Range of ports on Charter Party Bills of Lading

LC VIEWS - Single Window Q&A No. 84 - May 5, 2008

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.

Question from B.K.C.:
The credit stipulated

under field 43p: partial shipment allowed,

under field 44e: West Indian port(s),

under field 46a: full set 3 originals clean on board bill(s) of lading made out to order, blank endorsed, marked freight payable as per chartered party notifying the applicant,

under field 47a: charter party bill of lading acceptable.

The presented B/L stated that

--vessel: M/V ABC

--port of loading: Karwar and New Mangalore, India (remark: 2 different ports)

--pre-printed wording shipped on board B/L (without separate on board notation).

--issued at New Mangalore, India on 11 Jan. 2008.

Question:

According to ISBP no. 121 “if a credit gives a geographical area or range of ports of loading or discharge (e.g. “any European port”), the charter party bill of lading must indicate actual port or ports of loading, which must be within the geographical area or range stated in the credit but may show the geographical area or range of ports as the port of discharges”.

It seems allow the charter party B/L to have more than one port which within the range of ports been shown on field of port of loading. However there is also another scenario that separate sets of B/L are presented with different ports of loading which within the range of ports. Which scenario is the actual intention of the drafter of the ISBP?

It is logical to presume that firstly, partial of goods was shipped from Karwar, India and then the rest of goods was shipped from New Mangalore, India, or vice versa. Actually there should have two different shipment dates (on board date). It may be more appropriate to say that this is a case of combined B/L. Under this circumstance, is it fulfils the requirement of UCP article 22ii “indicate that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit”?

Answer from T.O. Lee:
Dear All,

Most charter party bills of lading (CPBL) have on board statement pre-printed to save the trouble of adding an on board stamp afterwards. I assume your CPBL is of no difference in this respect. So there is no need to have a shipped on board stamp in your CPBL.

Your query hits the Achilles' heel of the UCP 600 Drafting Group again! Your case is a standing evidence to support my suggestion to add a range of ports of loading in article 22 of UCP 600 that has been ignored during the drafting stage. Now it leads to your query.

Article 22 (a) (iii) only includes a range of ports of discharge but not also a range of ports of loading.

In fact it is perfectly normal in maritime chartering practice to have a range of ports of loading in a CPBL, particularly for agricultural produce, where production depends on weather and many uncontrollable factors. So the charterer will normally name more than one port of loading to ensure that the chartered vessel can have a "full and complete cargo" loaded to make the sea venture profitable.

So a range of ports of loading, whether recorded in one or more CPBL, is perfectly normal and should not be deemed as a discrepancy. Any discrepancy is due to the bad drafting of the UCP 600, which the Drafting Group is held accountable, not listening to my comments during the drafting stage.

T. O.

(416) 298-5881

(416) 292-5535