Dear All,
A bill of lading presented under a credit subject to UCP 600 has the following pre-printed clause:
“The shipper acknowledges that the carrier is authorized to carry the Goods identified in the Bill of Lading on the deck of any vessel and in taking remittance of this Bill of lading, the Merchant (including the Shipper, the Consignee and the Holder of the Bill of Lading, as the case may be) confirms his express acceptance of all the terms and conditions of this...”.
The bill of lading is however silent on “on deck shipment”.
The issuing bank dishonours because the bill of lading bearing such pre-printed clause about on deck shipment is not acceptable according to UCP 600 article 26 (a).
Is the issuing bank right in its decision?
Thank you for your assistance.
Regards,
ucp 800
Is the issuing bank right in its decision?
-
ucp800
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:56 pm
- First Name: LEUNG
- Last Name: KING SANG
- Organization: WACHOVIA BANK N.A.
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
-
cristiand969
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
- First Name: Cristian
- Last Name: D.
- Organization: Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: RO
Issuing bank is wrong
First of all the question is incomplete and have to be reformulated.
has this bill of lading ' on board notation'. Assuming YES, then the said statement is equivalent with 'carrier may carry goods on deck' which is allowed under art 26.a, second paragraph. Furthermore, you may want to note that when a bill of lading indicate that the carrier reserves the right to do something it does not imply that he has or will do so.
has this bill of lading ' on board notation'. Assuming YES, then the said statement is equivalent with 'carrier may carry goods on deck' which is allowed under art 26.a, second paragraph. Furthermore, you may want to note that when a bill of lading indicate that the carrier reserves the right to do something it does not imply that he has or will do so.