UCP 600 Article 35: Examining Bills of Lading

Introduction

Bills of lading are the foundational transport document in seaborne trade finance. Under UCP 600, the bank's obligation to examine them is governed by a precise set of rules that determine whether a presentation is compliant. Article 35 establishes that banks deal in documents and not in goods, services, or performance — meaning the examination of a bill of lading is a document-checking exercise, not a verification of the underlying shipment. This distinction is where most discrepancies originate. Banks that treat Article 35 as a rubber-stamp process face rejection rates that erode beneficiary confidence; banks that over-examine risk exceeding their mandate and delaying payment.

Failure Mode Analysis

Failure 1: On-board notation absent or undated. A bill of lading bearing a "shipped" or "received for shipment" notation without a date of shipment is non-complying when the credit requires an on-board bill of lading with a shipment date. Banks reject this under Article 20(a)(ii), which requires the goods to have been shipped on board on the date of shipment indicated on the bill of lading.

Failure 2: Partial shipment or transshipment discrepancy. When the credit prohibits partial shipment or transshipment, the bill of lading must be examined for evidence that the goods were shipped in a single consignment and that no transshipment occurred — unless the credit expressly permits it or the goods are shipped in container, trailer, or LASH barge type transport as described in ISBP 745, paragraph A23.

Failure 3: Port of loading or discharge mismatch. A bill of lading showing a port of loading or discharge that does not match the credit terms is a common discrepancy. Under Article 20(a)(ii), the bill of lading must indicate the port of loading stated in the credit and the port of discharge stated in the credit. Even minor naming variations (e.g., "Nhava Sheva" vs. "JNPT") can trigger rejection if the credit specifies a precise name.

Failure 4: Carrier name not identified. Under Article 20(a)(i), the bill of lading must indicate the name of the carrier. A bill of lading signed by an agent or freight forwarder without identifying the carrier is non-complying. ISBP 745, paragraph A21, clarifies that the carrier need not be named on the face of the document if it is identified in the signature block.

Failure 5: Bill of lading issued by a charter party. When the credit requires a bill of lading and does not expressly permit a charter party bill of lading, presentation of a document governed by a charter party is a discrepancy. Article 20(a)(i) states the bill of lading must not be governed by a charter party, unless the credit expressly states otherwise.

Deterministic Resolution Architecture

1. Verify on-board status. Confirm the bill of lading bears an express "on board" notation or was issued on board. Cross-reference the notation date with the credit's shipment date requirement.

2. Match ports of loading and discharge. Compare the ports shown on the bill of lading against the exact wording in the credit. Do not accept synonymous port names unless the credit permits them.

3. Confirm carrier identification. Verify that the carrier is identified either on the face of the document or within the signature block. If signed by an agent, confirm the agent identifies the carrier.

4. Check for charter-party language. Scan the bill of lading for any reference to a charter party. If present and the credit does not permit it, classify the document as discrepant.

5. Examine the full set. If the credit requires an original bill of lading, confirm that the full set of originals is presented. A "3/3" notation means three originals; presenting one of three is non-complying.

6. Verify shipment date against presentation deadline. Under Article 14(c), the presentation must be made no later than 21 calendar days after the shipment date and no later than the expiry date. Compute both windows.

7. Document the examination result. Record the bill of lading number, carrier, ports, on-board date, set number, and any discrepancy found. Preserve the record with the bank's examination file.

Conclusion

Examining bills of lading under UCP 600 Article 35 is a document-level exercise governed by the rules in Articles 14 and 20. The bank's task is to confirm that the bill of lading, on its face, satisfies the specific requirements stipulated in the credit. Discrepancies arise when banks fail to verify on-board notation, port names, carrier identification, set completeness, or shipment-date timing. A systematic, documented examination process eliminates ambiguity and protects both the bank and the beneficiary from avoidable rejections.

FAQ

What does Article 35 actually say about examining bills of lading? Article 35 states that banks assume no liability for the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness, or legal effect of any document. The actual examination obligation is in Articles 14(a) and 20, which define what constitutes a complying bill of lading.

Can a bank reject a bill of lading because of a port-name variation? Yes. Article 20(a)(ii) requires the port of loading and discharge to be as stipulated in the credit. If the credit says "Mumbai" and the bill of lading says "Nhava Sheva," the bank may reject it as discrepant, even though both refer to the same port.

Does ISBP 745 change how I examine a bill of lading? ISBP 745 supplements UCP 600 with practice guidance. It clarifies points such as transshipment in container shipping, the meaning of "on board," and how to handle transport documents issued by freight forwarders. It does not override UCP 600 but fills interpretive gaps.

What happens if the bill of lading is a charter party document? If the credit requires a bill of lading and does not expressly permit a charter party bill of lading, the presentation is discrepant under Article 20(a)(i). The bank must refuse under Article 16.

How does eUCP apply to electronic bills of lading? Under eUCP Version 2.1, Article e9, an electronic transport record replaces the paper original. The same examination standard under Article 14(a) applies — the bank examines the electronic record on its face to determine compliance.

Source Notes

Context only — no deep source text was extracted from the original research feeds.

• ICC Academy, "Certified UCP 600 Specialist (CUCP)," published 12 Jul 2025.
• ICC, "UCP 600 — Uniform Rules and Practice for Documentary Credits — Including eUCP Version 2.1," published 31 Jul 2023.
• ICC Academy, "Uniform Rules for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) — eBook," published 12 Dec 2024.
• ICC, "Commentary on UCP 600," published 01 Aug 2019.