LLOYDS CERTIFICATE OF SHIP AGE
"Lloyds or equivalent society/registry, shipping company’s/ shipping company’s agents certificate that the carrying vessel is registered and classified as Lloyds 100-A1 or its equivalent classification seaworthy and not more than 20 years old’"
We are importer of ROTOGRAVURE ENGRAVING MACHINE and we have opened LC to our shipper in GERMANY, Our shipper request us to delete the above clause from the LC. BUt our bankers informed that this clause will not be deleted as this clause is must in the LC.
1) WE have already ammend the clause by only lloyds certificate that the carrying vessel is not more then 25 year old.
now we want to know that can lloyds agency issue the certificate or not ?
please inform us on our e-mail : [email protected]
nitin, india
It might be enough deleted in the L/C.
In general, This requires for the insurance. Shipping Field called it [Ship's Age Certifiaate].
Ship's Age Certificate should be made by B/L Issuers - Shipping Company, either Int'l Freight
Forwarder or Shipping Lines. Your bankers clause is no more the prevailing clause as far as Container Shipment.
T'fore, Your clause quoted in 1) is seemly sound correct and could cover the clause of your bankers. Try to amend it as you aim.
It might be enough deleted in the L/C.
In general, This requires for the insurance. Shipping Field called it [Ship's Age Certifiaate].
Ship's Age Certificate should be made by B/L Issuers - Shipping Company, either Int'l Freight
Forwarder or Shipping Lines. Your bankers clause is no more the prevailing clause as far as Container Shipment.
T'fore, Your clause quoted in 1) is seemly sound correct and could cover the clause of your bankers. Try to amend it as you aim.
Hi Friend,
Vessel age certificate could be a must for insurance aim, if vessel older premium would be higher. So it will depends on the delivery terms if exluded or included insurance.
I think that a shipping company certificate may suffice.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao
Dear Pan &NITIN
Is this true the clause will not be deleted and must in LC ?
Or is it in favor of banker ? So banker require to have that clause in LC.
As far i know, LC no need to have that clause.
Please kindly correct me if i am wrong. thank you
Hi Friend,
cargo insurance is something that the seller or buyer need to protect itself, not the issuing bank.
Normally the insurance cover act on vessel that are younger than 25 years or an extra premium must be paid according to vessel name.
So it is good to have such characteristic in carring vessel.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao
But what is the vessel name here..? If extra premium will not be paid tehn what will happen..?
quote
cargo insurance is something that the seller or buyer need to protect itself, not the issuing bank.
unquote
This statement does not reflect the entire truth... when you, as an issuing bank, do agree to finance a deal, you sometimes want to keep a control over the goods as a collateral. This is very usual in commodities trade finance, for instance. This is the reason why issuing bank does impose that transport documents are consigned to or issued to order of it. But what kind of collateral could a B/L issued to order of issuing bank represent in the event of goods being not insured properly ?
Cheers,
Bruno
//
//
Recent comments
17 hours 29 min ago
19 hours 34 min ago
1 day 21 hours ago
3 days 6 hours ago
3 days 18 hours ago
3 days 21 hours ago
5 days 31 min ago
5 days 13 hours ago
5 days 16 hours ago
6 days 14 hours ago