Onboard notation in B/L

[siva.coolguys]

Hi

If Port of Receipt and Port of loading is different in case of ocean or marine B/L is called for in LC.

Is the on broad notation is required? I think yes but what are all the details should it state?

Please explain me y? and where UCP speaks about it?

One more question: On board notation is found in B/L provided that the Shipped on board wording is found in one corner and Date with sign is stated in another end in same B/L is this is acceptable or Descripency??? Please explain brief why?

Thanks in advance
Siva

[Trang]

If a bill of lading contains more than one on board notation the earliest of these on board dates will be considered to be the shipment date. Pls refer to Para 43e ISBP 681 for details.
Trang

[Trang]

Of course it require on board notation. When the shipping company or its agent include reference to a place of receipt or taking in charge that is different from the port of loading, UCP 600 sub article 20(a) stipulates that a bill of lading must indicate that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit. This means 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 a separation notation) relates to loading on board the named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit an not to any pre-carriage of the goods between a place of receipt or taking in charge and the port of loading.
Follows analysis above, the on board notation with shipped on board wording only is found discrepant due to this on board notation lack a named vessel and the actual port of loading.
Trang

[subha1981]

Hi

With regard to your 1st question, pls be informed that onboard notation is not required if it meets the following.
According to UCP600, if the field “port of loading” in the bills of lading presented indicated clearly the port of loading stipulated in the credit, even if the place of receipt indicates a place other than that port, the on board notation need not include the port of loading stipulated in the credit and the name of the vessel on which the goods have been loaded. (It is different from UCP500).
But however if the port of loading as required by the LC is under the head 'place of receipt', then an onboard notation evidencing the vessel name,port of loading besides date is essential.

with regard to your 2nd query, an onboard notation is acceptable only when it is dated. The date elsewhere appearing on the BL would not be acceptable.
I hope the above will be useful to you.

Thanks & regards
Subha

[vijay]

Dear Siva,

1. Regarding port details -As per UCP 600 the port of receipt or discharge and port of loading should be same as per details called in the LC. If it is differ it will be discrepency.If a credit gives a geographical range for the place of taking in charge, dispatch, loading on board and destination (eg., Any European Port"), the multimodal transport document must indicate the acutual place of taking in charge, dispatch, shipped on board and destination, which must be within the geographical area or range stated in the credit.

2. Regarding Board Notation - Yes it is compulsorly required to have the shipment date(evidencing dispatch ) which in turn to calculate maturity date for payment purpose. On board notation should accompany with date of dispatch. otherwise it will be treated as discrepancy.

Regards/Vijay

[LCstudent]

Dear friend ! I think You mean the PLACE of receipt i/o PORT of receipt in B/L formular ?! So if they are different, e.g. Place of receipt Stuttgart and Port of Loading is Hamburg on vessel "Hannover Express" today, the complete shipped on board notation is IMHO: Shipped on board the vessel "Hannover Express" at Hamburg on 22.01.2010 (or Jan 22, 2010 or 22nd Jan 2010) plus Stamp and signature of issuing capacity (carrier or his agent). I think UCP 600 Art. 20 a ii + iii and ISBP 681 Para 96+97 apply to. The separate shipped on board notation is the prove for the banker checking the B/L, wether carrier has taken care for the stipulations under 44E (P/Loading) and - if given in L/C - 44A (Place of receipt). Concerning Your second question: It should be possible for the transportation industry/carrier to bring all details concerning the shipped on board notation together as near as ever possible. Why to create an ambiguity within the document, but I think it is on one hand not a discrepancy, but on the other not clear at all. We should avoid ANY possibility for the issuing banks to refuse documents for any kind of interpretation. Other views are highly appreciated. Have a further great time. Rgds LC Student.

[narisa]

dear Siva
if b/l show port of loading stated in credit whether or not place of receipt different from port of loading its not necessary to show actual port at on board notation.
rgds

[nesarul]

dear,
I think it is now a very transitional point to comment on on board notation.because recently, icc is going to promalgate an on board notation paper...in where i saw some basic changes from the existing icc official opinion...espicially point 2؛‎ ‎9؛
regards
Nesar