• 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.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.51
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2011

There can be analyzed severally on the acceptance conditions of freight forwarder's transport document under UCP. First, Bills of Lading issued by forwarding agents will be refused. This can be seen in the article 20 of 1933 Revision UCP(Brochure 82) and the article 20 of 1951 Revision UCP(Brochure 151). Second, Unless specifically authorized in the credit, Bills of Lading issued by forwarding agent will be rejected. It is prescribed in the front part (a) of article 17 of 1962 Revision UCP(Brochure 222) and the article 19 of 1974 Revision UCP(Publication No. 290). Third, Acceptance conditions are different according to the type of transport documents, that is either Bill of Lading or not. It is prescribed in the art 25 and article 26 of 1983 Revision UCP. Unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, transport document issued by a freight forwarder will be rejected unless it is the FIATA Combined Transport Bill of Lading approved by the International Chamber of Commerce or otherwise indicates that it is issued by a freight forwarder acting as a carrier or agent of a named carrier. On the other hand, unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, marine bill of lading issued by a freight forwarder will be rejected, unless it indicates that it is issued by such freight forwarder acting as a carrier, or as the agent of a named carrier. Fourth, transport documents issued by a freight forwarder will be accepted. This can be found in the article 30 of 1993 Revision UCP(ICC Publication No. 500) and the article 14 l of 2007 Revision UCP(ICC Publication No. 600). According to the former unless otherwise authorized in the Credit, transport document issued by a freight forwarder will only be accepted if it is appears on its face to indicate the name of the freight forwarder as a carrier or multimodal transport operator or its agent. The latter prescribed that a transport document will be accepted if it is issued by a freight forwarder by a agent of carrier or freight forwarder itself.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• 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.

• 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.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.

• 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.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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• 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.

• 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.