B/L LOAD ON SAME EFFECT AS SHIPPED ON BOARD OR NOT, ISBP 79

[ucp800]

DEAR ALL:

WOULD YOU PLEASE FAVOR ME YOUR OPINION ON THE FOLLOWINGS:

L/C TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
44E : PORT OF LOADING
ANY MALAYSIAN PORT
44F : PORT OF DISCHARGE
KARACHI PORT, PAKISTAN

46A: DOCUMENTS REQUIRED
1. FULL SET CLEAN SHIPPED ON BOARD OCEAN BILLS OF LADINGS DRAWN OR ENDORSED TO ORDER
OF ISSUING BANK, MARKED FREIGHT PREPAID, NOTIFY ISSUING BANK AND APPLICANT.


FULL SET ORIGINAL B/LS PRESENTED SHOWING:
PRE-CARRIAGE BY: SINAR BROMO 029S
VESSEL VOYAGE: YM ASIA 035W
PLACE OF RECEIPT: PORT KLANG, MALAYSIA
PORT OF LOADING: PORT KLANG, MALAYSIA
PORT OF DISCHARGE: KARACHI PORT, PAKISTAN
PLACE OF DELIVERY: KARACHI PORT, PAKISTAN
AT THE MIDDLE OF B/L SHOWING :
LOAD ON BY SINAR BROMO 029S ON 03/08/2009 AT PORT KLANG, MALAYSIA

NEGOTIATING BANK TREATED B/L IS CLEAN AS PER ISBP PARAGRAPH 79:
"SHIPPED IN APPARENT GOOD ORDER", "LADEN ON BOARD" , "CLEAN ON BOARD" OR OTHER PHASES
INCORPORATING WORDS SUCH AS "SHIPPED" OR "ON BOARD" HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS
"SHIPPED ON BOARD"

ISSUING BANK CLAIMING DISCREPANCY AS FOLLOWS:
1. B/L ON BOARD NOTATION NOT SHOWING ACTUAL VESSEL NAME
NOTATION BY SINAR BROMO NOT CONSTITUTE AS SHIPPED ON BOARD.
PLEASE LET ME HAVE YOUR COMMENT WHETHER ISSUING BANK IS CORRECT OR NOT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE.

REGARDS,

LEUNG, KS

[nesarul]

Dear UCP 800!!!!!
IB stands is right [from my point of view]. Reference may kindly be made on ICC Official opinion R 457.
regards
Nesar

[ORUNMILA]

Dear all,
i think the issuing bank's stated discrepancy is correct. precarriage was done by a vessel tothe place of receipt one would want toknow on which vessel was the consignment finallyshipped on board to the started port of discharge in Pakistan.
Orunmila

[narisa]

dear ucp 800!!!!
I agree with issuing bank pointing of discrepancy. as the word " load on" which use relate to on board notation is not as per isbp para 79.
rgds

[ucp800]

Thank you for your comments.
Now, I understand that what information of the on board notation should be.

Refer the information:

PRE-CARRIAGE BY: SINAR BROMO 029S
VESSEL VOYAGE: YM ASIA 035W
PLACE OF RECEIPT: PORT KLANG, MALAYSIA
PORT OF LOADING: PORT KLANG, MALAYSIA
PORT OF DISCHARGE: KARACHI PORT, PAKISTAN
PLACE OF DELIVERY: KARACHI PORT, PAKISTAN
AT THE MIDDLE OF B/L SHOWING :
LOAD ON BY SINAR BROMO 029S ON 03/08/2009 AT PORT KLANG, MALAYSIA

The correct on board notation on B/L should be as follows:

either :

Shipped on board 03/08/2009
On SINAR BROMO 029S at Port Klang, Malaysia and
Transshipped at (for example Singapore) on YM ASIA 035W

or:

Shipped on board 03/08/2009
On YM ASIA 035W at Port Klang, Malaysia


We may refer the ICC Opinion R350

quote:

ICC Opinion R350
The LC required shipment to be effected from Hong Kong.

Pre-Carriage Place of Receipt
Feeder Vessel Hong Kong
Ocean Vessel Port of Loading
Ocean Vessel Hong Kong

The Feeder Vessel sailed from a place in HK to another place in HK. So, the Feeder Vessel never left Hong Kong. It is a discrepancy if the on board notation shows the goods were loaded on board Feeder Vessel.

The goods should be loaded on board a vessel that would leave Hong Kong. So, the correct vessel is the Ocean Vessel.

According to ICC, there must be an on board notation which must include:

1. Date
2. Ocean Vessel, Ocean Vessel (not Feeder Vessel)
3. Port of Loading, Hong Kong

unquote

That is what the issuing bank wanted the negotiating bank to state such information.

Regards,

ucp800