

Air Waybill

Air Waybill

airway bill

airway bill

Airwaybill

Airway bill

Example

Example

Example

Example

party can sign as agent for itself

AWB

Official Opinions

ICC R674