Best Trade Solution

Dear Expert,

May I ask for your opinion of the following :


L/C required

44E PORT OF LOADING: ANY EUROPEAN PORT
44F PORT OF DISCHARGE: ANY THAILAND PORT
44B FOR TRANSPORTATION TO: LAT KRABANG THAILAND

DOCUMENT REQUIRED :
Full set of 3/3 originals clean on board bills of lading made out to ……


B/L PRESENTED SHOWING :


PRE-CARRIAGE BY: VESSEL A
Place of Receipt:KOTKA
OCEAN VESSEL: VESSEL B
Port of Loading: ROTTERDAM
Port of Discharge:LAT KRABANK
Place of Delivery:LAT KRABANG


BEARING ON BOARD NOTATION SHOWING:
SHIPPED ON BOARD VESSEL A 01.11.2014 FROM KOTKA

Issuing bank claimed the discrepancy of :
“B/L SHOWN PORT OF DISCHARGE AS LAT KRABANG (IT’S NOT A PORT IT’S A PLACE FOR ICD)“

The comment from negotiating bank as follows :

The LC required shipment to be effected to any Thailand port. The bill of lading showed the port of discharge as LAT KRABANG without mentioning ICD (Inland Container Depot). The issue is whether LAT KRABANG is a seaport in Thailand. We looked up Internet again and confirmed that it is a district within Bangkok. As we know, Bangkok is a seaport. So, LAT KRABANG is also a seaport. The discrepancy is NOT valid.


Issuing bank disagree with negotiating bank and their comment is as the following:

QUOTE
We disagree with your below mentioned comment, as Lat Krabang is an Inland Container Depot which is situated 30 km from Bangkok, so it is not to be considered as a sea port.
UNQUOTE



Please comment whether negotiating bank’s argument is correct or not?

Does ICC Opinion R261 still valid ?

Please advise me whether any ICC opinion, DOCDEX referring this issue.

Thank you for your assistance.

Regards,

ucp800

Hi Pal,

IMHO the bill of lading is discrepant because the on board notation had to be made from Port of Loading Rotterdam on vessel
B. due to the itinerary, fields 44E, 44F and 44B the documents should have been checked as per art 19.
I think that the issuing bank could not consider discrepant a bill of lading showing Lat Krabank as port of discharge .
A bank may have no idea if the indicated port of discharge is a landlocked place.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao

Hi,
I agree with issuing bank + another discrepancy highlighted i.e. onboard place.
Regards,
muhammad Saqb Khan

In my opinion, based on the sparse information, the banks are arguing semantics. The goods did "land" in a Thailand seaport and were further transported to Lat Krabang. Is the issuing bank arguing this point based on advice from their client (the buyer) or putting forth their own opinion? Don't underestimate the commonness of a young banker getting in over his head in business he has no experience in, especially something as complicated as international trade.

ICDs or CFSs (container freight stations) that serve seaports have long been accepted as extensions to these "ports".

At any rate, the fastest way to clear the issue is to get the buyer involved. After all is said and done, if the presentation is determined to be discrepant the buyer will have to approve an amendment that clears the discrepancy if they indeed want to receive the goods. The supplier should have asked for the amendment to be issued as soon as the issue arose.

Another issue is which Incoterm was the trade was made under? If it was DAP, the issuing bank is probably correct in stating the DLC has not been complied with as delivery to the ICD is not synonymous with delivering to the buyer's chosen place, even if they are in the same locale.

picant wrote:Hi Pal,

IMHO the bill of lading is discrepant because the on board notation had to be made from Port of Loading Rotterdam on vessel
B. due to the itinerary, fields 44E, 44F and 44B the documents should have been checked as per art 19.
I think that the issuing bank could not consider discrepant a bill of lading showing Lat Krabank as port of discharge .
A bank may have no idea if the indicated port of discharge is a landlocked place.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao

I definitely agree with above opinion. The BL is discrepant, because the BL should mention On board notation on vessel B since the vessel B is the one who carry the goods from amsterdam to Thailand.
.
I think since the BL mention lat krabank as final destination, it is not consider as discrepancy.
In this case, the issuing bank is declaring a false discrepancy.