The idea of the HOWEVER NAMED THEORY in the UCP 600 is generated from the fact that different companies title documents differently.
For example one company can issue a Marine Bill of Lading, another company could issue an Ocean Bill of Lading, a third could issue a Steamship Bill of Lading and the final could just issue a document titled Bill of Lading.
If the letter of credit called for an Marine Bill of lading, all four documents would comply provided that the document fulfills the requirements of Art 20.
I got the L/C with mentioning draft at 21 days from the date of the commercial invoice in the 42c ( draft at), I am very much confused. what does it means ?
In the applicant's perspective, the drawback of a payment term which is determined by the invoice date is that when the maturity date falls on would be indefinate , as the invoice date could be dated earlier than the LC issuing date as per UCP600 article 14i.
Yet, in the Beneficiary's perspective, if the LC is silent about the span of the invoice date, when Nirendra receives the payment would "happily" depend on Nirendra's own arrangement...
I agree that is better to get an amendment, but query 3 of official opinion TA635rev, is confusing me.
"A bill of lading is a generic term for a transport document that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, transport by sea from a port of loading to a port of discarge.........
Other comments appreciated.
PS-if we follow the new road map of ICC, documents will be refused only if the l/c is expired or the shipment is delayed.
Perhaps when we quote the official opinion on TA635rev a bit more complete (as below) and read it as a whole, you may get the main point about what it really refers to:
"A bill of lading is a generic term for a transport document that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, transport by sea from a port of loading to a port of discharge. It is recognized, however, that there will still be occasions when the shipping company or its agent will include reference to a place of receipt or taking in charge that is different from port of loading. To cover this eventuality, the content of sub-article 20 (a) (ii) reads: “indicate that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit by…”. The emphasis in this condition is that the document checker must be able to determine that the bill of lading appears to indicate that the shipped on board statement (pre-printed wording or by a separate notation) relates to loading on board the named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit and not to any pre-carriage of the goods between a place of receipt or taking in charge and the port of loading………..
This opinion , if I don't misunderstand, is mainly response to a query concerning UCP600 Art.20 where the place of receipt is different from port of loading indicated in the (ocean) bill of lading, it still need the on-board notation as per the official interpretation of UCP600 Art.20. In general, it seems to say that :" a bill of lading > transport by sea from port of loading to a port of discharge; sometimes it could also include a place of receipt /take in charge which is different from the port of loading." So basicly, the bill of lading in this paragragh still mainly concerns the (ocean) bill of lading examed under the scope of UCP600 Art.20, I'm not sure the author also extend the range of " bill of lading" to include other modes of transport, for example, the road transport as referred in the truck consignment note?
Dear Shelar, Thanks for quoting the complete text and providing the context to the Opinion. You rescued me from being even more confused than I already am! :-) Great job. Appreciated.
Thanks. (So you see the opinion in the same way as mine?)
But I'm not the author, not so fit for explanation of this opinion actually. Just feel the wording of "bill of lading" in this context does not mean to say that "bill of lading" is the general term for all transport documents.
I do, indeed. The Opinion referred to "a place of receipt or taking in charge that is different from port of loading". The quote (reference to B/L) should be read in that context. Obviously "billof lading" refers only to carriage over water, not through air or by surface transport.
The danger was in quoting only a section of the Opinion - out of context, without referring to the question which prompted the response in the first place.
Yes, writen words sometimes may be misunderstood if we read them in fragments.
As for the discussed LC, if the wording read as "90 days from shipment date", it would be O.K., as " shipment" under UCP600 is a generic term for all transport documents (of course including the truck consignment note) , if I don't misunderstand.
Yes, definitely
TCN and B/L are completely differnt types of document.
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
discussion is always useful
Hi Friends,
I read all comments hereunder and I have a little question:
What is the meaning of the so called HOWEVER NAMED THEORY in UCP 600?
Thanks for every comment.
Ciao
However Named
Hi Pan,
The idea of the HOWEVER NAMED THEORY in the UCP 600 is generated from the fact that different companies title documents differently.
For example one company can issue a Marine Bill of Lading, another company could issue an Ocean Bill of Lading, a third could issue a Steamship Bill of Lading and the final could just issue a document titled Bill of Lading.
If the letter of credit called for an Marine Bill of lading, all four documents would comply provided that the document fulfills the requirements of Art 20.
I hope this helps you out.
Best regards,
LC Sam
draft at 21 days from the date of commercial invoice
Dear all,
I got the L/C with mentioning draft at 21 days from the date of the commercial invoice in the 42c ( draft at), I am very much confused. what does it means ?
this is sight or usance L/C ? please suggest me
when I will get the payment
If possible under the credit you can date your invoice
with quite an early date so that the outcome is pretty much the same.
But as far as banking charges are concerned a sight payment should always be cheaper.
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
If the payment term is determined by the invoice date
Dear Frammi,
An interesting LC !
In the applicant's perspective, the drawback of a payment term which is determined by the invoice date is that when the maturity date falls on would be indefinate , as the invoice date could be dated earlier than the LC issuing date as per UCP600 article 14i.
Yet, in the Beneficiary's perspective, if the LC is silent about the span of the invoice date, when Nirendra receives the payment would "happily" depend on Nirendra's own arrangement...
Best regards
Sheilar
this is 21 days usance L/C
This is 21 days usance L/C and you will get payment after this date. If your bank negotiate you will get payment immediately
thanks
AMENDMENT REQUIRED
You need to request for an amendment as follows, otherwise you can expect a discrepancy.
FIELD 42 C : TO READ AS “ AT 90 DAYS FROM TRUCK CONSIGNMENT NOTE” - INSTEAD OF EXISTING.
CONTACT: tulsiusha1@yahoo.com or tulsipillaiex@hotmail.com
REGARDS TULSI/ DUBAI
amendment when it is possible
Hi Friends,
I agree that is better to get an amendment, but query 3 of official opinion TA635rev, is confusing me.
"A bill of lading is a generic term for a transport document that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, transport by sea from a port of loading to a port of discarge.........
Other comments appreciated.
PS-if we follow the new road map of ICC, documents will be refused only if the l/c is expired or the shipment is delayed.
TA635rev.
Dear Pan,
Perhaps when we quote the official opinion on TA635rev a bit more complete (as below) and read it as a whole, you may get the main point about what it really refers to:
"A bill of lading is a generic term for a transport document that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, transport by sea from a port of loading to a port of discharge. It is recognized, however, that there will still be occasions when the shipping company or its agent will include reference to a place of receipt or taking in charge that is different from port of loading. To cover this eventuality, the content of sub-article 20 (a) (ii) reads: “indicate that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit by…”. The emphasis in this condition is that the document checker must be able to determine that the bill of lading appears to indicate that the shipped on board statement (pre-printed wording or by a separate notation) relates to loading on board the named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit and not to any pre-carriage of the goods between a place of receipt or taking in charge and the port of loading………..
This opinion , if I don't misunderstand, is mainly response to a query concerning UCP600 Art.20 where the place of receipt is different from port of loading indicated in the (ocean) bill of lading, it still need the on-board notation as per the official interpretation of UCP600 Art.20. In general, it seems to say that :" a bill of lading > transport by sea from port of loading to a port of discharge; sometimes it could also include a place of receipt /take in charge which is different from the port of loading." So basicly, the bill of lading in this paragragh still mainly concerns the (ocean) bill of lading examed under the scope of UCP600 Art.20, I'm not sure the author also extend the range of " bill of lading" to include other modes of transport, for example, the road transport as referred in the truck consignment note?
Best regards
Sheilar
TA635rev
Dear Shelar, Thanks for quoting the complete text and providing the context to the Opinion. You rescued me from being even more confused than I already am! :-) Great job. Appreciated.
Dear Catalyst,
Thanks. (So you see the opinion in the same way as mine?)
But I'm not the author, not so fit for explanation of this opinion actually. Just feel the wording of "bill of lading" in this context does not mean to say that "bill of lading" is the general term for all transport documents.
Best regards
Sheilar
Bill of Lading
Dear Sheilar,
I do, indeed. The Opinion referred to "a place of receipt or taking in charge that is different from port of loading". The quote (reference to B/L) should be read in that context. Obviously "bill of lading" refers only to carriage over water, not through air or by surface transport.
The danger was in quoting only a section of the Opinion - out of context, without referring to the question which prompted the response in the first place.
I agree, Catalyst.
Dear Catalyst,
Yes, writen words sometimes may be misunderstood if we read them in fragments.
As for the discussed LC, if the wording read as "90 days from shipment date", it would be O.K., as " shipment" under UCP600 is a generic term for all transport documents (of course including the truck consignment note) , if I don't misunderstand.
Best regards
Sheilar
Excellent work, Sheilar!
If you keep writing like that, you surely will once be one of the "folks writing it"!
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
Dear Frammi
Dear Frammi,
You are kidding!
I'm writing for my own pleasure. But I'm surely happy to hear that others like to read mine also.
Thank you for your very kind inspiration.
Sheilar