• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.101-115
• /
• 2009

More than two years have passed since the latest UCP, Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 2007 Revision, ICC Publication No.600 became valid on July 1, 2007. There has been a lot of confusions in connection with the interpretation of the new UCP since July 1, 2007. Especially the transport document articles of the new UCP are the most confusing ones. Therefore, this work intends to study some points for practical attention of transport documents in the UCP 600. Transport documents can be divided into two kinds of documents such as marine transport documents and other transport documents. But most sellers and buyers distinguish two kinds of transport documents : the document of title and the document of non-title. Most traders consider the document of title importantly and ignore the document of non-title.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.117-142
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to examine the basic principles for the examination of documents in terms of the basic duty to examine the documents, the time allowed to the banks to examine the documents, linkage among the documents, the originality of documents and their issuers, and the rejection formula of documents. Further this author would look at the changes of particular transport document including bill of lading, charter-party bill of lading and so on. From the seller's perspective, the changes of the principles and individual documents under UCP600 are the most important in the sense that they affect the criteria against which the payment is made. The major changes include the omission of the phrase "with reasonable care", in terms of the basic examination principles, substitute the phrase "five banking days following the day of presentation" for the phrase "reasonable time, not to exceed seven banking days following the days of receipt of documents", introduce the new wording about the linkage between the documents tendered, and make clear the meaning of the originality of documents as well as the rejection formula. For transport documents, even though dealing with bill of lading, charter-party bill of lading, transport document covering at least two different modes of transport, freight-forwarder bill of lading and freight collect transport documents, this paper focuses on the "transhipment" of bill of lading and the definition of charter-party bill of lading. Thus, UCP has been changed several times to reflect the new banking customs and practice. It, however, would not answer every questions which users and banks will raise. These questions may be best answered in the particular underlying contract. The UCP are necessary but not a sufficient instrument for the smooth operation of an international trade transaction. The rules are now out: it remains to be seen what the players do with it.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.49-78
• /
• 2010

The seller has to deliver goods and hand over documents as required by the contract. It is very important that ownership of goods shall be transferred by the documents from the seller to the buyer. Where terms of payments is made under documentary payment such as negotiable order Bill of lading or any transport documents for symbolic delivery of goods shall be more important between the parties concerned. The buyer may withdraw or cancel the contract where the buyer accept the foul Bill of Lading and demand damages where the buyer accept the other documents which are not in accordance with requirements by the buyer. Withdraw or cancel of contract can be made where discrepancy of documents comes into fundamental breach of contract. In conclusion transport documents by the seller will be used to determine appropriation of transport document to the contract. Therefore the seller has to deliver the proper shipping documents to the buyer. Where the breach of the seller's obligations to deliver documents the buyer has the right of requiring performance, contract avoided, claiming damage to recover the contract under CISG. The significance of transport documents has been focused in this study and careful examination of documents shall be needed to prevent any dispute or differences between the parties.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.261-283
• /
• 2013

ISBP745 has new provisions about sea waybill, road, rail or inland waterway transport documents which ISBP681 did not have provisions about. The main revisions of ISBP745 which were not existent or different from ICC Opinion are as follows: First, where B/L is required when multimodal transport is used as a modes of transport, the revisions stipulates that it is subject to UCP600 article19. this differs from previous ICC Opinion. Second, when a credit requires a transport document to indicate the name, address and contact details of a delivery agent, for the place of final destination or port of discharge, the address need not be one that is located at the place of destination or port of discharge or within the same country as that of the place of destination or port of discharge. Third, in case there exist a number of shippers and a consignee, multiple transport documents are issued. This rule has a clear stipulation on this case. Transport industry regards the indication of "LCL/FCL" or "CFS/CY" common in this case as that requiring multiple transport documents. However, ISBP745 does not regard it the case as that requiring multiple transport documents. This may cause some confusion in examination of documents. Forth, when partial shipment is allowed, and more than one set of original transport documents are presented as part of a single presentation made under one covering schedule and incorporate different dates of shipment, the earliest of these dates is to be used of the calculation of an presentation period.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.219-243
• /
• 2005

The Purpose of this Article is to analyze the examination criteria on the compliance of multimodal transport document in the ISBP. When the goods are taken in charge by the multimodal transport operator, he shall issue a multimodal transport document which, at the option of the consignor, shall be in either negotiable or non-negotiable form. The multimodal transport document shall be signed by the multimodal transport operator or by a person having authority from him. When the multimodal transport document is presented by the beneficiary to the bank in the letter of credit operations, the bank should examinate the bill of exchange and/or shipping documents, including multimodal transport document. There are two rules in connection with examination of the documents in the letter of credit operations. One is the "Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits(UCP 500)" approved by the Banking Commission in March 10, 1993, the other is the "International Standard Banking Practice for the Examination of Documents under Documentary Letters of Credits(ISBP)" approved by the ICC Banking Commission in October 2002. Therefore, this Article has studied the multimodal transport document presented under documentary credits on the basis of the UCP 500 and the ISBP it reflects.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.

• 복합운송
• /
• s.125
• /
• pp.32-33
• /
• 1999

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• 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.