packing is not sufficient for sea shipment

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

packing is not sufficient for sea shipment

Post by shahriar » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:10 pm

dear all,

if any document, other than the transport document shows that packing is not sufficient for sea journey while LC and bill of lading is silent on this issue, will you count this as a discrepancy?

heresvijay
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:03 am

additional info

Post by heresvijay » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:41 pm

No it's not a disc. It's an additional info mentioned in other docs and we can disregard it. Only transport doc has to be considered for this issue.

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

To be or not to be?

Post by cristiand969 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:37 pm

Dear Shahriar,
This question is like <<living on the edge>> :)
Although UCP600 & ISBP describe under what conditions a transport documents should be clean (details given) it may be well questioned by issuing bank whether or not documents are in conflict with one another. I would refer to the fact that one documents show an 'unclean shipment' while transport document actually shows 'clean shipment' . Unless other document shows a repackaging of the goods before shipment I would refrain from telling you that this presentation conform.
Other comments really appreciated.

User avatar
picant
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm

Comment found

Post by picant » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:29 am

Hi Pals,
I found something by ICC about goods status in a document different from a transport document. Doc. 470/TA 239 dd 08 march 1999, in Pubb. 613/2000 case no 339.
An L/C called for a Delivery Acceptance Report , document presented indicated that part of goods were no sound. ICC stated that as per art 21 UCP500,( now 14 f UCP600) without a clear indication in the L/C, the document had to be accepted.


My Working Group stated : Caution!!
Any other comments appreciated
Ciao

sunny
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:27 pm

there is a different situation

Post by sunny » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:00 pm

While I agree with picant in what he has said, the situation is not the same and I cannot agree with in answering to this topic. When you have different document required it is clear that the opinions are very different, sometimes opposite.
I also came across with an ICC opinion whereby it was required to provide a solution where a Certificate of Quality was required. That certificate said that inspection has been done and goods are not fit for human consumption. The ICC opinion found document compliant although goods were indeed destined for the people and not for animals.

iLC
Posts: 504
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:33 pm

packing?

Post by iLC » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:54 pm

well i think the job of a packing list is to describe the packing of merchandise and this packing list has done that. so the packing list itself is not discrepant. about cristian's view on clean shipment, i think i will agree only to the extent that the packing list shows "packing is not sufficient for sea journey" not very sure though.

if it simply declare a defective packing then i will not consider it as a conflict.

Post Reply