Best Trade Solution

Dear All,

what's the difference between port of discharge & place of delivery ? And why applicants sometimes request B/L to show place of discharge & place of delivery while it's the same ??

Best Regards

dear raseen,

port of discharge usually means a sea port of any inland river port while place of delivery is the land port. the port of discharge is closely related to the port to port bill of lading concept. thats why while asking for a bill of lading under a letter of credit, we fill only 44E and 44F. on the other hand place of delivery is closely related to door to door concept, that is multimodal transport document. In SWIFT we use 44A and 44B for this.

Im not sure why would someone fill 44b and 44F with the same thing. doesn't make any sense. i once heard a funny explanation. since the bill of lading can show the place of delivery different from the port of discharge, the issuer fill this filed to ensure that the goods remain at the port of discharge where the applicant actually wanted to have it. however filling 44F with a sea port does not make any sense.

regd


shahriar

thanks .

Dear Shahriar,
You are very clear in your explanation but please consider the case where a large port consists of several zones named: XXX PORT, XXX PORT FREE ZONE, etc. The applicant wishes to ensure that the place where he takes delivery of goods and does custom clearance is not one which presents inconvenience for him. On the other hand previous ISBP for UCP 500 made reference to same port mentioned in boxes Port of loading and Place of delivery. So i would consider the applicant he knew very well the construction of an LC in terms of their benefit.
regards
Cristian

Dear Cristian,

i am bit unsure whether i have understood you correctly. ISBP says

While the named port of discharge, as required by the credit, should appear in the port of discharge field within the bill of lading, it may be stated in the field headed "Place of final destination" or the like if it is clear that the goods were to be transported to that place of final destination by vessel and provided there is a notation evidencing that the port of discharge is that stated under "Place of final destination" or like term.

i dont think two different parts of the port qualify for this option.

besides XXX PORT and XXX PORT FREE ZONE is not the same thing. to comply the credit terms, the bill of lading should should show xxx port as the port of discharge and xxx port free zone as the place of final destination. this would not however mean that the port of discharge is different from the place of final destination.

regards

mitra

Dear jmitra,
Please read with more attention my posting. The issue was referred to ISBP for UCP 500 and not to UCP600. it was made as a reference of what it was understood by the example : HONG KONG as place of discharge and HONG KONG CY as place of final destination and were deemed to be the same. With regard to FREE ZONE the ICC issued a decision ALEXANDRIA PORT versus ALEXANDRIA PORT FREE ZONE (I am sorry that I am unable for the time being to quote it) . There are different indeed but within the same PORT technically speaking, so I am afraid I didnt' get your point.

dear cristian,

i think there is a missing poring between you and me. so i will start from the beginning. you wrote

"The applicant wishes to ensure that the place where he takes delivery of goods and does custom clearance is not one which presents inconvenience for him."

very clear upto this. further,

"On the other hand previous ISBP for UCP 500 made reference to same port mentioned in boxes Port of loading and Place of delivery."

now i dont have this copy. so i went to ISBP for UCP600. sorry about that. later you made it clear,

"HONG KONG as place of discharge and HONG KONG CY as place of final destination and were deemed to be the same."

now there was an ICC opinion on that. conclusion was something like this;

Using your example where a place of receipt is given as "Hong Kong CY" and the port of loading is shown as "Hong Kong", they are to be deemed one and the same place and therefore not subject to the provisions of sub-Article 23(a)(ii).

but this opinion is about the port of loading and not about port of discharge. the rationale behind this opinion was that since this is within the same port, there is less likely to have a pre carriage and therefore there will be no requirement for extra on board notation.

in your 2nd post you wrote

"Dear jmitra, Please read with more attention my posting."
well i did that

"With regard to FREE ZONE the ICC issued a decision ALEXANDRIA PORT versus ALEXANDRIA PORT FREE ZONE. There are different indeed but within the same PORT technically speaking."

i agree with you that they are with in the same port. but by geographical position. not by control or characteristics. A UAE embassy in any country is within that country but still enjoy some sovereignty. so its not the geographic position that always matter.

i think all our debate start with this statement from shahriar

"Im not sure why would someone fill 44b and 44F with the same thing."

well i will excuse shahriar on the "same thing" concept. but if some one wants to have his goods discharged in a free port, he must mention. i think that takes you and me at a close point
"So i would consider the applicant have to know very well the construction of an LC in terms of their benefit." - sorry i made a little modification. is it ok?

regards

mitra

Dear Cristian

I just want be sure of something . when you mentioned that clause from ISBP of UCP500 does that mean it's still applicable ( I mean the UCP500 & it's ISBP ).

Regards

please allow me to answer your question dear raseen. your confusion is well judged. ISBP for UCP 500 is no more effective. by the way friends, if a LC is issued subject to UCP500 now, then which ISBP publication will apply?

regd

shahriar

Dear all,
ISBP for UCP 500 is still applicable to the extent the credit is subject to UCP 500. However, the fact that some points in ISBP for UCP500 has not been stated in the subsequent revision it doesn't mean they are contradictory with the subsequent revised/updated publication. The situation must be judged on case to case basis. I personally have seen more queries where ICC Banking commissions stated that while situation follow art. XX of UCP 500.. the same principle apply for UCP 600.
.
And one more thing: Under UCP 500 it is realy difficult to sent advice of refusal based on relavant ISBP but only based on articles of of UCP500 Publication. On the contrary: inclusion of updated ISBP on art.2 of UCP 600 - complying presentation- give right a bank to advice discrepancies based also on ISBP.
regards
cristian

Recently in a BL, I have seen the following:


1. Port of Loading: Sidney, Australia

2. Port of Discharge: Port Kelang, malaysia

3. Port of Delivery : Chittagong, Bangladesh

4. Port of final Destination: Chittagong, Bangladesh


Would you please explain?/

thanks

dear cparial,

you havent given a detail of the letter of credit in concern. anyway it seems that the port of discharge is actually the port of transshipment while the place of final destination is the port of discharge. such Bill of lading will be acceptable in UCP.

regards
mitra

Dear Cristian,

Qoute : Under UCP 500 it is realy difficult to sent advice of refusal based on relavant ISBP but only based on articles of of UCP500 Publication.

What I knew that UCP500 under Article 13 requires the bank to check the documents received by the exporter for compliance against the letter of credit and such compliance “shall be determined by international standard banking practice'' .
I would really appreciate explaining why it is difficult to sent advice of refusal based on relavant ISBP but only based on articles of of UCP500 Publication ?

Thanks & Regards

Dear Raseen,
You asked me why was difficult to send sent advice of refusal based on relavant ISBP but only based on articles of of UCP500 Publication , quoting in the same time the fragmented text of art. 13 of UCP500. If you had quoted all phrase of that article you would have got at once the answer.
To respond you: .. the continuation of ''shall be determined by international standard banking practice'' is AS REFLECTED IN THESE ARTICLES. (i.e article of UCP500)
On the other hand 'complying presentation' definition under art. 2 UCP600 clearly separates 3 things: L/C terms, Articles of UCP and international banking and practice.
Hope it helps you.
Cristian

dear cristian,

i would like to add that ISBP is not binding on the parties of the letter of credit.

regd

iLC

DEar All,
I think this opinion is alive.
Official Opinion R599: Heading Role of ISBP
Point:c)

c) The ISBP outlines international standard banking practice, in other words, how the Articles of the UCP should be applied by practitioners. Discrepancies are discrepancies and should be stated as such, i.e., this represents no change to existing practice. Documents are discrepant because they fail to comply with one or more terms and conditions of the credit or UCP. If another party fails to understand why a document is discrepant, it would be appropriate to refer them to the UCP and, failing further understanding, to refer them to the relevant paragraph of the ISBP. There is no harm in explaining to another party which ICC Opinion, DOCDEX Decision or paragraph of the ISBP supports a particular position the Banking Commission has taken in applying the UCP.

Regards
nesar