The bill of lading is the most important document in an LC presentation. It proves the goods were shipped. It's a document of title. It's the starting point for your presentation deadline. And it generates more discrepancies than any other document type.
Not all BoL discrepancies are equal. Some are arguable — a matter of interpretation where a reasonable examiner might let it pass. Others are automatic rejections. Here are the ones that banks will refuse for every single time.
"Received for shipment" without an on-board notation
A BoL that says "received for shipment" is not the same as one that says "shipped on board." The first means the carrier has received the cargo. The second means the cargo is on the vessel. UCP 600 Article 20(a)(ii) requires a shipped-on-board BoL, or a received-for-shipment BoL with a separate dated on-board notation.
If the BoL says "received for shipment" and there's no stamped notation confirming the goods were loaded on board with a specific date, the bank will refuse. This is one of the most clear-cut discrepancies in trade finance. There's no grey area.
Late shipment
The on-board date on the BoL is later than the latest shipment date in Field 44C. It doesn't matter why the shipment was late. The date is the date. Banks don't consider explanations, delays, or extenuating circumstances.
Even a single day matters. If the LC says latest shipment 30 June and the BoL on-board date is 1 July, it's a discrepancy. Request an amendment to the shipment date before it passes. Don't hope.
Port of loading or discharge doesn't match the LC
The LC specifies ports in Fields 44A/44E and 44B/44F. The BoL must show the same ports. If the shipping line changed the route and loaded at Ningbo instead of Shanghai, the BoL will reflect Ningbo. If the LC says Shanghai, that's a discrepancy.
Some LCs specify "any port in China" or use broader terms. In that case, any Chinese port works. But if a specific port is named, it must match exactly.
This one catches people because the routing change is often beyond the exporter's control. The shipping line decides. But the LC terms are the LC terms, and the bank examines documents against those terms.
Consignee doesn't match
If the LC specifies how the BoL should be consigned — "to order," "to order of issuing bank," or directly to a named party — the BoL must comply exactly. A BoL made out "to order of the shipper" when the LC requires "to order of [issuing bank name]" is discrepant.
"To order" BoLs must be blank endorsed by the shipper. If the endorsement is missing, the BoL isn't properly negotiable. Banks will flag this immediately.
Notify party incorrect or missing
If the LC requires a specific notify party on the BoL, it must appear as specified. A common error is listing the buyer's address slightly differently from how it appears in the LC, or omitting the notify party entirely when the LC requires one.
Some banks are stricter than others on minor address variations. But a missing notify party, when the LC requires one, is an automatic discrepancy.
Claused or unclean BoL
A "clean" BoL means the carrier hasn't noted any defect in the goods or packaging. If the BoL contains a clause like "cartons damp" or "packaging torn" or "shipper's load and count," it may be considered unclean.
UCP 600 Article 27 requires a clean transport document unless the LC says otherwise. "Shipper's load and count" is actually acceptable under ISBP 745 for containerised cargo, but not all examiners agree, and it's a regular source of disputes.
Any notation that suggests the goods were in poor condition at the time of loading makes the BoL claused. Banks will refuse.
Transshipment when the LC prohibits it
If the LC states that transshipment is not allowed, the BoL must not indicate transshipment. A BoL showing a different port between loading and discharge — suggesting the cargo was transferred between vessels — will be refused.
The nuance: Article 20(c)(ii) says that even if the LC prohibits transshipment, a BoL indicating transshipment is acceptable if the goods are shipped in containers and the entire transport is covered by a single BoL. This is one of the more generous provisions in UCP 600, but it only applies to containerised cargo.
Missing original BoLs
If the LC requires a "full set" of original BoLs, you must present all originals. A full set is typically three originals. Presenting two out of three is a discrepancy.
This sounds obvious, but it happens — usually because one original was sent directly to the buyer or retained by the freight forwarder. A full set means a full set.
Freight indication doesn't match
If the LC requires "freight prepaid" and the BoL says "freight collect," that's a discrepancy. The freight indication on the BoL must match the LC terms. Some LCs are silent on freight, which gives you flexibility. But if a specific term is stated, it must appear on the BoL.
The underlying pattern
Most BoL discrepancies share a common cause: the exporter treats the BoL as a document they receive rather than a document they control. The freight forwarder or carrier issues the BoL, and the exporter accepts it as-is.
In reality, the exporter should provide the carrier with shipping instructions that reflect the LC requirements. Consignee wording, notify party details, port names, freight indication — all of this should be specified in your shipping instructions before the BoL is issued, not corrected after.
Review your BoL against the LC the moment you receive it. If something doesn't match, get it corrected before you present. A corrected BoL issued by the carrier is always preferable to a discrepancy notice from the bank.
David Berney is the founder of SmartLC, a trade finance platform for managing the Letter of Credit lifecycle. He builds software for the people who actually prepare, check, and present trade documents.