Comments on ICC Document 470/TA540

Disclaimer

The names of the parties, as well as the data and information in the cases stated below, have been sanitized in order to protect the identity of the parties involved. The complexities of the cases have also been simplified to facilitate easy understanding of the key issues involved.
Our expert's opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICC or the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice. No legal imputation should be attached to any of the contents of the cases and no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements or opinions caused by negligence or otherwise. Our expert's opinions are given for your reference only and you should not rely upon or act on our opinions, of which we are not held liable. You should consult your legal counsel or other experts for their opinions in your specific cases.
No article, opinion, or comment can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.

10 April 2003
Mr. Gary Collyer, Technical Adviser and
Mr. Ronald Katz, Policy Manager
ICC Banking Commission
Paris
Dear Gary and Ron,
I refer to ICC Document 470/TA.540 regarding the need to name the "Carrier" in a liner bill of lading under UCP 500 Article 23 (a) (i).
Mr. Cody Leung of Holman, Fenwick & Willan has not covered all the scenarios in which a marine/port-to-port bill of lading operates.
A bare-boat charterer may put his own master to replace the original master hired by the shipowners to save costs and to have absolute control of the cargo ship under bare-boat or demise charter. With the chartered cargo ship, the bare-boat charterer operates as a common carrier, and maybe with the funnel of the cargo ship bearing the logo of his company. So an outsider may not know that he is not the shipowners but a mere charterer who operates as a common carrier.
In such a situation, the master only represents the charterer and not the shipowners. However, the master mariner (to be precise) is still representing the carrier in signing the marine bill of lading (other than a charter party bill of lading governed by Article 25 of the UCP 500).
Hence the master may not necessarily represent the shipowners, although the master is still representing the carrier.
Maybe in the revision of the UCP 500, any marine bill of lading signed by the master would not need to name the carrier. However, before that time, for the sake of uniformity in examination of documents under the ISBP and the UCP 500, a marine bill of lading should name the carrier as suggested by the Officers of the ICC Banking Commission in the "Conclusion" part of this Document.
T. O. Lee

(905) 237-6465

(905) 237-6867