UCP 600 article 14

UCP 600 article 14 - j

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.
Our expert's responses to queries 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 responses are given for your reference only and you should not rely upon or act on our responses, of which we are not held liable. You should consult your legal counsel or other experts for their opinions in your specific cases.
No query or response can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.

A Query Raised by K.C.
Dear all,
Kindly advise if you consider one or both of the following two examples to be a discrepancy:

Example 1:
LC Information:
Applicant (SWIFT Field 50):
THE IMPORT COMPANY, INC
IMPORT ROAD 55
COUNTRY X
PHONE +111 222 333
FAX +111 444 555
>From "Documents Required" (SWIFT Field 46A):
Bill of lading issued to Bank XX notify applicant.
Bill of lading presented shows (only) the following in the Consignee/Notify fields:
Consignee:
Bank XX
Notify:
THE IMPORT COMPANY, INC
COUNTRY X

Example 2:
LC Information:
Applicant (SWIFT Field 50):
THE IMPORT COMPANY, INC
IMPORT ROAD 55
COUNTRY X
PHONE +111 222 333
FAX +111 444 555
>From "Documents Required" (SWIFT Field 46A)
Bill of lading issued to Bank XX
Bill of lading presented shows (only) the following in the Consignee/Notify fields:
Consignee:
Bank XX
Notify:
THE IMPORT COMPANY, INC
COUNTRY X

Thanks in advance...
Best regards
K.C.

Response by H.A.
Greetings!
I must say this is an interesting question. My response goes thus:
Example 1:
The Notify party, bearing in mind it essence in easing logistics, ...
Example 2:
Since the credit under field 46a was silent as to the notify party, thus in view of UCP600 14(j), ...

T.O.'s 1st Response
Dear all,
...
My understanding of article 14 (j) of UCP 600 is that:

The first sentence applies to ...
The second sentence starts with ...
T. O.

T.O.'s 2nd Response
Dear All,
Although there is no discrepancy in the two examples given, yet with a BL consigned to Bank XX without "To order of Bank XX" may create problem. This is a straightly consigned BL and only Bank XX can approach the carrier to receive the goods on arrival. Bank XX cannot endorse the BL to the applicant. The LC should have made out the BL consigned to order of Bank XX to enable endorsement to the applicant.
T. O.

T.O.'s 3rd Response
Dear All,
I have reviewed the arguments from both sides, the "discrepant" side and the "compliant" side. Both sides have very good reasons to support their different views.
Now let me wrap up the arguments and give you all my views from two perspectives, the UCP 600 perspective and the multimodal transport perspective as a member of the UN Multimodal Transport Association.
First, the UCP 600 perspective.
...
Now the multimodal transport perspective.
...
T. O.

(905) 237-6465

(905) 237-6867