LC called for 3/3 Ocean B/L :
LC states under additional conditions "House B/L and/or freight forwarders B/L not acceptable"
Beneficiary presented original 3/3 B/L as XYZ as agent for the carrier ABC., agent is signing the B/L.
Our understanding is that when "House B/L and/or freight forwarders
B/L not acceptable", in this situation B/L should be issued and signed
by Carrier only as per below ICC Opinion. Please confirm whether our
understanding is correct or not.
B/L signed by agent on behalf of the carrier is not acceptable :
UCP
600 sub-article 20 (a) (i)
If a
transport document states "freight forwarder bills of lading are not
acceptable" or "house bills of lading not acceptable", can the
freight forwarder or agent sign the bill of lading according to the
requirements expressed in subarticle 20 (a) (i)?
Query
[TA 669rev]
ICC
Opinion TA 572 - Issue No. 1 (October 2004) describes the situation in which the
documentary credit states that "Transport document issued by Freight
Forwarder not acceptable". The conclusion of the Opinion was that
"... the bank would be obliged to accept a bill of lading that was signed
'as carrier' irrespective of any knowledge it may have as to the capacity of
the issuer" - i.e., even when the transport document was entitled
"FBL BIFA Negotiable FIATA Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading".
a. The
above Opinion was given subject to UCP 500, and we ask you kindly to inform us
if the same position would apply under UCP 600.
b.
Also kindly advise if the conclusion above would be the same had the
documentary credit stated that "House bill of lading not acceptable"
or similar.
Analysis
One of
the reasons behind conditions such as "freight forwarder bills of lading
are not acceptable" or "house bills of lading not acceptable" is
to require the issuance of a bill of lading by the carrier, albeit that the
freight forwarder or agent could sign the bill of lading according to the
requirements expressed in sub-article 20 (a) (i). If a
freight forwarder or agent signs as carrier, the bill of lading becomes a
carrier document.
Conclusion
(a)
The same position applies under UCP 600.
(b) If
the credit states "house bill of lading not acceptable" or similar,
the same position will apply.
House B/L
But, would you not agree that an agent signing a B/L on behalf of a named carrier, does not imply that the document itself has been issued, or needs to be issued as either as a freight forwarder B/L, or a house B/L ? Surely, it could be issued as a "carrier" B/L, but simply signed by its agent?
House B/L - Abrar
Abrar, LC called for 3/3 ocean B/L but under additional conditon it prohibits freight forwarder or house B/L.
Bene has presented 3/3 ocean B/L, which complies with art 20(a)(i).,
My question is when LC prohibits house B/L, is it mandatory that B/L should be signed and issued by Carrier Only.
Regards!!!!
Mujeeb :-)
House B/L
Sorry, I was perhaps not very clear in my previous response, but I intended to affirm that I consider the document as presented to be acceptable (issued by carrier, but signed by agent), and it is not mandatory in the example, for a carrier to sign.
House B/L
It is acceptable as per UCP600 Art 20. as it complies withthe provision of article 20. (However Named) Freight Forwarder BL or House BL as long as it complies withArt.20 (the keyword is "however named".