Bill of Lading Under an LC: The Discrepancies Banks Actually Look For
The Bill of Lading is usually where LC checking slows down.
Carrier, vessel, ports, consignee, notify party, freight, endorsements, on-board wording and signatures all sit on the same document.
The better question is not:
“Does the BL look right?”
It is:
What does this BL need to evidence under this LC?
The short answer
For a port-to-port Bill of Lading, focus on:
| Check | What you are establishing |
|---|---|
| Carrier / signature | Carrier identified and acceptable signature capacity |
| On-board shipment | Goods shipped on board the required vessel |
| Shipment date | Correct date and within the LC deadline |
| Ports | Required loading and discharge points satisfied |
| Consignee / endorsement | Control of goods follows the LC instruction |
| Freight | Prepaid/collect wording satisfies the LC and avoids conflict |
| Originals / clauses | Required set presented; unusual clauses reviewed |
A BL can show the right vessel, ports and goods and still have a problem because the signature capacity, on-board notation, consignee or endorsement is wrong.
1. First confirm you are checking the right transport document
A port-to-port Bill of Lading is generally examined under UCP 600 Article 20.
But an LC may instead require a multimodal document, sea waybill, air transport document or charter party BL.
The rules differ.
Before checking fields, ask:
What transport document does the LC require, and which UCP article applies?
A good-looking document can still be the wrong type of document.
2. Who signed — and for whom?
Under Article 20, the BL should identify the carrier and be signed by the carrier, master or an acceptable agent acting for one of them.
Compare:
OceanLink Logistics Pvt Ltd
As agent
with:
OceanLink Logistics Pvt Ltd
As agent for and on behalf of BlueWave Shipping Ltd, Carrier
The second tells you who the agent represents.
Check
Carrier identified?
Who signed?
Signature capacity clear?
If agent, principal clear?
A signature exists is not the same as a compliant signature.
3. Establish the actual shipment date
Suppose:
Latest shipment: 10 September 2026
BL issue date: 7 September 2026
Shipped on board: 11 September 2026
The earlier issue date does not rescue the shipment. The on-board notation evidences shipment on 11 September.
Now consider a BL issued on 8 September with pre-printed shipped-on-board wording and no separate dated notation. In that case, the issuance date may operate as the shipment date under Article 20.
The practical question is:
Which date on this BL counts as shipment under the applicable rule?
That date also affects the presentation deadline.
4. Watch qualified vessel information
If the BL says:
Intended vessel: MV Eastern Horizon
slow down.
Where vessel information is qualified as intended or similar, the on-board notation may need to identify the actual vessel and shipment date.
This is easy to miss because all the expected words may be present somewhere on the page.
Read the qualification, not just the field.
5. Ports: compare the route, not isolated place names
LC:
Port of loading: Nhava Sheva
Port of discharge: Hamburg
BL:
Place of receipt: Pune
Port of loading: Nhava Sheva
Port of discharge: Hamburg
Place of delivery: Bremen
Pune and Bremen do not automatically create a discrepancy.
Put the route on one line:
Place of receipt → Port of loading → Port of discharge → Place of delivery
Then compare the required loading and discharge points with the credit and consider any effect the extra locations have on the transport evidence.
6. Consignee and endorsement control the goods
Suppose the LC requires:
BL made out to order of issuing bank, notify applicant.
The BL states:
Consignee: ABC Imports LLC
Notify: ABC Imports LLC
Commercially, naming the buyer may look sensible.
Documentarily, it is not what the LC asked for.
Likewise, if the LC requires:
To order, blank endorsed
checking only the front page is not enough. The endorsement on the original matters.
Check
Straight consigned or to order?
Whose order?
Who must endorse?
Is the endorsement present?
This is not just a name-matching exercise. It is about how control of the goods is evidenced.
7. Notify party is not consignee
Suppose the LC requires:
Consignee: To Order of XYZ Bank
Notify: ABC Imports LLC
but the BL reverses the two.
All the same names are on the page, but the roles are wrong.
Use a role check, not a “name appears somewhere” check.
8. Freight Prepaid vs Freight Collect: separate documentary and commercial questions
Suppose the LC requires:
BL marked Freight Prepaid
but the BL says:
Freight Collect
That is a direct documentary issue to investigate.
Now suppose the LC is silent, the invoice says CIF Hamburg and the BL says Freight Collect.
That may be a commercial inconsistency or a cross-document concern. But do not automatically conclude that the BL is documentarily discrepant only because CIF appears elsewhere.
| Situation | Classification |
|---|---|
| LC says Prepaid; BL says Collect | Likely documentary issue |
| LC silent; invoice says CIF; BL says Collect | Potential commercial/cross-document inconsistency |
| Freight wording unclear | Review required before classification |
That distinction matters because the owner and next action can differ.
9. “Clean BL” does not mean the word CLEAN must appear
A clean transport document is one without a clause or notation expressly declaring a defective condition of the goods or packaging.
So:
Packaging torn and contents exposed
is important.
Routine wording such as:
Shipper's load and count
or:
Said to contain
is not automatically an unclean clause.
Search for evidence of defective condition, not the word “clean”.
10. Goods description on the BL can be more general
LC:
1,000 MT PRIME QUALITY AISI 304 STAINLESS STEEL COILS, SLITTED EDGE
BL:
STAINLESS STEEL COILS
That shorter description is not automatically discrepant. UCP 600 allows documents other than the commercial invoice to describe goods in general terms, provided the description does not conflict with the credit.
But:
LC: NEW INDUSTRIAL DIESEL GENERATORS
BL: USED DIESEL GENERATORS
is different. That appears to conflict.
Again:
Different wording is not the test. Conflicting meaning is.
11. Originals and transshipment need judgement
If the LC requires:
Full set 3/3 originals
one scanned BL does not prove the required original set is available.
Also, do not automatically raise a transshipment discrepancy merely because the LC prohibits transshipment and the BL says it may occur. UCP 600 Article 20 contains circumstances where such an indication can still be acceptable for containerised or similar movements covered by the same BL.
This is exactly where keyword matching fails.
A checker should sometimes say:
Potential inconsistency — review required.
rather than confidently manufacture a discrepancy.
Turn a BL issue into an actionable finding
Example:
Likely documentary discrepancy.
What: LC requires Freight Prepaid; BL states Freight Collect.
Evidence: LC transport condition vs BL freight field.
Action: Confirm carrier instruction and whether corrected/reissued BL is possible.
Owner: Documentation / freight forwarder.
Deadline: Before presentation.
Or:
Potential commercial inconsistency — review required.
What: Invoice states CIF; BL states Freight Collect; LC is silent.
Action: Confirm freight arrangement and check for cross-document conflict before classifying.
Owner: Documentation / logistics.
Deadline: Before presentation.
The second finding is deliberately less certain. Good trade judgement includes knowing when the evidence is insufficient.
The five-minute BL check
1. Document / signature
Right transport document? Carrier identified? Signature capacity clear?
2. Shipment
Actual vessel, on-board wording, shipment date, latest shipment date.
3. Route
Port of loading, port of discharge and any additional transport points.
4. Control of goods
Consignee, order wording, endorsement, notify party.
5. Freight / clauses
Prepaid or collect requirement, clean status, transshipment and unusual notations.
6. Presentation
Originals, presentation period and expiry.
If something looks wrong, record the exact requirement, evidence and difference.
Three things to take back to your desk
Don't check a BL as a bag of keywords.
Fields have documentary roles.
Establish the shipment date yourself.
The issue date is not always the date that matters.
Don't manufacture discrepancies from every apparent mismatch.
Some differences need context before they can be classified.
The useful question is:
Does this BL evidence the shipment and control of goods in the manner required by the credit?
Related questions
What are common Bill of Lading discrepancies under an LC?
Typical areas include shipment date, ports, carrier/signature capacity, consignee, endorsement, freight indication, originals and LC-specific transport conditions.
Does the BL goods description have to match the LC exactly?
No. It can generally be stated in more general terms, provided it does not conflict with the credit.
What date is treated as the shipment date?
It depends on the BL wording and any dated on-board notation. Establish it under the applicable transport rule rather than assuming the issue date always controls.
Is Freight Collect a discrepancy if the LC requires Freight Prepaid?
Yes, that is a direct documentary issue to investigate. If the LC is silent, the classification may depend on the rest of the document set and transaction.
Is transshipment always a discrepancy when the LC prohibits it?
No. UCP 600 contains circumstances where a BL may indicate transshipment and still be acceptable. Check the facts before raising the discrepancy.
Does a clean BL need to say “clean”?
No. Clean status depends on whether the document contains clauses declaring defective goods or packaging, not whether the word “clean” appears.
This guide is educational and does not replace examination of the specific credit, applicable ICC rules, international standard banking practice, contractual requirements or professional advice relevant to a particular transaction.