• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.107-126
• /
• 2016

This study is to review "on board notation" on a bill of lading under letter of credit transactions. A bill of lading is a type of document that is used to acknowledge the receipt of a shipment of goods. However, UCP 600Article 20 (a)(ii) requires the bill of lading to indicate that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit by pre-printed wording, or an on board notation indicating the date on which the goods have been shipped on board. The shipped on board statement should relate to loading on board the named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit. But it doesn't seem that the on board notation clause in the UCP 600 reflect current shipping practice fully because of the various kinds of on board notation and the confusion surrounding their use. There is a need to understand accurately the meanings and requirements of "on board notation" under UCP 600 and the related regulations. So, This paper will be studied the requirements and indication method of "on board notation" on the bill of lading and presented the practical implications under the bill of lading transactions. This study was based on documentary research including preceding research.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.201-220
• /
• 2016

A bill of lading is a document which is signed by the carrier or his agent acknowledging that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel bound for the destination and stating the terms on which the goods so received are to be carried. Therefore, the bill of lading is a document of title enabling the holder to obtain credit from banks before the arrival of the goods, for the transfer of the bill of lading can operate as a pledge of the goods themselves. In the other words the bill of lading creates a privity between its holder and the carrier as if the contract was made. A bill of lading, for obtaining credit from banks, must appear to indicate the carrier's name and signature, the "shipped on board" notation, the port of loading and unloading stated in the sales contract and the credit. Data in the bill of lading, when read in context with the sales contract, the credit, the bill of lading itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that bill of lading, any other stipulated document, the sales contract or the credit. The surrender bill of lading, stamping "surrendered" on the original bill of lading by request of the shipper, is not recognized the legal effectiveness as a document of title by the statutory law and court. The surrender bill of lading may increase the risk of impossibility of payment to the holder. Therefore, the surrender bill of lading should be used restrictively between the credible parties and suggested to avoid in the other cases.

• Proceedings of the Safety Management and Science Conference
• /
• 2012.04a
• /
• pp.371-380
• /
• 2012

Although all costs concerned in transportation be separated by region and each terms and conditions of Incoterms that state cleary them who have to pay the charges. But, almost lcl exporters donot want to pay their charges the carriers at loading port eventhough they make the contracts with the importer as FOB and CFR of Incoterms. And the carrier have been do not bill the FOB charges to the shipper. Now, there are no more Incoterms in LCL transportation. So, the importer have been payed loading port charges twice, first, the contract with the shipper, secondly, through the destination charge. These problems make decreasing of trading volume and increasing of logistics costs. We suggest every traders and carriers separate the costs as per the price terms and conditions of incoterms and bill/receive the costs separated the trader who have to pay the charges as per their price terms. It will bring mutual success in the world and increasing trade.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.431-451
• /
• 2013

The aim of this study is to thoroughly review prior literature related to electronic bill of lading and investigate the current state of electronification of operational processes of both major international and domestic shipping lines. In addition, this study examines the meaning of Electronic Bill of Lading; the perception on Electronic Bill of Lading; and the impediment to Electronic Bill of Lading in the perspective of shipping lines. As a result, following obstacles deter further development of e-B/L: negative attitude on the utilization of e-B/L; the matter of trust on the utilization of e-B/L; and technical issues in relation to the use of e-B/L.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.389-409
• /
• 2012

The Switched Bill of Lading(SBL) has been in frequent use in recent years as intermediary trade increases with the growing number of companies' overseas subsidiaries. Its frequent use, though, has brought about disputes regarding its illegal issue. Although there are several legal cases regarding this, studies on this issue are hard to find. Therefore, this study tries to provide countermeasures and precautions against unlawful issues of SBL through examining the legal cases resulting from illegal issuing practices of SBL. When the Switched Bill of Lading is issued, the shipper, consignee, port of loading and unloading, and shipping date of the original bill of lading are usually changed. Statements which may put the shipper at a disadvantageous position may also be deleted and/or the bill of lading may be either divided or integrated when it is issued. However, if the carrier issues the SBL 1)without withdrawing original BL, 2)indicating the shipping date, port of loading and port of discharge falsely, or 3)deleting the statements which may give him disadvantages, it may be regarded as an illegal issue. These unlawful issues of SBL may pose a huge threat to the shipper, banks and the parties relating to the trade. That is, the shipper may take a substantial loss when the goods can be delivered to a third party by SBL without his collecting the proceeds. The issuing bank and the negotiating bank may also have their security rights to the goods hampered by the illegal and improper issue of SBL. In most cases, the carrier has no choice but to issue the SBL without collecting the original BL for fear of hurting the relationship with the intermediary traders. This practice of issuing more than two sets of BL may pose a potential risk to the carrier.

• 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.49
• /
• pp.359-378
• /
• 2011

UCP600 Article 20 (a) (v) states that contents of terms and conditions of carriage will not be examined and Article 34 states that a bank assumes no liability or responsibility for the general or particular conditions stipulated in a document. From this perspective, banks may seem to have no obligation to examine the pre-printed clause of B/L. However, ICC decided that no opinion could be given in relation to the issues surrounding B/Ls that contain delivery clauses. Accordingly, it is agreed by previous cases and some scholars that banks may refuse the B/Ls that contain delivery clauses which are not present in other B/Ls of the same goods and transport routes. Also, ICC published ICC Decision in July 2010 regarding on board notation. In this decision, if a B/L indicates a place of receipt that is different from the port of loading and there is an indication of a means of pre-carriage, then a dated on board notation will be required indicating the name of the vessel and the port of loading. Therefore, banks may,, in some cases, need to scrutinize the pre-printed clauses especially appearing in the front page of B/Ls.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2007.12a
• /
• pp.49-50
• /
• 2007

선박의 대형화 및 해상사업의 기업화 등에 따라 해상운송에 있어 화물의 하역, 보관 등의 전문적인 부분을 담당하고 있는 항만하역업자, 항만터미널운영자, 창고업자 동 독립계약자의 역할은 점점 증대되어 가고 있는 추세이다. 하지만 국제해상운송은 해상운송인과 화주를 중심으로 체결한 운송계약을 중심으로 이루어져 왔으므로, 영국 보통법상의 직접계약관계의 원칙에 의해 계약당사자가 아닌 자는 계약상의 이익을 원용할 수 없다는 입장을 유지하여 왔다 이에 대해 이를 완화하고자 하는 다양한 방안이 적용되고 있으며, '히말라야약관'도 그러한 방안중의 하나이다. 본 논문은 최근 대법원판결을 통해 우리나라 법원의 히말라야약관의 유효성 인정에 대한 내용을 재검토해 본다.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.97-102
• /
• 2008

According to the trend of a large-sized vessel and a industrial carrier, the role of the independent contractors such as transport terminal operators, stevedores and warehousemen is increasing the base of cargo distribution that include the function of storage, warehousing, loading, unloading, trimming, dunnaging and lashing. But the common law doctrine of privity of contract has been a perennial source of difficulty for litigants seeking to enforce rights and obligations arising under a bill of lading contract. When carriage contract is negotiated, the concerned parties will be aware that some portion of obligations arising from the contract will be performed by the independent contractors engaged to carry out a particular function. It is reasonable for the independent contractors to be allowed the benefit of the carrier under the contract of carriage. As a part of the alleviating measures for the liability of independent contractors has been allowed various schemes, specially including 'Himalaya Clause'. Therefore, this study performed the validity of 'Himalaya Clause' by means of a recent judicial precedent by the Supreme Court and analyzed the rights of third parties, specially transport terminal operators, under the contract of carriage.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• 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.