Transshipment under UCP 600: Same Journey or Separate Journey? Practical Implications for LC and Bills of Lading

Transshipment under UCP 600: Same Journey or Separate Journey? Practical Implications for LC and Bills of Lading

Transshipment is generally permissible under a Letter of Credit (LC) governed by UCP 600, even if the LC prohibits it, under specific conditions related to containerized cargo.

This interpretation is based on Article 20(c)(ii) of UCP 600.

 

​The key article governing this is Article 20 (c) for Bill of Lading, which states:

​Article 20 (c) (i): A bill of lading may indicate that the goods will or may be transshipped provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same bill of lading. This means the document must cover the transport from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the LC.

​Article 20 (c) (ii): A bill of lading indicating that transshipment will or may take place is acceptable, even if the credit prohibits transshipment, if the goods have been shipped in a container, trailer, or LASH barge (as evidenced by the bill of lading).

​Key Affects of UCP 600 on Transshipment

​Banks Deal with Documents, Not Goods: UCP 600 operates on the principle that banks deal only with documents and not with the underlying goods or transport methods (Article 5).

​Transshipment is Acceptable: 

In most scenarios involving modern containerized shipping, transshipment clauses on the transport document will not create a discrepancy with the LC, even if the LC explicitly says "Transshipment Prohibited," thanks to Article 20 (c) (ii).

​Prohibiting Transshipment is Difficult: 

To truly prevent transshipment in a containerized shipment, the LC applicant would have to explicitly exclude Article 20 (c) (ii) from the credit, which is rare and generally not recommended as it conflicts with standard shipping practices.

​Definition of Transshipment: 

UCP 600 defines transshipment in the context of a Bill of Lading (Article 20) as unloading from one vessel and reloading to another vessel during the carriage between the ports stated in the credit.

It does not refer to the normal re-loading of goods in a Multimodal Transport Document (which is covered under Article 19) where different modes of transport are used.

Is Transshipment Considered the Same Journey or a Separate Journey under UCP 600?

⚖️ Under UCP 600 Article 20 — What Exactly is “Transshipment”?

Definition (as implied in Article 20(c)):

“Transshipment” means unloading goods from one vessel and reloading them onto another vessel during the carriage between the port of loading and port of discharge stated in the LC.

🧭 So, Is It the Same Journey or a Separate Journey?

It is part of the same overall journey, not a separate shipment.

Let’s visualize it:

Example:

LC states: Port of Loading: Chittagong

Port of Discharge: Rotterdam

The Bill of Lading shows:

Goods loaded at Chittagong → carried to Singapore → unloaded → reloaded onto another vessel → then to Rotterdam.

This mid-way unload and reload in Singapore = transshipment under UCP 600.

But the entire voyage — Chittagong → Rotterdam — remains one continuous carriage under one and the same Bill of Lading.

🚫 When It Becomes a Separate Journey

If goods are discharged under one Bill of Lading and then newly shipped under another Bill of Lading, that’s not transshipment under UCP 600 — that’s effectively a new shipment.

In that case, the transport document would not cover the “entire carriage” as required by Article 20(c)(i).

🧩 Therefore:

✅ Transshipment = one continuous journey under a single Bill of Lading, even if goods switch vessels.

❌ Separate journey = new Bill of Lading, new contract of carriage — not covered under the same “entire carriage.”

In essence:

Under UCP 600, transshipment is a transfer between vessels within one continuous journey, not a break or restart of the carriage.

FAQ:

1. What is transshipment in the context of UCP 600?

   • Transshipment refers to the unloading of goods from one vessel and reloading them onto another during the carriage between the port of loading and port of discharge stated in the Letter of Credit, as per Article 20(c) of UCP 600.

2. Is transshipment allowed under a Letter of Credit governed by UCP 600?

   • Yes, transshipment is generally permissible under UCP 600, even if the Letter of Credit prohibits it, under specific conditions related to containerized cargo, trailers, or LASH barges, as outlined in Article 20(c)(ii).

3. Does transshipment constitute a separate journey under UCP 600?

   • No, under UCP 600, transshipment is considered part of the same continuous journey under a single Bill of Lading, even if goods switch vessels mid-route.

4. When does a journey become a separate journey under UCP 600?

   • If goods are discharged under one Bill of Lading and then reshipped under another Bill of Lading, it counts as a separate journey. The “entire carriage” requirement of Article 20(c)(i) is no longer met.

5. Can a bank refuse documents if transshipment occurs?

   • Generally no. Banks deal with documents, not the goods themselves (Article 5). As long as the Bill of Lading complies with Article 20(c), documents are acceptable.

6. Why is transshipment common in modern shipping?

   • Containerized shipments often require transshipment. UCP 600 recognizes this practice, making it generally acceptable unless explicitly excluded in the LC.

7. What types of shipments are covered by Article 20(c)(ii)?

   • Containerized cargo, trailers, or LASH barges, where transshipment occurs during the voyage as shown in the Bill of Lading.

8. How can an LC explicitly prohibit transshipment?

   • The LC must specifically exclude the application of Article 20(c)(ii), which is rare because it can conflict with standard shipping practices.

9. What is the difference between Article 19 and Article 20 in UCP 600?

   • Article 19 covers Multimodal Transport Documents involving different modes of transport (road, rail, sea), while Article 20 deals specifically with Bills of Lading and transshipment by vessel.

10. Does transshipment affect the validity of a Letter of Credit?

    • No, as long as the Bill of Lading shows the entire carriage from the port of loading to the port of discharge, transshipment does not create a discrepancy under UCP 600.

11. Can multiple transshipments occur under one Bill of Lading?

    • Yes, multiple transshipments are allowed as long as the entire carriage is covered by a single Bill of Lading and the shipment meets the conditions of Article 20(c).

12. What should exporters check regarding transshipment in LCs?

    • Ensure the LC wording aligns with Article 20(c), verify containerization details, and confirm that any transshipment shown on the Bill of Lading is permissible under the LC.

Tweet

Understanding UCP 600 Article 1: When and How the Rules Apply

 This article is written by Kazi Suhel Tanvir Mahmud, a trade finance specialist focused on letters of credit, UCP 600, and international trade payment mechanisms.

Understanding UCP 600 Article 1: When and How the Rules Apply

Category: Documentary Credit | International Trade
Estimated Reading Time: 8 minutes

Introduction: The Global Grammar of Trade

Across ports, payment systems, and time zones, international trade runs on trust—and on rules. Those rules are codified in the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600), published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
Every banker, exporter, and importer who works with a Letter of Credit (LC) eventually meets its heartbeat: Article 1, which defines when and how the UCP applies.

Without it, the LC world would be a chorus without rhythm—every participant playing their own tune. Article 1 keeps that orchestra in harmony.

1. Scope of UCP 600: When the Rules Apply

Article 1 declares that the UCP 600 applies to any documentary credit—including standby credits—if and only if the credit expressly states that it is “subject to UCP 600.”

Once those words appear, all 39 articles of the UCP 600 automatically govern the credit unless a party clearly modifies or excludes a provision. This single phrase builds a global bridge of uniformity: a documentary credit issued in Dhaka will be interpreted the same way in Dubai or Düsseldorf.

Why This Matters

The scope provision gives traders predictability in several key areas:

• Examination of documents: The same criteria apply worldwide.

• Bank obligations: Every bank knows when it must honor or negotiate.

• Timelines and notifications: The countdown clocks for payment and discrepancies are identical across borders.

Such uniformity transforms what could be a legal maze into a dependable map.

2. Default Application: The Power of “Subject to UCP 600”

If the LC simply says “subject to UCP 600,” no further explanation is needed. All rules take effect automatically. This is known as the default application of UCP 600.

The Advantages

1. Consistency: All parties follow the same rulebook.

2. Efficiency: Reduces negotiation time; everyone knows the framework.

3. Legal clarity: Courts and arbitration panels have a global reference point.

Banks appreciate this structure because it standardizes workflow; traders rely on it because it reduces risk.

Think of Article 1 as the “operating system” of letters of credit—once installed, the machine runs smoothly unless someone deliberately rewrites the code.

3. Modifications and Exclusions: Flexibility within Structure

While UCP 600 creates uniformity, Article 1 leaves room for flexibility. The rules are not carved in stone; they can be modified or excluded, provided the LC’s wording is explicit.

Modification Defined

A modification alters the effect or scope of a specific article. It must appear clearly in the credit.
Vague hints—like “documents to be examined promptly”—carry no legal force unless they directly reference the UCP article concerned.

UCP 600 Article	Standard Provision	Possible Modification in LC
Art. 14	Banks have 5 banking days to examine documents	Extend to 7 banking days for complex shipments
Art. 32	Partial shipments permitted unless prohibited	Explicitly disallow partial shipments
Art. 16	Bank must give notice of refusal within fixed time	Adjust method or deadline for discrepancy notice

Such flexibility allows credits to reflect commercial realities—urgent perishable cargo may require tighter timelines, while bulk shipments may need looser terms.

Exclusions Explained

An exclusion removes an article entirely.
For example, a credit may state: “Article 35 of UCP 600 (relating to transit risk) is excluded.”
Once excluded, that article no longer applies to the transaction.

4. Drafting Considerations: Precision Prevents Problems

The beauty of Article 1 lies in its simplicity; its danger lies in complacency. Poorly drafted credits can trigger costly disputes.

Best Practices for Drafters and Reviewers

1. Reference Articles Explicitly
   Example: “Article 14(b) of UCP 600 is modified to allow seven banking days for document examination.”

2. Avoid Ambiguous Language
   Replace fuzzy phrases (“reasonable time”) with concrete ones (“within five banking days”).

3. Confirm Mutual Understanding
   Before issuance, ensure both applicant and beneficiary understand any modifications.

4. Check Consistency
   The LC terms should not contradict themselves or other governing documents (such as Incoterms).

5. Consult the Bank’s LC Desk
   Bankers interpret credits literally; what is written, not intended, will be enforced.

Why It Matters

Banks are bound to follow the LC instructions, even when they deviate from standard UCP 600 provisions. A single ambiguous clause can freeze payments or invite legal challenge.

5. Responsibilities Under Article 1

Each participant in a letter of credit transaction plays a distinct role, but all are tethered by Article 1’s framework.

Issuing Banks

• Must honor the LC terms exactly as written.

• Cannot apply “standard practice” to override explicit modifications.

• Should verify that any changes align with internal compliance policies.

Confirming and Advising Banks

• Follow the same UCP 600 rules unless the LC limits their role.

• Communicate any modifications clearly to the beneficiary.

Applicants (Importers)

• Should tailor LC terms to their commercial needs but avoid unnecessary exclusions that could confuse banks or delay payments.

Beneficiaries (Exporters)

• Must scrutinize the LC upon receipt.

• Identify any modified rules affecting presentation deadlines, shipment terms, or document format.

• Seek amendments before shipping if uncertainties exist.

This shared understanding minimizes friction and ensures smoother trade flows.

6. Article 1 in the Digital Trade Era

Although UCP 600 was drafted in 2007, its principles are timeless. As trade migrates to digital platforms, blockchain systems, and electronic presentations, Article 1 continues to act as the legal compass.

The ICC’s eUCP supplement builds upon Article 1’s foundation. Even digital credits are “subject to UCP 600,” with eUCP rules layered on top to govern electronic documents.

So whether an LC travels via SWIFT or smart contract, Article 1 remains the opening note in the symphony of trust.

7. Core Insights and Practical Takeaways

Article 1 teaches two enduring lessons:

1. Uniformity builds confidence.
   The world’s banks can transact across borders because they share a common rulebook.

2. Flexibility respects commercial reality.
   Parties can tailor credits to fit unique circumstances—so long as they do so clearly.

Stakeholder	What to Remember
Banks	Follow UCP 600 unless LC explicitly says otherwise.
Exporters	Review every clause for modifications or exclusions before shipment.
Importers	Customize LC terms carefully to match your supply chain needs.

8. Case Study: Modification in Practice

Let’s illustrate how Article 1 operates in real life.

Scenario:
A Bangladeshi textile exporter sells garments to a German retailer. The buyer’s bank issues an LC subject to UCP 600, but modifies Article 14 to allow seven banking days for document examination, citing the need for detailed quality inspection.

Result:

• The exporter must wait up to seven days for confirmation.

• The bank gains flexibility to review complex shipping documentation.

• Both sides avoid future disputes because the LC explicitly states the modification.

This demonstrates how Article 1’s framework balances predictability with practicality.

9. Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Assuming “standard practice” overrides the LC text. It doesn’t—what’s written rules.

2. Using implied modifications. Banks won’t recognize changes unless explicit.

3. Failing to read amendments. Even small wording shifts can change your obligations.

4. Over-customizing the LC. Too many exclusions make the credit cumbersome and risk rejection.

Clear drafting and professional advice are the trader’s best allies.

10. Why Article 1 Still Matters

Global trade today exceeds $20 trillion annually, and nearly half of it touches some form of bank-documentary credit.
Despite digital disruption, the bedrock of this system remains the same rule that has guided banks for decades—UCP 600 Article 1.

It delivers a rare combination: standardization for efficiency, flexibility for commerce, and clarity for justice.

Conclusion: The First Article, the Final Word

Article 1 may only span a few lines, but its impact spans the globe. It transforms a mere promise of payment into a structured legal commitment understood from Singapore to São Paulo.

To every exporter and importer, it whispers the same wisdom:

“Trust is built on clarity. Write it clearly, and trade will flow.”

Author Bio

Kazi Suhel Tanvir Mahmud – Trade Finance & Letter of Credit Specialist at Inco-Terms – Trade Finance Insights, is also  AVP and Operations Manager at AB Bank, with 24 years of banking experience, including 17 years specializing in trade finance. He has deep expertise in letters of credit, shipping documentation, and international trade compliance. Throughout his career, he has managed trade finance operations, overseen documentary credits, and ensured adherence to UCP 600 and global banking regulations, supporting exporters, importers, and banking professionals in executing smooth and compliant cross-border transactions.

Connect with me on LinkedIn 

Fatured.com: Kazi Suhel Tanvir Mahmud

 

 

Tweet