No Vessel Vs Indented Vessel Under Article 20 Of UCP600

The forum is dedicated to all who deals with LCs. Please share your experiences, problems and opinions with us. You are requested to be confined to LC related issues only. Let us together discover the beauty of Letter of Credit. Thank and regards – admin; besttradesolution.com
Post Reply
User avatar
shahriar
Posts: 923
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:03 am
First Name: Shahriar
Last Name: Masum
Organization: Mutual Trust Bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Bangladesh

No Vessel Vs Indented Vessel Under Article 20 Of UCP600

Post by shahriar » Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:15 pm

dear friends,
consider the following two scenario

case 1
1. Port of lading - X
2. Ocean Vessel - intended vessel Y

case 2
1. Port of lading - X
2. Ocean Vessel - ------- (Not mentioned)

how will you consider the two cases in respect of requirement of on board notation?

regd
shahriar

cristiand969
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
First Name: Cristian
Last Name: D.
Organization: Bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: RO

Re: No vessel vs intented vessel under article 20 of UCP600

Post by cristiand969 » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:31 pm

Dear Shahriar,
Case 1: When on board notation contain beside the date of shipment the name of vessel doc is acceptable, see art.20 ii last paragraph. If not, doc is discrepant
Case 2. As long as on board notation gives the name of vessel on which goods have been loaded B/L is conform. it is not mandatory the name of vessel to be quoted in the B/L field 'Vessel' but merely to comply with art.20 ii i.e 'shipped on board a named vessel'
regards
Cristian

User avatar
shahriar
Posts: 923
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:03 am
First Name: Shahriar
Last Name: Masum
Organization: Mutual Trust Bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Bangladesh

Re: No vessel vs intented vessel under article 20 of UCP600

Post by shahriar » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:02 pm

dear cristian,

thanks for your very nice and precise answer. truly appreciated

regd
shahriar

Post Reply