Best Trade Solution

today is a question day

dear all,

ISBP

89. If a credit states that costs additional to freight are not acceptable, a multimodal transport document must not indicate that costs additional to the freight have been or will be incurred. ... A reference in the transport document to costs which may be levied as a result of a delay in unloading the goods or after the goods have been unloaded, e.g., costs covering the late return of containers, is not considered to be an indication of additional costs in this context.

does that mean that any other document may show that there is a cost in addition to freight?

I don't see any reason behind your question as to why other documents need to show additional costs to the freight charges unless the real intent is avoid a prohibition clause of LC while the freight has been arranged as FREE OUT or the like (less costs than LC requires - i.e. without additional costs).
Usually, only BL should show that because it is a contract of carriage and the consignee must adhere to such conditions of carriage and goods won't be released until such additional costs are paid. B/L is prima facie evidence that freight has been prepaid or is collect.
However, to reply to your question I would consider other documets mentioning additional costs as discrepant as they are inconsistent with freight charges on B/L clearly defined in the article you have quoted.
Regards
Cristian