• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제14권
• /
• pp.7-35
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this paper is to examine the meanings of delivery of each trade term in INCOTERMS 2000, to investigate various kinds of transport document as a proof of delivery, and finally to find their problems. As a result of examination, following problems are considered to happen practically. First, a multimodal transport document referred in FOB term seems to be unappropriate because FOB term can be used in sea or inland waterway transport. Second, Assuming resale in transit in CFR or CIF term, non-negotiable Sea Waybill seems to be inappropriate. Third, As Sea Waybill is not a document of title, it can not be a security when the bank negotiate seller's draft. Fourth, INCOTERMS 2000 deleted the reference to charter party in CFR or CIF term. This deletion may raise any legal problems for the liabilities of carrier when the contradictions happen between the charter party B/L and charter party. Finally, if CFR or CIF means symbolic delivery, other documents besides B/L can not be a symbols of goods.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제65권
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

So far several attempts have been made to digitalizing sea transport documents. Three notable examples are SeaDocs, Bolero, e-B/L Korea and Ess-Databridge. Ess-Databridge was established in 2003, with the aim of promoting the use of electronic alternative to shipping documents. The ESS-Databridge system was piloted from 2005 and went live in January 2010. The ESS-Databridge operates under a private legal outline, the Databridge Services and Users Agreement (DSUA). In the Ess-Databridge system, only the user who is in control of the original bill of lading will be able to indorse it on to another user. Once the indorsement is effected and unless the indorsee decide store turn the documents, the indorser loses control and retains access only to an electronic document marked 'copy' for its records. A feature that appears to have been crucial to the success of the CargoDocs service is that visually, e-B/Ls produced using ESS-Databridge appear identical to the paper documents. The ESS-Databridge may be even more successful if the legislators take certain steps that will increase uniformity and certainty in electronic transport documentation.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.71-98
• /
• 2007

UCP 600 approved at the Banking Commission Meeting of ICC at the end of October, 2006 comes into effect from July 1, 2007. The main revision of the UCP 600 concerning the sea transport document are as follows. First, if the bill of lading contains an on-board-notation, with the date of shipment, the date stated in the on-board-notation will be deemed the date of shipment. Secondly, phrases "on its face" and "otherwise authenticated" should be eliminated. Thirdly, when an agent signs for or signs on behalf of the master, there is no longer a need for the name of master to be quoted. Fourthly, the terminology "loading on-board or shipped on a named vessel" is changed to "shipped on-board a named vessel." Fifthly, phrases "the rejection of the documents transported only by sail" is removed. Finally, new rule in UCP is the signing of a charter party bill of lading by the charterer or a named agent on behalf of the charterer. My assessment of the revision in UCP 600 is as follows: Because a freight forwarder transport document is a weaker form than a liner bill of lading as collateral, banks may need a secure measure as to protect themselves from such a weak collateral effect. we recognize that Such a weak collateral effect stemmed from the elimination of rules in UCP 500 article 30, and the admission of transport documents issued by the freight forwarder as long as any one besides carrier, shipper, and charterer satisfies the requirements of transport document clauses in UCP 600. Finally, I hope the Commentary on UCP 600 will serve to explain the ambiguities remaining in the new rules.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.303-326
• /
• 2016

The Rotterdam Rules regulate both transport documents and the legal effect of the choice of document much more comprehensively than the existing maritime convention to bring international harmonization of issues relating to transport documents. The Rotterdam Rules use the generic term 'transport documents' rather than referring to specific title such as bills of lading, sea waybills. The generic term 'transport documents' allow four types of transport documents to be identified as follows. 1. negotiable 2. negotiable which dispense with surrender 3. non-negotiable which require surrender 4. non-negotiable. Each types of transport documents has its requirements to be satisfied. Also, the choice of transport documents affects legal effect. Thus parties to the contract of carriage not only need to know how the document will be classified at the time it is issued but also consider what the documents will bring legal consequences.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2008

Bills of lading are crucial in international sales on shipment terms since they guard buyers against loss of or damage to the goods in transit by giving them the rights against carriers. A bill of lading, as document of title, gives the buyer the right to demand physical possession of the goods from the carrier and enables the buyer who is in possession of damaged or short-delivered goods to sue the carrier. In this context the buyer in sales on CIF or CFR terms or FOB terms with additional services benefits from the bill of lading which functions as a receipt of goods and a evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. Protection of such buyer's interests can be provided in the sale contract through appropriate express or implied terms on the seller's documentary obligations: Which transport document, a bill of lading or a sea waybill, is required? Who should be named as the consignee in the transport document and, in case of bill of lading, by whom should the bill be endorsed? What should be stated in the bill of lading for the quantity of the goods? How about a bill of lading that contains so called "unknown clause"? How many bills of lading for the entire contract goods should be tendered? Can a bill of lading stating that the goods have been shipped in apparent good order and condition also state that the goods were damaged after shipment? This paper seeks to provide answers for these particular questions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.201-238
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to describe the contents and issues of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the domestic carriage of cargo by air, comparing to the related provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999 for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air and the related provisions of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage by land and sea. The Montreal Convention in respect of the international carriage by air was adopted in 1999, and Korea has ratified the Montreal Convention in 2007. However, there is now no national legislation in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code in July 2008, and the draft legislation is now being reviewed by the National Assembly. The draft provisions of Part VI the Carriage by Air are basically adopting most of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of cargo by air and some draft provisions are applying the related provisions of the Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage of cargo by land and sea. In respect of the carriage of cargo by air, the contents of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air are composed of the provisions in respect of the liability of the carrier, the rights of the consignor and consignee, the transport document and others. In respect of the carriage of cargo by air, the issues on the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air are the problems with respect to the extinguishment of the liability of the carrier, the application for the non-contractual claim, the liability limit of the servants or agents of the carrier, the right of disposition of cargo, the effect of breach of the provision in respect of the air transport document, the prescription of claim of the carrier, the immunity reasons from liability of the carrier for the loss or damage of the cargo, the making out of the air waybill, and the effect of the statement of the air transport document. In conclusion, the national legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code will protect the right and interest of the consignor and consignee, and clarify the right and duty of the parties to the air transport. Also it will contribute to the development of the air transport industry in Korea.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.317-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the key differences of the sea waybill and electronic B/L in the international transport documents. Sea waybills look remarkably like ordinary bills of lading. Indeed, in two important ways, they are just like bills of lading: the front of the document will near a description of the quantity and apparent condition of the goods; and the back of the document provides evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. They differ from bills of lading in that, far from indicating that the goods described are deliverable to the order of the shipper or of the consignee, they will make it explicit that the goods are deliverable only to the consignee. Again, different carries will do thai in a variety of ways. For example, the document may call itself non-negotiable, omitting the word order from the consignee box on the front of the document, and stating explicitly that the goods will be deliverable to the consignee or his authorised representative on proper proof of identity and authorisation. The Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules give no guidance as to any right to instruct the carrier in respect of goods while they are in transit. However, in applying Article 50 of the Rotterdam Rules, in particular when applying it in the context of seawaybills, straight bills of lading or ship's delivery orders, regard would need to be had to preserve the shipper's rights under any of those three documents even after the buyer of goods covered by them has acquired rights of its own. And, the right of control is defined at Article 1.12 of the Rotterdam Rules. The right to give instruction is further limited by the terms of Article 50.1 to three particular types of instruction in respect of the goods, relating broadly to the goods, their delivery en route, and the identity of the consignee. And, the CMI formulated the CMI Uniform Rules for Sea Waybills for voluntary incorporation into any contract of carriage covered by such a document. Recognising that neither the Hague nor the Hague-Visby Rules are applicable to sea waybills, the CMI Rules provide that a contract of carriage covered by a waybill shall be governed by whichever international or national law, if any, would have been compulsorily applicable if the contract had in fact been covered by a bill of lading or similar document of title.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.203-219
• /
• 2021

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to review and analyzes the contract of carriage and delivery/transport document in light of the major changes made to the Incoterms^® 2020 rules forced into effect on January 1st, 2020. Design/methodology - This study analyzed responsibility for the loading and unloading of goods under the contract of carriage in Incoterms 2020^® rules forced into effect by the ICC from January 1, 2020, and what document must be presented as evidence of delivery by the seller. Findings - A review revealed that in Rule C, the costs of unloading at the place of destination are determined by the terms of the contract of carriage, and in the DAP and DDP rules, if the seller bears the unloading costs, such unloading costs cannot be recovered from the buyer. To settle this issue, the seller needs to make a contract of carriage by sea with the carrier on FI terms. Furthermore, in the case of containerized goods that the FCA should be used, FOB was misused because the seller could not present an on-board bill of lading in the L/C transaction. However, it was confirmed that in FCA, the parties can use an optional mechanism to issue an on-board bill of lading. Originality/value - Incoterms 2020^® rules are still widely used in international trade by parties to contract sales around the world, just like Incoterms 2010^® rules. This study attempts to reduce or eliminate disputes that may arise from interpretative misunderstandings between the parties in the contract of sales concluded by the seller and the buyer.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.189-211
• /
• 2011

This article aims at analysing the practical problems of FOB and CIF terms relating to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 in case of L/C transactions and presenting the defending measures against them. According to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010, FOB and CIF terms are to be used only for sea or inland waterway transport and require the seller deliver the goods on board the vessel nominated by the buyer at named port of shipment. So if FOB and CIF terms will be used in sea transport under L/C transaction, the seller should ship the goods on the nominated vessel and present the shipping document indicating "on board vessel" to the issuing bank but the parties agree to present the received bill of lading according to special condition on L/C which is" received bill of lading are acceptable". In practical transaction, FOB and CIF terms are usually used in aircraft cargo, container cargo or multimodal transport. these facts are a violation of Incoterms. Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 which regulated that FOB and CIF terms may not be appropriate where goods are handed over the carrier before they are on board the vessel for example goods in container. These transactions are a temporary expedient and breach of Incoterms in the international trade which must be corrected as soon as possible.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.111-136
• /
• 2010

Bill of lading means the transport document ("marine", "ocean" or "port-to-port" or similar), however named, covering sea shipment only. Data in a bill of lading, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit, according to UCP 600 and ISBP. This article has provided the general guideline of the discrepancies on the basis of UCP 600, ISBP 681 and the ICC Banking Commission Opinions, for the solution of the unpaid problems of the credit transactions. I have studied especially the ICC Banking Commission Opinions and the DOCDEX Decisions on the bill of lading after UCP 600, the international standard banking practice (ISBP 681), and the recent Korean cases. As such, this article would fill a need gap in the market between the general principles in the UCP provisions and the daily job of the practitioner. The credit practitioners are suggested to this resulting guidance whenever doubts arise as to how to check the credit documents in daily practice.