Intended port of discharge

[hanifmb]

BL is acceptable showing an " intended " port of discharge provided is the port stated in the credit ?

[mia vervacke]

1) I found following Case Study in DC-Pro: Case Study 94 Article 26 (UCP 400)
Against a credit calling for "on board" bills of lading, the beneficiary tendered multiservice shipping documents marked combined transport or port-to-port bill of lading with the following data content:
Intended vessel: EA. SEASON
Intended Port of Loading: BOMBAY
Intended Port of Discharge: SYDNEY
Final Destination: SYDNEY
Would this document be in order and meet the requirements of an on board bill of lading as stipulated in the L/C? To me, it does not appear to satisfy the provisions of Article 26(c). To meet the requirements of an on board bill of lading, the data content of a superimposed notation on the bill of lading should be as follows:
Shipped on Board
M/V EA. SEASON
at BOMBAY
such notation to be dated and signed or initialled by the issuers.

Answer: We agree with your opinion.

2) UCP 600 Art. 20 stipulates what has to be done in case of 'intended port of loading' and 'intended vessel' but is silent as to 'intended port of discharge'

[shahriar]

provided the port of discharge is as per the LC, i see no discrepancy. a port of discharge is always an intended one even if its not stated.

comments appreciated

[mia vervacke]

Abrar wrote on www.letterofcreditforum.com

Yes. In a manner of speaking, whereas one can be confident that once a B/L has been issued, the port of loading/taking in charge has already been determined, the arrival at the port of discharge/place of final destination has not yet happened. Therefore, all that is being declared is the carrier's intention to disharge at the "intended"discharge point.

It is not clear as to why the explicit requirement to show a fixed port of discharge/final destination was excluded from UCP600, but on the basis that where the B/L refers to the load port as "intended ", UCP600 requires a separate "on board notation" and vessel name at the actual port of loading (which must conform with the LC port of loading requirement), a similar certainty cannot be established as regards the fnal destination point, as this has yet to happen. Limitations as to the carrier's liability under provisions of Force Majeure may in any case allow for diversion of cargo

REPLY FROM bob_exports :

Intended port of discharge
Hi Abrar,

Once again I agree with you. The port of discharge can only ever be "intended" as it denotes something that is to occur at a future time after the B/L was issued. As L/Cs deal only in the documents as presented and the B/L evidences shipment not discharge, UCP600 is understandably silent on intended port of discharge. If one were to read the fine print on the B/L probably on the reverse, I'm sure there would be found some disclaimer as to the carrier's obligation to firmly commit to discharge only at the specified port of discharge.

Bob