case study on bill of lading

Legal Dictionary

The Law Dictionary for Everyone

Bill of Lading

A bill of lading is a document that details a shipment of goods, which is picked up by a carrier from a shipper. Included on the bill of lading is the type and quantity of goods being shipped, and information as to destination of the shipment. The bill of lading also doubles as a receipt for the receiver of the product, once the product has been delivered. To explore this concept, consider the following bill of lading definition.

Definition of Bill of Lading

• A receipt detailing the goods that are picked up by a carrier from a shipper, and delivered to a particular destination.

1590-1600        Old English

What is a Bill of Lading

A bill of lading is two things: first, it is a detailed list showing exactly what goods are being picked up from a shipper, to be delivered to their final destination; second, it is a receipt for the person, company, or other entity, that ultimately receives the shipment, providing a record of just what goods were delivered, and where they came from.

An example of a bill of lading is the form that is provided by a moving company to a third-party carrier, which will be delivering store fixtures for them to a retail location. The third-party then checks the bill of lading to ensure that it has everything it is supposed to be delivering. The third-party then hands the bill of lading over to the store as a receipt for the goods, once the delivery has been made.

It is crucial that a bill of lading be properly filled out, that it remain with the goods throughout transportation, and that it be delivered with the goods at their final destination. The bill of lading must be signed by authorized individuals at the shipping location and the destination, as well as by the carrier itself. The bill of lading is evidence that a contract exists and, as such, it needs to be appropriately filled out at each step, from the moment the shipment is received, until the moment that it is delivered.

Purposes of a Bill of Lading

Although a Bill of Lading, commonly abbreviated as a “B/L,” or a “BOL,” is only one document, it has several very important functions. The purposes of a bill of lading include:

• To serve as evidence of a contract of carriage (transport)
• To act as a receipt for the goods received, and ultimately delivered, by the carrier
• To serve as a bill of lading title for the goods in shipment

Evidence of a Contract of Carriage

Many believe that a bill of lading is evidence of a contract between the shipper and the carrier, but that is actually not entirely true. When the shipper contacts the carrier to arrange transport of the goods, their contract is created. Whether written or verbal, such a contract includes details about what is being shipped, how it was being shipped, when it is being shipped, and to where it is being shipped. That contract is not, however, a BOL.

The BOL essentially serves as evidence of a contract’s existence and gives the carrier a portable record of how the goods are to be handled. Once created by the carrier, and transmitted to the shipper, the carrier has the go-ahead to pick up the goods and deliver them to the final recipient.

Receipt for the Goods

Once a carrier receives the product, the carrier inspects it, then provides the shipper with a BOL detailing every item the carrier received. Once the bill of lading is issued, this is proof that the carrier has received what he was supposed to receive from the shipper. This receipt for the goods is also proof that every item in the shipment was free from damage when the carrier received them. From here, the carrier must be careful not to damage the shipment. Otherwise, it could be held liable for the damaged goods.

Title for the Goods

A BOL also serves as a title for the goods. This means that the goods are transferred from the shipper to the carrier, which gives the carrier temporary rights over the goods. The BOL follows the goods when they are transferred to the receiver, which is the ultimate destination and the final owner of the goods. Once the goods are delivered, the receiver is given title for the goods, and then he can do whatever he wants with them. He can keep them for himself or even transfer them to someone else.

Bill of Lading Examples

There are several example bill of lading types that exist, to be used depending on the situation. Some of them require signatures, while others do not. In some cases, an original copy must be provided with the delivery of a shipment, but no all. There are also different bill of lading types to be used based on whether or not the shipment is being shipped between companies. As an example, bill of lading types are outlined below:

Straight Bill of Lading

In a straight bill of lading, the person to whom the shipment is being delivered, the “consignee,” is the only person who can sign for and accept the shipment. This bill of lading is non-transferrable. This means that only the named consignee can claim ownership of the goods.

Seaway Bill of Lading

A seaway bill of lading is to track shipments between companies. In these situations, the rules are a little more lenient. For instance, the shipper does not need to submit an original bill of lading to anyone in particular in order to get paid for his services, which is normally the case in other types of shipments. Because no originals are necessary, this kind of release of a shipment is called an “express release.”

Negotiable Bill of Lading

A negotiable bill of lading acts somewhat like a check, consigned (or made payable) to a company, the shipper, or some other entity. This type of BOL is used to get paid, making it very important. Not only that, but obtaining a replacement negotiable bill of lading is a difficult process, which is why those handling this particular type of BOL should be incredibly careful not to misplace it.

A negotiable bill of lading differs from a seaway bill of lading in that it has the terms and conditions of the carrier printed right on the first page. Despite being the first page, this page is called the “back of the bill of lading.” Additionally, this BOL is also important to the receipt of the shipment itself. The shipment may only be released to an authorized agent at the destination, if at least one original negotiable BOL accompanies the shipment. The back of this bill of lading must also be checked to ensure that everyone who was supposed to sign it actually did.

Bill of Lading Titles

Bills of lading can be titled differently, depending on what exactly the carrier is responsible for in a particular shipment. Bill of lading titles include port to port bills of lading, combined transport bills of lading, and through bills of lading. These bill of lading titles are more thoroughly described below.

Port to Port Bill of Lading

A port to port bill of lading is also known as an “ocean bill of lading.” In these shipments, the carrier is responsible for the product from the moment it is loaded at the port. The carrier’s responsibility ends once the shipment is dropped off at the destination, or delivery port. The bill of lading therefore should not mention the place of origin, nor the specific destination, because the product is only going from one port to another. The ports are the middle stops between the origin and the destination.

An example of a port to port bill of lading would be a BOL accompanying a shipment that needs to go through a distribution center, before reaching its ultimate destination. In this case, the shipment would be brought from its original warehouse to the local distribution center. It would then ship from that distribution center to a distribution center closer to the shipment’s destination. A port to port bill of lading would be drafted up to account for the shipment from one distribution center to the other. Neither of these centers is the origin nor the final destination of that shipment.

Combined Transport Bill of Lading

A combined transport bill of lading, also known as a multimodal transport bill of lading, covers multiple methods of transportation, from the moment a shipment is received, to the moment it is delivered to its final destination. This one contract covers the shipment at every step of the process. On a combined transport bill of lading, the carrier is responsible for any loss or damage that occurs to the shipment, at any point, until it reaches its final destination.

Through Bill of Lading

A through bill of lading is similar to the combined transport bill of lading, in that it covers multiple methods of transportation. The difference here is that the carrier is not responsible for the shipment during the entirety of the process. On a through bill of lading, the carrier is only responsible for the sea and inland transport of the shipment, before the shipment continues its voyage inland.

Fraudulent Bills of Lading

Because there are so many players involved with a bill of lading from start to finish, fraudulent bills of lading can pop up at any point during the shipping process. The main motivation behind fraudulent bills of lading is to obtain a valuable cargo.

One of the more common fraudulent bills of lading is a forged document. The forgeries themselves can vary, from the signatures on the forms, to the specific items listed; but one of the most common forgeries is the impersonation of the authorized receiver of the shipment. This enables the thief to steal everything in that shipment. If the bill is “to order” – meaning the bill is in someone’s name specifically – and is transferable, the thief may forge the person’s signature in order to steal the shipment.

Depending on the type of bill of lading that accompanies a shipment, there may be several people involved in the process who can be held legally liable for a shipment never reaching its destination. This unfortunately involves otherwise innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the crime but, as the nature of the bill of lading would suggest, are responsible for the contents of the shipment just the same.

In order to prevent forgeries from being successful, and to prove the authenticity of a BOL, watermarks can be used. The appropriate paper should be used as well, since even the slightest change in the density of the paper or the colors of the ink printed on it can be taken advantage of by thieves. The bill of lading should also be up-to-date, and free of spelling errors, in order to make it easier to identify the more obvious fakes.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

• Carrier – A person or company responsible for the shipment, or “carrying,” of goods.
• Forgery – The act of falsely altering or making a document, thus affecting the legal rights or obligations of another.

The multi-billion-dollar paper jam: Unlocking trade by digitalizing documentation

Imagine you’re a cargo owner in the year 1450. You hand over your goods to the ship that will carry them across the world, and are presented with a bill of lading—a piece of paper stating what you’re shipping, where it comes from, and where it’s heading.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Didier Casanova, David Dierker, Ludwig Hausmann , Bjørnar Jensen, and Jaron Stoffels, representing views from McKinsey’s Travel, Logistics & Infrastructure practice.

Fast forward to the year 2022: The world has changed dramatically, but the bill of lading remains relatively unchanged. Today, the bill of lading process is still reliant on the physical transfer of paper records and applies to roughly 40 percent of all containerized trade transactions. 1 Alan Mitchelhill, “Evolution of the bill of lading,” in Bills of Lading , Boston, MA: Springer, 1990.

Current trade documentation spans many documents and processes, and is a manual, time-consuming, and resource-intensive process for all stakeholders. Documentation for a single shipment can require up to 50 sheets of paper that are exchanged with up to 30 different stakeholders. 2 Henk Jan Gerzee, “Why digital standards matter in global trade,” The Loadstar, June 16, 2022. The bill of lading, issued by carriers to acknowledge receipt of cargo from the shipper, is one of the most important trade documents required for shipping. McKinsey analysis indicates that the bill of lading accounts for between 10 and 30 percent of total trade documentation costs. 3 McKinsey analysis based on interviews with experts, carriers, and shippers. While the banking and aviation industries have implemented digital standards enabling automated trade systems, shipping has not matured far beyond where it was in the 1400s.

Digitalizing trade documentation is an important step that can avoid unnecessary cost, save time, and enable trade. It can also improve supply-chain resilience and help to mitigate inevitable future disruptions. Today’s renewed focus on supply-chain performance and resiliency provides an opportune time for the ocean trade ecosystem to unite and embrace digitalization.

This article builds a case for digitalizing trade documentation and demonstrates how adopting an electronic bill of lading could save $6.5 billion in direct costs and enable between $30 billion and $40 billion in new global trade volume. It also highlights actions that various stakeholders can take to unlock this opportunity in global ocean shipping.

Disruption is inevitable; digitalization can build supply-chain resilience

Recent global challenges made supply-chain resilience an imperative for businesses across the world. The COVID-19 crisis, post-pandemic economic effects, and geopolitical conflicts resulted in critical supply snarls all over the globe. These events, and the disruptions that followed, revealed how important, yet fragile, trade flows are for the global economy.

In today’s environment, supply-chain disruption is constant and impactful. It is no longer an “if”, nor is it really a “when” since it’s both omnipresent and unpredictable at the same time. 4 “Supply chain disruption: Build agility and resilience in the end-to-end supply chain,” Gartner insights. Research by the McKinsey Global Institute found that, on average, companies experience disruption of supply inflows lasting one to two months every 3.7 years—and shorter disruptions happen even more frequently. Furthermore, a single prolonged production-only shock could wipe out between 30 and 50 percent of one year’s EBITDA for companies in most industries—an event that disrupts distribution channels as well would push the losses sharply higher for some. An event that disrupts distribution channels as well would push the losses sharply higher for some. 5 “ Risk, resilience, and rebalancing in global value chains ,” McKinsey Global Institute, August 6, 2020.

Considering that disruption is inevitable, increasing resilience to mitigate the effects of disruption on supply chains has become one of the major challenges of the decade. One way to improve supply-chain resiliency is for industry leaders to focus on elements that can be controlled—rather than attempting to prevent events that cannot be controlled.

For example, when the Icelandic Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted in 2010, 100,000 flights were cancelled, affecting passengers as well as air cargo, and thus supply chains. 6 “Volcano Grimsvötn: How is the European response different to the Eyjafjallajökull eruption last year?”, European Commission, May 26, 2011. Cargo worth an estimated value of $50 billion was substantially delayed in reaching destinations. 7 McKinsey analysis of air cargo volume and trade values based on data sourced from IHS Markit, Eurocontrol, and IATA, see “IATA economic briefing: The impact of Eyjafjallajökull’s volcanic ash plume,” International Air Transport Association (IATA), May 2010. Leaders could not prepare for this event and were instead measured by their ability to react. Supply chains elongated as airborne trade was rerouted around Icelandic airspace, and companies had to quickly identify and book capacity in unfamiliar trade lanes. An outcome of this event was that industry leaders learned that their ability to respond to disruption was directly tied to their ability to share information and transact with their supply-chain partners as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic was first and foremost a humanitarian crisis, the supply-chain disruption it caused has many similarities to the Eyjafjallajökull example. Over the past two and a half years, thousands of containers with missing or incorrect documentation lingered in ports as flights transporting the physical trade documents for these containers were canceled. Without verified documentation, the marine terminal operators and customs authorities could not release the cargo, which exacerbated congestion. This situation resulted in lost sales and higher working capital costs for shippers—and eventually to total loss of value, in the case of seasonal merchandise missing its delivery date. These complications may have been avoided through transparent and accessible digital documentation. And some disruption could have been avoided if physical offices had been quick to adopt remote working processes for trade documentation.

The trade financing market was also affected during the pandemic. Rejected applications for trade credit insurance increased by 60 percent, forcing governments to utilize their export credit agencies to fill financing gaps left by the private market. 8 “Trade finance in the COVID era: Current and future challenges,” OECD, March 23, 2021; Julie Steinberg and Joe Wallace, “Insurance freeze snarls U.S. supply chains”, Wall Street Journal , September 22, 2022. The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), one of the largest providers of short-term government export support, reported a 112 percent increase in working capital guarantees and a 12 percent increase in short-term export credit insurance during the 2020 fiscal year. 9 Export-Import Bank of the United States, 2020 Annual Report.

During this period, greater levels of digitalization could have helped government export credit agencies to accelerate communication with trade insurance applicants. The faster and more efficient exchange of documents may have allowed government institutions to fill the trade finance gaps left by the private market much earlier.

Would you like to learn more about our Travel, Logistics & Infrastructure Practice ?

It’s time to reshape outdated global trade standards.

These recent events have made it apparent that information sharing, collaboration, and greater visibility can build resilience to disruption. Digitalization plays a key role in building resilience as it enables the flow of information. However, 30 years after the “go-live” of the internet, and 25 years after purely digital cross-border ecommerce processes were established, trade documentation processes are still largely manual.

For example, many bills of lading are still reliant on the physical transfer of paper records—and the documentation process alone can take six hours, or more, across all stakeholders. Furthermore, other important trade documents, like letters of credit and customs declarations, require the paper-based bill of lading as a prerequisite for their creation and issuance.

The original bill of lading still requires many stakeholders to print, stamp, and sign various paper copies before physically transporting them from origin to destination as air express shipments (Exhibit 1). This non-digital process is costly, takes time to execute, and is highly susceptible to errors.

While other industries have captured the impact of digitalized documentation, shipping is only beginning to make progress

The banking industry represents a reasonable comparison for shipping: It is an industry that depends upon documentation and data exchange between various stakeholders, and requires that transmission of this data maintains its accuracy and confidentiality. The banking industry has successfully digitalized many documentation processes by establishing SWIFT, an information exchange system using universally valid, and fixed standards for secure transactions.

Shipping carriers have historically focused more on the physical utilization of assets (ships), rather than on the efficient exchange of information between stakeholders. The small margins and low returns on capital within the industry may have prevented carriers from thinking beyond containers and contribution margin.

Digitalization of the bill of lading has been slow and difficult to date, as various stakeholders are involved in the process, all of whom have different interests, needs, and systems—and must be approached individually. In addition, many other documents are connected to the bill of lading process via a multitude of interfaces, so that individual digitalization initiatives may have been dismissed as unattractive due the limited impact that a single stakeholder can make on its own. The bill of lading also requires acceptance of regulators globally and may seem too big to address by a single private entity. Furthermore, the bill of lading is a document of title and therefore requires the highest possible security standards, over and above e-mail or electronic data interchange (EDI) standards, and this creates additional concerns for all parties involved. The shipping industry has started to work on common standards for digital documents as the banking industry has done.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, paper-based processes may have added to the stresses that impacted global supply chains. However, the recent attention paid to ocean supply chains has spurred progress, and the container shipping industry is now working to resolve digitalization roadblocks. The shipping ecosystem has experienced increased consolidation and record-high profitability, enabling carriers to invest in ambitious digital agendas. Carriers seeking to get closer to their customers have made digital interfaces a strategic priority for growth.

Shipping is also experiencing a renewed focus on industry collaboration. Stakeholders are collaborating in a variety of collective action forums including the Getting to Zero Coalition, Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, TradeLens, and the Global Shipping Business Network. These industry bodies are accelerating the alignment required to set industry goals such as sustainability and digitalization targets.

Digitalization has also been bolstered by organizations actively setting and promoting digital change. For example, the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA), a collaboration between several large container shipping companies, has helped the industry to establish digital standards for critical building blocks of information exchange, like electronic bills of lading and vessel schedules.

Trade digitalization is a multi-billion-dollar opportunity

The digitalization of trade documentation may be considered to be a mundane task, but the impact it could deliver would be significant. Various international bodies have estimated the effect that digitalization would have on global trade. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) projects that paperless trade could create $267 billion of additional exports across G7 countries, compared to base forecasts, by 2026. 10 “G7: Creating a modern digital trade ecosystem,” United Kingdom International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), 2021. And the World Trade Organization reports that implementing the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) could increase global trade by between $750 billion and $1 trillion a year. 11 “World Trade Report 2015,” World Trade Organization, 2015. The TFA aims to reduce the trade costs of import and export activities and accelerate the clearance of goods by setting digitalization standards such as electronic data submission between agencies and the use of digital signatures. Implementing the TFA would likely produce wide-ranging economic benefits, especially in emerging and developing countries.

The ICC notes that the use of paper-based processes places an extraordinary burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) seeking to trade internationally—and digitalization would help close this trade finance gap. 12 The ICC projects that in the UK, digitalizing transferable documents would generate £1 billion to tackle the trade financing gap. See “Creating a modern digital trade ecosystem: The economic case to reform UK law and align to the UNCITRAL Model Law On Electronic Transferrable Records (MLETR),” ICC, 2021. According to the World Economic Forum, the current trade finance gap, or the amount of requested trade finance that is rejected, is estimated at $1.5 trillion globally, with SMEs suffering the most. 13 “Why exporters need to mind the trade finance gap,” World Economic Forum, February 10, 2020.

Given this global context, the size and potential impact of the digitalization opportunity, and the importance of the bill of lading, McKinsey analyzed how an electronic bill of lading could add value. The analysis indicates that digitalizing the bill of lading—which accounts for 10 to 30 percent of trade documentation costs—could unlock more than $15.5 billion in direct benefit to the shipping ecosystem and up to $40 billion in increased trade. 14 McKinsey analysis based on interviews with experts, carriers, and shippers.

The analysis quantifies the expected impacts of 100 percent adoption of an electronic bill of lading on ocean carrier costs, for stakeholders in the broader shipping ecosystem, and on broader trade enablement. This quantification illustrates the substantial impact that can be generated from digitalizing a single, yet critical, component of trade documentation.

Adopting an electronic bill of lading could lead to direct cost savings for all stakeholders, amounting to $6.5 billion a year. Carriers could realize up to $2.1 billion in benefits such as more direct interaction with shippers, and streamlined and digitalized workloads, leading to cost savings. New digital capabilities could also lead to new revenue stream for carriers, for example through improved customer journeys. A further $6.9 billion in value could be unlocked for the broader trade ecosystem. Ultimately, greater digitalization could enable $40 billion in global trade by 2030 (Exhibit 2).

There is no better time than now to digitalize the bill of lading

Several factors indicate that the industry is ready to embark on digitalizing the bill of lading. First, digital standards for the bill of lading have been established. Data and process standards for the submission of shipping instructions and issuance of the bill of lading have already been established through DCSA, and accepted by nine container carriers that represent 70 percent of containerized trade.

Second, the required IT investment to accommodate a digital bill of lading is low. McKinsey estimates that limited investments into IT connectivity and employee training would enable this transition. These costs would be more than offset by the aforementioned cost savings.

Third, electronic bill of lading transactions already exist—and they work. Over the past 25 years several providers such as Bolero International and WAVE BL have established platforms to exchange electronic bills of lading. While around 1 percent of all bill of ladings are digital today, this adoption proves that the process has been tested and it works. 15 “DCSA begins final phase of eBL platform interoperability proof of concept,” Digital Container Shipping Association, July 12, 2022.

Driving decarbonization: Accelerating zero-emission freight transport

The industry is capable of making the change.

Evidence from frontrunning market participants, as well as digitalization journeys of other industries, shows that ocean trade can adopt digital trade documentation in 3 to 4 years, and reach 100 percent adoption by 2030. The industry is well positioned to make this change.

For instance, the airline industry and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) scaled the electronic airwaybill for cargo shipments—a digital process that is replacing paper-based trade documentation—from a small percentage in 2012 to more than 50 percent adoption in 2017. 16 Based on IATA’s e-AWB international monthly reports.

Lighthouse examples exist of market participants in ocean trade that are striving for change. ZIM International Shipping Lines has set ambitious targets for digitalizing trade documentation. The carrier started educating customers about the benefits of an electronic bill of lading and trained its workforce to get familiar with the new process. The effort yielded results very quickly: After one year, the carrier tripled its adoption rate of the electronic bill of lading from 3 percent to 10 percent.

Furthermore, frontrunner ports and their local governments including Singapore and Abu Dhabi have set the regulatory framework to treat digital documents just like paper-based documents. 17 “Singapore trialing digital documentation with two Chinese ports to cut paperwork,” Hellenic Shipping News, December 11, 2020; “Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore and Port of Rotterdam to establish world’s longest Green and Digital Corridor for efficient and sustainable shipping,” Port of Rotterdam, August 2, 2022; “Abu Dhabi Ports collaborating with MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company on international blockchain solution Silsal,” Abu Dhabi Ports, October 20, 2018. Other countries are about to follow suit, and the United Kingdom has already announced that digital trade documentation forms part of the government’s legislative agenda. 18 Digital trade and data: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report , House of Commons, October 2021.

A path forward: Unlocking potential through digitalization

There is an opportunity for stakeholders—including carriers, financial institutions, customs authorities, shippers, and freight forwarders—to work together to further trade digitalization efforts, and reap the benefits. Stakeholders could consider the following four actions that would facilitate industry-wide adoption of an electronic bill of lading and greater trade documentation digitalization (Exhibit 3).

1. Continue data standardization efforts

The complete end-to-end digitalization of container trade requires industry-wide standards for data structure and transmission. Stakeholders can build upon on existing standardization efforts, for instance by working with major players such as trade financiers and public authorities to contractually agree on a specific standard to make the transformation of the entire ecosystem as cost-effective and universally applicable as possible.

2. Set ambitious targets for digitalization

Various stakeholders can take action to set targets and associated KPIs:

• Carriers could activate internal change management programs to facilitate digitalization, supported by information and training campaigns. They could also form digitalization-dedicated teams to develop achievable road maps and KPIs, with actionable steps, and lead system integration projects.
• Banks and trade financing institutions could integrate the newly defined standards into existing systems and facilitate wide-spread adoption of a digital letter of credit solution.
• Customs authorities could accelerate digitalization that enables data receiving, for instance through a shipping application programming interface (API). They could also build road maps to enhance digital infrastructure, and prompt regulators to set guidelines that allow for digital document submission and transmission.
• Shippers and freight forwarders could increase their knowledge of new ways of working through training so that a smooth transition is guaranteed. They could also set milestones including tangible sub-targets, for example a fixed date for when a central supplier should be fully connected digitally in terms of trade documentation.

3. Collaborate with partners to accelerate the digitalization journey

All stakeholders can scale up current electronic bill of lading solutions and work together to keep existing infrastructure running, as collaboratively as possible. The industry can move to finalize electronic bill of lading solutions and API integrations to jointly shift to the new era of container shipping.

4. Accelerate acceptance by incentivizing stakeholders and customers

All relevant stakeholders could accept a defined approach, and commit to implementation, ideally guided by a neutral party. They could also enhance the interoperability of the electronic bill of lading with existing systems, simplify connectivity, and reduce barriers in terms of costs and time—especially for SMEs.

The time is ripe for all stakeholders across the global ocean trade ecosystem to join forces, work collaboratively to digitalize trade documentation, and usher in a digitalized “new normal.” Doing so could future-proof the industry, and shape a more inclusive global trade system. In particular, adopting an electronic bill of lading could result in significant cost savings and boost global trade.

Didier Casanova is a partner in McKinsey’s Brussels office, David Dierker is a senior expert in the Zurich office, where Bjørnar Jensen is a senior partner, Ludwig Hausmann is a partner in the Munich office, and Jaron Stoffels is a consultant in the Düsseldorf office.

The authors wish to thank Maximilian Menden and Elsa Reißmann for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Charting global shipping’s path to zero carbon

Green corridors: A lane for zero-carbon shipping

Hello. You're getting this layout because you're using an obsolete web browser. Please upgrade it , to get the full flavor.

  maritime law virtual database, sea carriage.

Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea v China Navigation Ltd [1967- 68] PNGLR 239 (1 December 1967)

Sea Carriage- Loss of goods unshipped under Collector’s Permit

The defendant carrier shipped the plaintiff’s goods from Sydney to Port Moresby. On arrival the goods were unshipped and landed under a Collector’s permit pursuant to provisions of the Custom’s Ordinance 1951-1962. The goods were placed in a place of security approved by the collector. While in this storage a portion of the goods were unlawfully taken. The plaintiff commenced an action against the carrier claiming damages for breach of contract of carriage by sea alleging failure to keep safely and take care of the cargo. The defendant submitted that the loss arose after the completion of the discharge of the cargo from the ship. The Hague Rules were applicable to the bills of lading but any liability under those rules arose from the time the goods were loaded until they are unshipped from the vessel. The parties had also included an exemption in the bill of lading limiting the liability of the defendant once the goods were unshipped. The defendant relied on s.69 of the Custom’s Ordinance 1951-1962 which stated: “Goods unshipped and landed under a Collector’s permit shall be placed by, and at the expense of, the master or owner of the ship or the pilot or owner of the aircraft from which they were unshipped, in a place of security approved by the Collector and shall, until lawfully removed from that place, be at the risk of the master or owner of the ship or the pilot or owner of the aircraft as if they had not been unshipped.” DECISION: Claim dismissed. HELD: Section 69 must be read in the context of the Custom’s Ordinance 1951-1962. The risk being referred to in s.69 is liability to duty owed under the Ordinance. The Ordinance cannot have the effect of imposing a liability on the carrier over and above and in direct contradiction to those liabilities contained in the contract of carriage.

Belae v Markwarth Shipping Company Ltd [1981] SBHC 10; [1980-1981] SILR 218 (23 October 1981)

Sea Carriage- Cargo Receipt not a contract of carriage for the purposes of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

The Appellant had goods dispatched to himself on a vessel operated by the Respondent. The seller of the goods handed the goods over to the Respondent for shipping to the Appellant. On receipt of the goods, the Respondent gave the seller a document entitled ‘Cargo Receipt’. It was agreed that in arranging the shipment of the goods the seller acted as an agent for the Appellant. When the vessel arrived at the location of the Appellant some of the merchandise had gone missing. The appellant issued a writ of summons. At the hearing the Magistrate found in favour of the defendant carrier. The carrier relied on a limitation clause printed on the back of the Cargo Receipt which provided that the shipper must notify the carrier of a loss within one month of shipment. The Magistrate found that the Cargo Receipt did not incorporate the terms of the contract between the parties as that document was not brought to the attention of the shipper or his agent before the contract was concluded. However, the Magistrate gave judgement for the carrier on the basis of the time limitation set out in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (chapter 103). The shipper appealed. DECISION: Appeal allowed. HELD: The Cargo Receipt was not a contract of carriage as defined by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and thus the defence of limitation was not available to the carrier. A bill of lading as defined by the act is a document of title and the Cargo Receipt expressly stated that it did not constitute a bill of lading or a document of title to the goods.

Burns Philp (South Seas) Company Ltd v Marine Pacific Ltd [1979] FJCA 4; Civil Appeal No 07 of 1979 (25 July 1979) aff’g.

Burns Philp (South Sea) Company Ltd v Marine Pacific Ltd [1979] FJSC 9; [1979] 25 FLR 57 (16 January 1979).

Sea Carriage- Bill of Lading- Contract for Carriage of Goods by Sea- Deck cargo lost at sea; excluded by Bill of Lading

The plaintiff contracted with the defendant to ship cargo from Suva to Labasa. The cargo was carried on the deck of a barge and when the barge was damaged during the voyage, the cargo was lost. The bill of lading was stamped with a clause stating: “cargo carried on deck at shipper’s risk without responsibility for loss or damage howsoever caused”. Condition 26 of the bill of lading provided that “all goods shipped as deck cargo to be carried at owner’s risk”. The bill of lading contained a clause subjecting it to the rules in the Sea Carriage of Goods Ordinance Cap. 207. The plaintiff claimed a breach of contractual duty by the defendant in failing to ensure that the cargo was properly secured, and in failing to deliver the cargo. The plaintiff also claimed a breach of duty under the Sea Carriage of Goods Ordinance. The defendant denied the claims and claimed protection of the exclusion clause inserted by the parties inthe bill of lading. DECISION: Plaintiff’s claim dismissed. HELD: The Court said that the bill of lading did stipulate that the rules in the Ordinance did apply. As a result, Condition 26 of the bill of lading on its own would be without effect- by virtue of the application of Article III of the rules which defines the responsibilities and liabilities of the parties. However, the rules apply to “goods” defined as “goods, wares, merchandise and articles of every kind whatsoever, except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried”. Thus to escape the operation of the rules the goods must not only be carried on deck, but it must be stated in the bill of lading that the goods are to be carried on deck. The stamped clause in this case fit this exception to the application of the rules, and effectively limited the liability of the carrier. The plaintiff argued that the stamped clause was not wide enough to exclude negligence, and that negligence must be expressly included in the wording of the clause. The court reasoned that the effect of the clause was to change the liability of the carrier from that of a common carrier to a carrier only under an obligation to take reasonable care. There had been no fundamental breach of contract, and to hold the defendant liable would be to deprive the exclusion clause of all of its content. APPEAL: The plaintiff appealed the decision on the grounds that the lower court should have taken a stricter interpretation of the exclusion clause; and that the defendant had failed to prove that it was not guilty of any fundamental breach. The appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff had not pled fundamental breach. As to the appellant’s argument that the onus was on the respondent to show what had happened to the goods, the Appeal Court found that the appellant had already stated in its Statement of Claim that the goods had been washed overboard. Failure to deliver the goods per se did not suffice to show fundamental breach without evidence that the loss had been caused by some act outside of the contract of carriage. As to the lower court’s interpretation of the clause, the Appeal Court agreed that the Ordinance did not apply to these goods because of the stamped clause on the bill of lading. The clause was an express stipulation in the contract of affreightment which effectively altered the liability of the carrier. The words were wide enough to encompass negligence; and because of other limits to liability clauses contained in the bill of lading the clause would be without effect if it did not include negligence.

Danzas Pty Ltd v Williams & Gosling Ltd [1994] FJHC 113; Hbc0276.91s (7 September 1994)

Sea Carriage- Bill of Lading- Waybill- Custom- exceptional C.O.D. consignment requires forewarning

The plaintiff and defendant are freight forwarding companies; the plaintiff in Australia and the defendant in Fiji. The parties had a longstanding business relationship. In this instance the plaintiff took delivery of leather from Italy and shipped it to Fiji. The shipment was consigned to the defendant under cover of a waybill. With the shipment were 2 further waybills issued by the plaintiff and naming the Italian suppliers as the shippers and Island Furniture and the 3rd party as consignees. The latter waybills contained special instructions- there was to be C.O.D. payment before the goods were released. There were additional written instructions as to the required C.O.D. payment on the waybill. The consignments went to Island Furniture without payment. The leather was made into furniture which was sent to Australia and subsequently Island Furniture went into receivership. The plaintiff issued proceedings against the defendant seeking damages for breach of contract and negligence. The defendant denied liability, but in case of liability sought indemnity from the 3rd party on the basis that the leather shipment had been consigned to the 3rd party. DECISION: Judgement for the plaintiff for 75% of claim; 3rd party claim dismissed. HELD: The plaintiff and defendant were bound contractually by an agency relationship. On this basis the defendant owed to the plaintiff a duty of care in tort and contract. The court found that the defendant had in fact not complied with the instructions on the waybill and had breached its duty to the plaintiff in contract and in tort. However, the court also found that C.O.D. consignments are very rare in Fiji and therefore the plaintiff should have forewarned the defendant about the exceptional consignment. For this reason the plaintiff was found partly responsible for its loss. The 3rd party claim failed on the pleadings. The defendant based its claim on the 3rd party ordering the goods but should have based its claim on the 3rd party’s assignment of the goods after it had accepted consignment from the defendant.

Finch v Seafreight Pty Ltd [1976] PGNC 23; [1976] PNGLR 440 (6 October 1976)

Sea Carriage- Loss in transit- Protective provisions of the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1951- Onus of proof

The plaintiff shipped 2 crates of personal possessions from Loloho to Port Moresby on one of the defendant’s ships. The goods were lost. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of duty of carriage, storage and delivery of goods by sea. A judgement in default was entered against the defendant. On the assessment of damages the defendant argued that its liability was limited by Art. IV r 5 in the 2nd schedule of the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1951. DECISION: For the plaintiff HELD: The court looked to the definition of “carriage of goods” in the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1951. The period covered was from the time the goods were loaded until the goods were discharged from the ship. The onus was on the defendant to show that the loss occurred during this period in order to come within the clause and limit their liability. Because a default judgement had been entered the defendant could not seek to limit its liability by reliance on the exclusion clause in the Bill of Lading.

Hauhaea v Laurabada Shipping Services Ltd [2005] PGDC 31; DC200 (13 July 2005)

Sea Carriage- Bill of Lading- Action for loss of goods- Onus

The plaintiff arranged with the defendant company to ship his goods on two occasions. On both occasions a portion of the shipment was not received by the plaintiff and recorded as lost. The plaintiff sought to recover for these losses on the contract of carriage contained in the Bill of Lading. The complainant argued that the goods were not lost before loading or after discharge from the ship. DECISION: Claim dismissed. HELD: Clause 6 of the Bill of Lading expressly limits the liability of the defendant to losses incurred during the time that the goods were on the ship. As such the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the loss occurred during the period from when the goods were loaded to the time the goods were discharged as per the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1951. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus.

Hunt v Australasian United Steam Navigation Company Ltd [1919] FJSC 1; [1919] 2 FLR 72 (1 January 1919); aff’d on appeal to Privy Council (17 June, 1921) LRAC 1921, vol. 2, 351.

Maritime Torts- Negligence and Breach of duty- Cargo damaged as a result of malfunctioning insulating apparatus; Seaworthiness of vessel implied warranty in bill of lading

The plaintiff shipped a load of fruit from Fiji to Australia. On arrival the bananas which had been carried in the insulating chamber of the vessel were damaged and the plaintiff suffered damage as a result. The plaintiff alleged that the insulating machinery was not operating properly. The bill of lading implied a warranty of seaworthiness and the plaintiffs claimed for damages for negligence and breach of duty. DECISION: Damages awarded to the plaintiff. HELD: By section 7(1) of Ordinance No. 1 of 1926 every bill of lading has an implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. To recover the plaintiff must satisfy the court that the fruit was shipped in good condition and properly packed. The defendant must satisfy the court that the insulating apparatus was in good working order. The court found that the insulating apparatus was not in working order and this went to the seaworthiness of the vessel. The bill of lading stipulates that the plaintiff must give notice of his claim within 7 days of arrival at the port of discharge. This clause did not apply because the damage was due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel. The bill of lading contained no stipulation as to seaworthiness so that was implied by s.7(1). In that case the express terms of the bill of lading did not apply to the implied contract.

International Watersport Management Ltd v Pearl Creations Company Ltd [2002] TOCA 7; CA 10 2002 (23 July 2002)

Sea Carriage- Charter- Authority of master to contract for the carriage of goods in the course of the business of the vessel.

The appeal arose out of the spoiling of a cargo of live oysters carried by a vessel owned by the appellant. The respondent chartered the appellant’s vessel to transport the oysters. At the trial it was established that the duration of the voyage as well as the temperature were crucial to the preservation of the cargo of live oysters. The respondent spoke with the master of the vessel who stated that the voyage could be made in 8-10 hours overnight. The respondent then met with the managing director of the appellant and arranged for the charter and the payment. The lower court found that the duration of the voyage was not part of the oral contract between the appellant and respondent. Prior to the voyage the master arranged for pilotage for his arrival at his destination in 10 hours. The lower court inferred that the duration of the voyage and the pilotage had been left by the appellant for the master to settle and once settled became terms of the contract between the parties. The owner of the vessel appealed. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. HELD: The owner could not claim the freight and at the same time repudiate the terms on which the cargo had been received. The owner was aware that the master would arrange pilotage on arrival and therefore duration of the voyage. It is settled law that the master has the authority to contract for the carriage of goods in the course of the business of the vessel.

Maharaj v Burns Philip (SS) Company Ltd [1994] FJHC 56; Hbc0178j.89s (3 June 1994)

Sea Carriage- Company which arranges shipment has no duty of care outside of contract.

The defendant company arranged for the shipment of the plaintiff’s vehicle from Suva to Sydney. The vehicle was extensively damaged on the voyage and the plaintiff brought a claim for damages for negligence and for breach of contract. DECISION: Claim dismissed. HELD: The plaintiff did not have a claim in tort. The liability arose out of the contract and there was no duty of care owed outside of the contract. The plaintiff was an ‘arranger’ only by the terms of the contract, and was not liable for the failings of the shipper.

Pimco Shipping Pty Ltd v Moeder, Hermann and Moeher Trading Pty Ltd [1987] PGNC 57; [1987] PNGLR 427 (23 December 1987)

Sea Carriage- Sea Carriage of Goods Act- limitation period- indemnity proceedings barred if claim barred

The carrier of cargo sought to be indemnified by the owner of the ship in respect of a judgement brought against him for damages lost for goods in transit. The owners of the goods in the original action brought the action against the ship owners severally or jointly, the named ship owners being the plaintiff and 3rd defendant in the present action. At the time of the loss the 1st and 2nd defendants were negotiating with the plaintiff for the purchase of the vessel. At the time of the loss the court found that the company had not yet been formed and the 1st and 2nd defendants were the owners and personally potentially liable. The defendants relied on the Sea Carriage of Goods Act (c 261) Art. III r 6 wherein a suit for loss and damages to goods must be brought within one year of the loss. DECISION: Action dismissed. HELD: The plaintiff’s action is based on the claim of the owners of the goods and that action was not brought against the 1st and 2nd defendant. The action is out of time pursuant to the limitation provision found in the Sea Carriage of Goods Act. A cause of action for indemnity depends on the support of liability on the part of the indemnitor. A claim by the cargo owner against the 1st and 2nd defendant would be barred at this time therefore the cause for indemnity against these parties is also barred. For success in the present action, the plaintiff should have joined the 1st and 2nd defendants in the action by the cargo owners.

Rabaul Stevedores Ltd v Seeto [1984] PGNC 43; [1984] PNGLR 248; N483 (5 October 1984)

Bill of Lading- exemption clause- stevedores performing services of contract protected

The plaintiff’s goods were shipped in a container. The container was taken to the wharf shed and unpacked by the stevedores. While the plaintiff’s goods were in the shed, some went missing. At trial the court found the stevedores and Harbours Board liable for the loss. The defendants appealed. The stevedores argued that even if negligence or breach of bailment had been proved against them they were exempted from liability under clause 5 of the bill of lading which purported to exempt sub-contractors, servants and agents from liability. DECISION: Appeal allowed HELD: It is settled law that the exclusion clause in the bill of lading can apply to the stevedores even though they were not parties to the contract of carriage. The bill of lading brings into existence a bargain which is capable of becoming mutual between the consignor and the stevedore made through the carrier as the agent. Therefore the exemption clause protects stevedores performing services under that contract.

Stettin Bay Lumber Company Pty Ltd v Arya Ship Management Ltd [1995] PGSC 7; SC488 (29 September 1995)

Sea Carriage- Action for loss of goods- Jurisdiction- agreement as to jurisdiction in bill of lading does not extend to letter of indemnity

In the original hearing leading up to this appeal the plaintiff/respondent commenced proceedings in the National Court seeking a Declaration that the defendant/appellant was liable to indemnify the plaintiff in accordance with a letter of indemnity. A ship was chartered by the plaintiff/respondent to carry a cargo of logs belonging to the defendant/appellant. At the time the ship sailed for Japan a letter of indemnity was signed by an officer of the appellant. The cargo was lost off the coast of Japan. Following the loss the parties agreed to have all issues concerning the loss or damage to the cargo determined according to Japanese law in Japan. On the basis of this agreement the appellant submitted that all issues concerning loss or damage were to be determined according to Japanese law in Japan, and sought a stay of the proceedings commenced by the plaintiff/respondent in the National Court. That stay was denied and that is the subject of this appeal. DECISION: Appeal denied. HELD: The dispute at issue existed under the letter of indemnity. The plaintiff/respondent had made a claim under the letter of indemnity which was denied and that gave rise to the commencement of proceedings in the National Court. The court found that the plaintiff’s action was distinct from any action based on the bill of ladingthe issues of who was liable for damaged cargo due to breaches of a bill of lading might not be the same as the issues of who was liable under a letter of indemnity. The agreement which bound the parties to have their claim determined according to Japanese law did not extend to the letter of indemnity. That agreement on jurisdiction related to the cause of action for loss of cargo due to breaches of contract of carriage, and was distinct from the plaintiff/respondent’s claim against the defendant/appellant pursuant to a letter of indemnity. The appellant/defendant is a PNG company and the letter of indemnity which gave rise to the cause of action was created and executed in PNG and thus prima facie governed by PNG law.

Walters v Kimbe Shipping & Transport Pty Ltd [1999] PGDC 19; DC65 (3 September 1999)

Sea Carriage- failure to properly document shipment

The plaintiffs shipped cargo from Kimbe to Lae. When they enquired about the shipment at the first defendant’s shipping company in Kimbe they were told to bring the cargo to the harbour the next day between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m.. The plaintiff was given a document by the defendant shipping company to allow access into the Harbour Board gate. The plaintiffs delivered their cargo that same evening at 7 p.m. The cargo was loaded onto the vessel. The ship, owned by the second defendant, sailed the next day. The cargo was not off-loaded at Lae but went on to Moresby and Alotau. The plaintiff went to Lae one week after the cargo was shipped from Kimbe. The plaintiff paid the freight charges at that time and was told that the cargo had not been unloaded at Lae. The plaintiffs brought an action in negligence claiming that the first defendant had failed to prepare and issue sufficient and proper documentation in the form of a bill of lading. The plaintiff claimed that the second defendant failed to include the plaintiff’s cargo on the manifest list, failed to inform the stevedoring company to off-load the cargo, and failed to properly check the cargo hold. DECISION: Claim dismissed. HELD: It is customary to pay for freight charges prior to shipping a piece of cargo from port to port. There is no liability where the bailor has not complied with standard practice. The plaintiffs had disregarded instructions to come to the office the next day during business hours. There was no mistake on an oral contract- freight charges should have been paid prior to shipping. Failing that the plaintiff had a duty to meet the cargo when it arrived in Lae. The cargo was not properly documented because of the plaintiff’s failure to pay freight charges. The plaintiff did not complete the documentation regarding payment of freight charges which would have included his cargo entry on to the inward cargo manifest and the issuance of a bill of lading.

Wani v Consort Express Lines [2003] PGDC 5; DC93 (11 July 2003)

Sea Carriage- Limitation period

The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant for compensation for damage to cargo transported by the defendant. The defendant applied for a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to institute proceedings within the statutory time limit required by Art. 111.6 of the Schedule of the Sea Carriage Act c.261. DECISION: Application to dismiss granted. HELD: Suit must be brought within one year after delivery of the goods. This claim was filed more than 2 years after delivery.

• Environmental Pollution
• Law of the Sea
• Liability & Compensation
• Marine Inquiry
• Sale of Ship
• Salvage and Wrecks
• Sea Carriage
• Seaworthiness
• Shipping & Navigation
• Summaries of Cases
• Useful Links

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: /maritime-law/wp-content/themes/paclii

• Loss Prevention
• Maritime Health

BSEE: Ensuring tools meet all guarding and safety standards

Fifth body recovered from Baltimore’s waters

ABS: Key recommendations on fire fighting suits

Britannia: Navigating break bulk cargo challenges

• Intellectual

Stay SEAFiT: Embracing a digital diet for greater well-being

Why soft skills are important for effective crew management

Book Review: The six pillars of self-esteem

American Club: Knowing the ropes of mental health at sea

• Green Shipping
• Ship Recycling

IMO biofouling project extended for another year

Trafigura signs contract for low-carbon ammonia-powered gas carriers

IOPC Funds addresses the dangers of dark fleet tankers

First ISCC EU-certified marine biofuel delivered by Malaysian supplier

• Connectivity
• Cyber Security
• E-navigation
• Energy Efficiency
• Maritime Software

MASS Roadmap: Important dates to keep in mind

New program focuses on ammonia fuel safety

Three parties join forces over seafarer telehealth platform

Hapag-Lloyd launches container tracking solution

RISK4SEA: Important KPIs for PSC inspections during Q1 2024

Tokyo MoU PSC Annual Report 2023

AMSA: ISM code related deficiencies were the most popular in 2023

AMSA Inspection Report: Heavy load carriers were the poorest performing ships in 2023

• Diversity in shipping
• Maritime Knowledge
• Sustainability

Sea-Intelligence: Liner reliability improves during March 2024

The importance of ESG principles for the Swedish Club

Svitzer completes demerger from Maersk after 45 years

IMO: Criteria for accepting Insurance Certificates

Cyberattacks on the rise – key recommendations

Career Paths: Stephanie Sjöblad, ALANDIA

Manufacturers and suppliers supporting global implementation of biosecurity regulations

Trending tags.

• Book Review
• Career Paths
• Human Performance
• Industry Voices
• Maritime History
• Regulatory Update
• Seafarers Stories
• Training & Development
• Wellness Corner
• Wellness Tips

Risks from cargo delivery without original Bills of Lading: Two case studies

The Japan P&I Club shared two recent cases of cargo delivery without production of original bills of lading, to highlight that this is a risky practice for owners and carriers. The Club has encountered several disputes in which vessels were placed under arrest as a consequence of cargo delivery without production of original bills of lading.

A bill of lading is  a contract issued by a carrier (shipping line), or by the agent, to the owner of the goods shipped, to acknowledge receipt of cargo for shipment. The document basically states  what goods are being shipped , as well as  where the shipment is coming from and heading to .

Related News

Lessons learned: ensure that sufficient slack is allowed when handling mooring lines.

The owners delivered the cargo without production of original bills of lading at the discharge port in China against the charterers’ Letter of Indemnity (“LOI”).

After the cargo was delivered, the consignee collected somehow only one of the original bills of lading from the bank which had opened a Letter of Credit in respect of the cargo, and provided it to the owners’ agent.

The bank, however, commenced legal proceedings against the owners before one year anniversary, which is the time limit of claims from the bills of lading holders ruled on the governing law on the bills of lading, and arrested Vessel A based on the two original bills of lading it held.

The owners called upon the head charterers to procure release of the vessel by providing bail or security pursuant to the LOI, but they refused on the grounds that their voyage charterers, who provided a similarly-worded LOI, declined to provide bail or security.

In order to obtain the release of the vessel, the owners issued a surety bond by depositing a large amount in cash. The litigation is still ongoing in China.

According to the lawyers’ advice, even if the owners argue in the arrest proceedings that the two remaining bills of lading became null and void because one original bill of lading was collected by the owners, the Chinese courts would refuse to uphold the owners’ argument because the cargo was at the time delivered without production of any original bills of lading.

Although charterers’ LOI may ultimately afford legal and financial protection to the owners for the loss and damage incurred, the owners have incurred significant costs in defending this misdelivery claim in the first instance.

The owners obtained an LOI from the charterers and delivered the cargo at the discharge port in Singapore without production of original bills of lading. The consignee went insolvent without paying for the cargo. A local bank, which possessed the original bills of lading, demanded delivery of cargo from the owners. As the cargo was held under the custody of trustee, release and deliver of the cargo became difficult.

To avoid arrest of the vessel and sister vessels, the owners had to cancel their port calls at Singapore and demanded the charterers to put up a security to the bank.

After lengthy negotiations between the owners’ and the charterers’ lawyers, the charterers finally agreed to handle the matter, and eventually settled the claim with the bank.

Although the charterers agreed to deal with the misdelivery claim, the owners incurred significant losses and costs as a result of cancelling planned calls at Singapore, and dealing with the lawyers representing the bank and the charterers (The owners are seeking recovery of the legal costs from the charterers).

CSA: EGCS play major role in the smooth transition to IMO 2020

Drones used to help missions of patrol vessels.

NTSB Investigation: Tanker contacts US naval base pier

Lessons learned: Lid on ash trash barrel blown off due to hot ash

ReCAAP ISC: No incident of armed robbery 23 – 29 April

Lessons learned: A section of Glass Reinforced Plastic dropped to sea

Lessons learned: Lithium-Ion battery explosion on a vessel

New guidance released regarding Zhoushan bunkering anchorages

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Explore more

• SAFETY4SEA Events
• SAFETY4SEA Plus Subscription

Useful Links

• Editorial Policies
• Advertising
• Content Marketing

© 2021 SAFETY4SEA

• PSC Case Studies
• Tip of the day
• Training & Development

CASE STUDIES

Home | Resources & Case Studies

KPM’s Win: Cutting Costs with WaveBL – Up to $50 Savings & 2.5 Hours Less Work per BL

With WaveBL Hecny Group enjoys a 33% efficiency increase

Unlocking Efficiency and Sustainability – Savino Del Bene’s Success with WaveBL’s eBL Solution

MTS Logistics Case Study

How Swift Cargo optimized their supply chain with WAVE BL

How WAVE BL reduced operational costs and streamlined trade workflows for All-Ways Forwarding

KPM's Win: Cutting Costs with WaveBL - Up to $50 Savings & 2.5 Hours Less Work per BL

Unlocking Efficiency and Sustainability - Savino Del Bene's Success with WaveBL's Solution

Mts logistic transferred to electronic bills of lading.

Learn how HLS reduced operational risk by shifting to digital

How WaveBL reduced operational costs and streamlined trade workflows for All-Ways Forwarding

How RS Logistics issued eBLs with confidence during COVID-19

How swift cargo optimized their supply chain with wavebl.

How Interglobo overcame dependency on paper-based transactions and emerged into the digital age

Learn how WaveBL helped Pegasus Maritime ‘do more with less’

Improving port supply chain through blockchain-based bills of lading: a quantitative approach and a case study

• Original Article
• Published: 01 March 2023
• Volume 26 , pages 74–104, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Clarissa Amico 1 &
• Roberto Cigolini 1  

568 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Blockchain technology supports business processes, and several streams of research are developing on its applications in supply chain management. This paper concerns the logistics activities that take place in a port, where a variety of actors operate, interacting through an exchange of mainly paper-based documents. The most important of these is the bill of lading; a legal document defining the terms of agreement between the seller and the buyer. The bill of lading is essential to enable the flow of freight in the port of destination, from the unloading of cargo to its destination. A correct bill of lading lifecycle allows smooth terminal operations, avoiding delays and slowdowns in freight handling. Research on the impact of using blockchain technology to manage the flow of information in a port is scant and mostly theoretical. This paper analyzes the issues regarding the transmission of a bill of lading and assesses the pursuant impact of blockchain technology on the internal operations of a container terminal. The impact of blockchain technology on the bill of lading lifecycle affects crucial issues of terminal management like the enhancement of trust among parties, security and visibility. Blockchain technology-based bills of lading, compared to electronic bills of lading, enhance privacy, security, trustworthiness and flexibility. Our research methodology is based on a discrete event simulation model, built on a real-life case of the port of Livorno, Italy, where three main areas are considered: berths, ship-to-shore cranes, and container storage yards. Simulation results show that blockchain technology reduces the average container lead time in the terminal—i.e., the time from berthing to loading on rail/truck for onward transport—by 3 to 4%, reducing the maximum container dwell-time at the yard by up to 30%, thus increasing, as a consequence, the utilization rate of the equipment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Blockchain for healthcare data management: opportunities, challenges, and future recommendations

Blockchain Use Cases in the Sports Industry: A Systematic Review

Cybersecurity, Data Privacy and Blockchain: A Review

That is, existing in multiple locations and among various stakeholders.

Intention means the inclination to adopt a specific technology and the growing awareness of the inherent characteristics of the technology. Adoption implies the recognition of the technology, based on its benefits, while routinization means that the technology is integrated within governance and an organization’s other systems.

Ahmad, Raja, Haya Hasan Wasim, Raja Jayaraman, Khaled Salah, and Mohammed Omar. 2021. Blockchain applications and architectures for port operations and logistics management. Research in Transportation Business and Management 41: 100620.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali, Azlan, and Muhammad Haseeb. 2019. Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology as a strategic tool towards higher performance of supply chain operations in textile and apparel industry of Malaysia. Uncertain Supply Chain Management 7 (2): 215–226.

Anwar, M., L. Henesey, and E. Casalicchio. 2019. The feasibility of blockchain solutions in the maritime industry. In  31st NOFOMA conference supply chains and sustainable development of societies , Oslo. The Nordic Logistics Research Network (NOFOMA).

Aste, Tommaso, Paolo Tasca, and Tiziana Di Matteo. 2017. Blockchain technologies: The foreseeable impact on society and industry. Computer 50 (9): 18–28.

Ataergin, V.S. 2016. Cargo delivery without presentation of the bill of lading in Chinese maritime law and practice. Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering 6: 191–205.

Google Scholar  

Babich, Volodymyr, and Gilles Hilary. 2020. Distributed ledgers and operations: What operations management researchers should know about blockchain technology. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 22 (2): 223–240.

Behdani, B., B. Wiegmans, V. Roso, and H. Haralambides. 2020. Port-hinterland transport and logistics: Emerging trends and frontier research. Maritime Economics & Logistics 22 (1): 1–25.

Behnke, Kay, and Marijn Janssen. 2019. Boundary conditions for traceability in food supply chains using blockchain technology. International Journal of Information Management 52: 101969.

Bielli, M., A. Boulmakoul, and M. Rida. 2006. Object oriented model for container terminal distributed simulation. European Journal of Operational Research 175 (3): 1731–1751.

Bumblauskas, Daniel, Arti Mann, Brett Dugan, and Jacy Rittmer. 2020. A blockchain use case in food distribution: Do you know where your food has been? International Journal of Information Management 52: 102008.

Burkovskis, Raimondas. 2020. Efficiency of freight forwarder’s participation in the process of transportation. Transport 23 (3): 208–213.

Cannas, Violetta, Federica Ciccullo, Margherita Pero, and Roberto Cigolini. 2020. Sustainable intermodal in the dairy supply chain: Enabling factors for intermodal transportation. International Journal of Production Research 58 (24): 7314–7333.

Cartenì, Armando, and Stefano de Luca. 2012. Tactical and strategic planning for a container terminal: Modelling issues within a discrete event simulation approach. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 21 (1): 123–145.

Casanova, Didier, David Dierker, Ludwig Hausmann, Bjørnar Jensen, and Jaron Stoffels. 2022. The multi-billion-dollar paper jam: Unlocking trade by digitalizing documentation . McKinsey & Company. Travel, Logistics & Infrastructure.

Casino, Fran, Venetis Kanakaris, Thomas K. Dasaklis, Socrates Moschuris, Spiros Stachtiaris, Maria Pagoni, and Nikolaos P. Rachaniotis. 2021. Blockchain-based food supply chain traceability: A case study in the dairy sector. International Journal of Production Research 59 (19): 5758–5770.

Chinedum, Onyemechi. 2018. Port congestion determinants and impacts on logistics and supply chain network of five African ports. Journal of Sustainable Development of Transport and Logistics 3 (1/4): 70–82.

Cigolini, Roberto, Margherita Pero, Monica Rossi, and Xu. Jinou. 2020. Designing supplier networks in global product development. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 13 (2): 115–139.

Cigolini, Roberto, Simone Franceschetto, and Andrea Sianesi. 2021. Shop floor control in the VLSI circuit manufacturing: A simulation approach and a case study. International Journal of Production Research 60: 5450–5467.

Cigolini, Roberto, Jonathan Gosling, Ananth Iyer, and Olga Senicheva. 2022. Supply chain management in construction and engineer-to-order industries. Production Planning and Control 33 (9–10): 803–810.

De Giovanni, Pietro. 2020. Blockchain and smart contracts in supply chain management: A game theoretic model. International Journal of Production Economics 228: 107855.

Difrancesco, Rita Maria, Purushottam Meena, and Gopal Kumar. 2022. How blockchain technology improves sustainable supply chain processes: A practical guide. Operations Management Research 1–22.

Dobrovnik, Mario, David M. Herold, Elmar Furst, and Sebastian Kummer. 2018. Blockchain for and in logistics: What to adopt and where to start. Logistics 2 (18): 1–14.

Fernández-Caramés, Tiago, Oscar Blanco-Novoa, Ivan Froiz-Míguez, and Paula Fraga-Lamas. 2019. A UAV and blockchain-based system for inventory and traceability applications in big data-driven supply chain management. Sensors 19 (10): 2394.

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ferrari, Claudio, Hercules Haralambides, Sergio Prete, and Alessio Tei. 2022. Regulation and finance in the port industry: Lessons from worldwide experiences . Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fumagalli, Luca, Adalberto Polenghi, Elisa Negri, and Irene Roda. 2019. Framework for simulation software selection. Journal of Simulation 13 (4): 286–303.

Gotmare, Ashwini, Sanjay Bokade, Zeeshan Inamdar, and S.G. Bhirud. 2019. A systematic literature review on RFID application in manufacturing and supply chain management. Industrial Engineering Journal 12 (10): 1–12.

Grimm, Jörg., Joerg Hofstetter, and Joseph Sarkis. 2016. Exploring sub-suppliers’ compliance with corporate sustainability standards. Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (3): 1971–1984.

Hald, Kim Sundtoft, and Aseem Kinra. 2019. How the blockchain enables and constrains supply chain performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 49 (4): 376–397.

Halldórsson, Árni., Juliana Hsuan, and Herbert Kotzab. 2015. Complementary theories to supply chain management revisited–from borrowing theories to theorizing. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20 (6): 574–586.

Hirata, Enna, Maria Lambrou, and Daisuke Watanabe. 2021. Blockchain technology in supply chain management: Insights from machine learning algorithms. Maritime Business Review 6 (2): 114–128.

Irannezhad, E. 2020. The architectural design requirements of a blockchain-based port community system. Logistics 4 (4): 30.

Kayikci, Y., N. Subramanian, D. Manoj, and M. Bhatia. 2022. Food supply chain in the era of Industry 4.0: Blockchain technology implementation opportunities and impediments from the perspective of people, process, performance, and technology. Production Planning and Control 33 (2/3): 301–321.

Kinra, A., and S. Kim. 2019. How the blockchain enables and constrains supply chain performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 49 (4): 376–397.

Korepin, V., N. Dzenzeliuk, R. Seryshev, and R. Rogulin. 2021. Improving supply chain reliability with blockchain technology. Maritime Economics & Logistics . https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-021-00197-4 .

Kouhizadeh, M., S. Saberi, and J. Sarkis. 2021. Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers. International Journal of Production Economics 231: 107831.

Kristoffer, F., and D. Swanson. 2018. The supply chain has no clothes: Technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Logistics 2 (1): 2.

Kshetri, N. 2018. Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. International Journal of Information Management 39: 80–89.

Liu, J., H. Zhang, and L. Zhen. 2021. Blockchain technology in maritime supply chains: Applications, architecture and challenges. International Journal of Production Research 1–17.

Lohmer, J., R. Lasch, and N. Bugert. 2020. Analysis of resilience strategies and ripple effect in blockchain-coordinated supply chains: An agent-based simulation study. International Journal of Production Economics 228: 107882.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Manupati, V., T. Schoenherr, M. Ramkumar, S. Wagner, S. Pabba, and R. Singh. 2020. A blockchain-based approach for a multi-echelon sustainable supply chain. International Journal of Production Research 58 (7): 2222–2241.

Martinez, V., M. Zhao, C. Blujdea, X. Han, A. Neely, and P. Albores. 2019. Blockchain-driven customer order management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 39 (6/7/8): 993–1022.

Mathivathanan, D., K. Mathiyazhagan, N. Rana, S. Khorana, and Y. Dwivedi. 2021. Barriers to the adoption of blockchain technology in business supply chains: A total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach. International Journal of Production Research 59 (11): 3338–3359.

Montecchi, M., M. Ettter, and K. Plangger. 2019. It’s real, trust me! Establishing supply chain provenance using blockchain. Business Horizons 62 (3): 283–329.

Morales-Fusco, P., S. Saurì, A. Lekka, and I. Karousos. 2016. Assessing customs performance in the Mediterranean ports. KPI selection and best practices identification as part of the MEDNET Project. Transportation Research Procedia 18: 374–383.

Nandi, M., S. Nandi, H. Moya, and H. Kaynak. 2020. Blockchain technology-enabled supply chain systems and supply chain performance: A resource-based view. Supply Chain Management 25 (6): 841–862.

Notteboom, T.E. 2006. The time factor in liner shipping services. Maritime Economics & Logistics 8 (1): 19–39.

Nowiński, W., and M. Kozma. 2017. How can blockchain technology disrupt the existing business models? Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 5 (3): 173–188.

Omar, I., R. Jayaraman, K. Salah, M. Debe, and M. Omar. 2020. Enhancing vendor managed inventory supply chain operations using blockchain smart contracts. IEEE Access 8: 182704–182719.

Pal, A., C.K. Tiwari, and A. Behl. 2021. Blockchain technology in financial services: A comprehensive review of the literature. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing 14 (1): 61–80.

Pero, M., A. Sianesi, and R. Cigolini. 2016. Reinforcing supply chain security through organizational and cultural tools within the intermodal rail and road industry. International Journal of Logistics Management 27 (3): 816–836.

Petronilho, Francisco, Hugo Fonseca, and André Zúquete. 2022. The state of the art of the electronic bill of lading. F1000Research 11 (991): 991.

Pournader, M., S. Seuring, Y. Shi, and S. Lenny Koh. 2020. Blockchain applications in supply chains, transport and logistics: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Production Research 58 (7): 2063–2081.

Queiroz, M.M., and S.F. Wamba. 2019. Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. International Journal of Information Management 46: 70–82.

Queiroz, M., R. Telles, and S. Bonilla. 2020. Blockchain and supply chain management integration: A systematic review of the literature. Supply Chain Management 25 (2): 241–254.

Reyes, P., L. Suhong, and J. Visich. 2016. Determinants of RFID adoption stage and perceived benefits. European Journal of Operational Research 254 (3): 801–812.

Roeck, Dominik, Henrik Sternberg, and Erik Hofmann. 2019. Distributed ledger technology in supply chains: A transaction cost perspective. International Journal of Production Research 58 (7): 2124–2141.

Rogerson, Michael, and Glenn Parry. 2020. Blockchain: Case studies in food supply chain visibility. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 25 (5): 601–614.

Rossi, Tommaso, Roberto Cigolini, Rossella Pozzi, Giovanni Pirovano, and Margherita Pero. 2020. A new logistics model for increasing economic sustainability of perishable food SCs through intermodal transportation. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 24 (4): 346–363.

Saberi, Sara, Mahtab Kouhizadeh, Joseph Sarkis, and Lejia Shen. 2019. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research 57 (7): 2117–2135.

Schmidt, Christoph, and Stephan Wagner. 2019. Blockchain and supply chain relations: A transaction cost theory perspective. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (4): 100552.

Tijan, Edvard, Marija Jović, Sa.ša Aksentijević, and Andreja Pucihar. 2021. Digital transformation in the maritime transport sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 170: 120879.

Tönnissen, Stefan, and Frank Teuteberg. 2020. Analysing the impact of blockchain-technology for operations and supply chain management: An explanatory model drawn from multiple case studies. International Journal of Information Management 52: 101953.

Treiblmaier, Horst. 2018. The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: A theory-based research framework and a call for action. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 23 (6): 545–559.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Annual Report. 2022. Navigating Stormy Waters.

Van Hoek, Remko. 2019. Exploring blockchain implementation in the supply chain. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 39 (6/7/8): 829–859.

Veenstra, A., R. Zuidwijk, and E. Van Asperen. 2012. The extended gate concept for container terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 14 (1): 14–32.

Wamba, Samuel Fosso, and Maciel Queiroz. 2022. Industry 4.0 and the supply chain digitalisation: A blockchain diffusion perspective. Production Planning and Control 33 (2–3): 193–210.

Wang, Yingli, Meita Singgih, Jingyao Wang, and Mihaela Rit. 2019. Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains? International Journal of Production Economics 211: 221–236.

Yang, Chung-Shan. 2019. Maritime shipping digitalization: Blockchain-based technology applications, future improvements, and intention to use. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 131: 108–117.

Yermack, David. 2017. Corporate governance and blockchains. Review of Finance 21 (1): 7–31.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank the Autorità Portuale del Mar Tirreno Settentrionale (referred to in the paper as “Port of Livorno”) for providing useful data that allowed the simulation model to run the experimental campaign. The Authors would also like to thank the Head of economic planning, strategic & EU projects and innovation of Port of Livorno who helped us to develop the practical case study. The Authors are also grateful to the Editor and the anonymous reviewers who provided insightful suggestions that remarkably improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, Economics, and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico of Milan, Milan, Italy

Clarissa Amico & Roberto Cigolini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clarissa Amico .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Amico, C., Cigolini, R. Improving port supply chain through blockchain-based bills of lading: a quantitative approach and a case study. Marit Econ Logist 26 , 74–104 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-023-00256-y

Download citation

Accepted : 08 February 2023

Published : 01 March 2023

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-023-00256-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Supply chain
• Port logistics
• Process digitization
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Bill of lading: A comprehensive guide

A bill of lading (BoL) is a vital document issued by a carrier (shipping company) to a shipper (the party sending the goods). It acts as a comprehensive receipt and legal contract between the involved parties, outlining the details and terms of a specific shipment. 

The Pitney Bowes parcel shipping index reports that over 5,100 parcels are shipped globally every second. So think of the BoL as a passport for these parcels. Just as a passport allows you to enter different countries, an original bill of lading grants access to your goods at the destination port. 

In short, no original bill of lading = No cargo access at the destination port.

Why you need a bill of lading

A bill of lading serves the following main functions:

• Receipt: It acts as a receipt of goods for the shipper, confirming that the carrier has taken possession of the goods in the described condition.
• Contract: It outlines the terms and conditions of the transportation agreement, including details like the agreed-upon charges, responsibilities of each party, and limitations of liability.
• Document of title: In some instances, the BoL also acts as a negotiable document of title. This way, whoever holds the original BoL is considered the legal owner of the goods and can claim them upon presentation at the destination.

Key players involved

• Shipper: Prepares the BoL, arranges the shipment, and pays the freight charges.
• Carrier: Takes custody of the goods, transports them to the destination, and issues the BoL to the shipper.
• Consignee: Receives the goods upon presentation of the bill of lading and pays any applicable customs duties or fees.
• Freight forwarder (optional): Acts as an intermediary between the shipper and the carrier, handling logistics and documentation.
• Bank (optional): May be involved in financing the shipment (letters of credit) and might require the presentation of the BoL.

Who issues a bill of lading?

The carrier typically issues a BoL once they have received and verified the goods for shipment. This issuance generally occurs at the point of origin, where the shipper hands over the goods to the carrier.

Who receives a bill of lading?

The original bill of lading is typically issued to the shipper, who may:

• Keep it for the record as proof of shipment and ownership (if the BoL is negotiable).
• Send it to the consignee (the recipient of the goods) , allowing them to claim the goods at the destination.
• Negotiate the BoL with a bank to secure financing for the shipment, if applicable.

Types of BoL

What information will you find in a bill of lading template.

For a quick reference on what a bill of lading typically contains, see the table below:

The transition to electronic bill of lading (eBoL)

Traditionally, these BoLs were physical paper documents, often requiring multiple copies to be exchanged between various parties involved in the shipping process. The push toward digital transformation has contributed to the increased adoption of the electronic bill of lading (eBoL). In fact, McKinsey reports that electronic bills of lading could save $6.5 billion in direct costs and unlock $40 billion in global trade.

Benefits of eBoLs

• Automation of manual data entry: Information is pre-populated and electronically transmitted, reducing errors and saving time.
• Faster processing: EBoLs are instantly transmitted and received, accelerating customs clearance and other administrative processes.
• Increased transparency: Real-time tracking of eBoLs allows for greater transparency and visibility throughout the shipment journey.
• Reduced risk of loss or damage: Electronic copies are less susceptible to physical damage or loss compared to paper documents.
• Environmental sustainability: Replacing paper documents with eBoLs reduces paper consumption, contributing to sustainability and efficiency in the shipping industry .

Email plays a vital role in the eBoL exchange. It's a familiar, reliable way to send these electronic documents quickly. It offers a clear audit trail, showing who sent what and when. But while email works well for basic exchange, it can be time-consuming to manually process and manage documents within long email threads. 

That's why you need AI-powered email management solutions that offer additional benefits such as real-time tracking, message prioritisation, and integration with other logistics software.

Simplify bill of lading management with Sedna

At Sedna, we understand the challenges of managing BoLs through email. That's why we created our AI-powered email platform, Stream . 

Stream reduces manual email management, connects to other systems, and provides data visibility, enabling shipping and logistics teams to make better, faster decisions. By automating document data extraction, we helped a marine service company save 40 hours per week.

‍ Sedna AI enables you to:

• Prioritise urgent shipments: Our platform identifies and highlights emails containing urgent shipments based on keywords or specific criteria, enabling shipping companies to promptly address time-sensitive issues and avoid delays.
• Monitor for security and authenticity: Sedna ensures that eBoL exchange occurs through secure channels, minimising the risk of fraud or tampering compared to physical documents.
• Extract critical information: Our platform automatically extracts key information from emails and document attachments, eliminating manual data entry and reducing errors. 

Never miss another bill of lading or critical document. Book a Sedna demo today .

Latest resources

Driving faster action and insights from your core business system

Connected Apps integrate business-critical data hidden across your digital ecosystem. Make informed decisions without needing to switch contexts or systems.

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Study case ICC system in the process of issuing bill of lading (b/l)

[email protected]

[email protected]

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Nabilla Indaka Gunarsih , Nur Rohmah , Vega Fonzula Andromeda; Study case ICC system in the process of issuing bill of lading (b/l). AIP Conf. Proc. 14 February 2023; 2675 (1): 050003. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0119053

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Bill of lading is a receipt for an item that has been loaded into a ship which functions as a condition of transportation and proof of ownership of goods in the export process. On the KMTC Line, there was an error in inputting into the ICC system, which resulted in problems in the export process. This research used a qualitative descriptive method which is a research method by describing the results of all studies and researches. The data were collected through interviews, observations, literature, and documentation. The purpose of this study is to determine the process of issuing a Bill of Lading (B/L), the constraints on its issuance, and the efforts made in its issuance so that the export process runs smoothly. The results of the study show that the B/L issuance process has been determined based on the SOP starting with the shipper making a written agreement to the forwarder, followed by the shipper making a container booking, customer service receiving SI (Shipping Instruction), issuing D/O for empty containers, making payments, make a shipping request and issue a draft B/L, when the draft B/L is approved the shipper continues with the issuance of the B/L document. The obstacles faced were errors in inputting data into the ICC system and the lack of communication between interrelated employees. Efforts to make the issuance process run smoothly are by increasing cooperative relations and communication between fellow staff/employees related to the B/L issuance process, conducting training or training for employees so that there are no errors in data input into the ICC system, as well as checking data before the B/L is issued.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via, publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is a Bill of Lading?

Understanding bills of lading, types of bills of lading, bill of lading example, why is a bill of lading important, what is the purpose of a bill of lading, what is in a bill of lading, what is a bill of lading vs. an invoice, the bottom line.

• Corporate Finance

Bill of Lading: Meaning, Types, Example, and Purpose

Yarilet Perez is an experienced multimedia journalist and fact-checker with a Master of Science in Journalism. She has worked in multiple cities covering breaking news, politics, education, and more. Her expertise is in personal finance and investing, and real estate.

A bill of lading (BL or BoL) is a legal document issued by a carrier (transportation company) to a shipper that details the type, quantity, and destination of the goods being carried. A bill of lading also serves as a shipment receipt when the carrier delivers the goods at a predetermined destination. This document must accompany the shipped products, no matter the form of transportation, and must be signed by an authorized representative from the carrier, shipper, and receiver.

Key Takeaways

• A bill of lading is a legal document issued by a carrier to a shipper that details the type, quantity, and destination of the goods being carried.
• A bill of lading is a document of title, a receipt for shipped goods, and a contract between a carrier and a shipper.
• This document must accompany the shipped goods and must be signed by an authorized representative from the carrier, shipper, and receiver.
• If managed and reviewed properly, a bill of lading can help prevent asset theft.
• There are different types of bills of lading, so it’s important to choose the right one.

Jiaqi Zhou / Investopedia

The bill of lading is a legally binding document that provides the carrier and the shipper with all of the necessary details to accurately process a shipment. It has three main functions:

• It is a document of title to the goods described in the bill of lading.
• It is a receipt for the shipped products.
• It represents the agreed terms and conditions for the transportation of the goods.

As an example, a  logistics company intends to transport, via heavy truck, gasoline from a plant in Texas (shipper) to a gas station in Arizona (recipient). A plant representative and the driver sign the bill of lading after loading the gas on the truck. Once the carrier delivers the fuel to the gas station in Arizona, the truck driver requests that the station clerk also sign the document.

Every business needs to have  internal controls  in place to prevent theft. One key component of internal control is the segregation of duties, which prevents one employee from having too much control within a business. No two internal controls systems are the same. However, most follow a standard set of core philosophies that have become standard management practices. Implementing internal controls can help streamline operations and prevent fraud . A bill of lading is one of several key documents that must be properly managed and reviewed to prevent asset theft.

There are several types of bills of lading. Some of the most common include:

• Inland bill of lading
• Ocean bill of lading
• Through bill of lading
• Negotiable bill of lading
• Nonnegotiable bill of lading
• Claused bill of lading
• Clean bill of lading
• Uniform bill of lading

Choosing the appropriate bill of lading is essential. For example, doing so can either prevent delivery delays or help locate goods that get lost during transport.

Assume, for example, that XYZ Fine Dining receives shipments of fresh meat and fish five times a week. The restaurant manager determines the type and amount of meat and fish that the restaurant needs to order. They then fill out a purchase order (PO) , and XYZ’s owner reviews and initials each PO before it is emailed to the food vendor. The vendor gathers the meat and fish and signs a bill of lading along with a representative from the overnight carrier.

Next, the carrier delivers the food to the restaurant, and the manager compares the information on the bill of lading to what was requested on the PO. If the information matches, the PO and the bill of lading are sent to the owner, who reviews the documents and writes a check payable to the food vendor.

In this example, the owner does not issue a check to the vendor without reviewing the purchase order and the bill of lading. This step ensures that XYZ pays only for what it ordered and received. If the two documents do not match when the restaurant manager compares them, the manager will ask the vendor about the exception. A third employee reconciles the bank statement and makes company deposits. All of these steps must be in place to prevent theft.

The importance of a bill of lading lies in the fact that it’s a legally binding document that provides the carrier and the shipper with all of the necessary details to accurately process a shipment. This implies that it can be used in litigation if the need should arise and that all parties involved will take great pains to ensure the accuracy of the document.

Essentially, a bill of lading works as undisputed proof of shipment. Furthermore, a bill of lading allows for the segregation of duties that is a vital part of a firm’s internal control structure to prevent theft.

A bill of lading has three main purposes. First, it is a document of title to the goods described in the bill of lading. Second, it is a receipt for the shipped products. Finally, it represents the agreed terms and conditions for the transportation and eventual release of the shipped goods .

Typically, a bill of lading will include the names and addresses of the shipper (consignor) and the receiver (consignee), shipment date, quantity, exact weight, value, and freight classification. Also included is a complete description of the items, including whether they’re classified as hazardous, the type of packaging used, any specific instructions for the carrier, and any special order tracking numbers. Most bills of lading will include language that incorporates the York Antwerp Rules to help determine costs and liability for lost or damaged cargo.

A bill of lading is a legal document between a shipper and a transport company (carrier) that spells out the type, quantity, and destination of the goods being transported. An invoice tracks the sale of goods between a buyer and a seller.

A bill of lading is a contract issued by a transport company to a shipper that spells out the quantity, type, and destination of the goods being shipped. It serves as a receipt of the shipment and can help prevent the theft of goods being transported. It’s crucial to understand the different types of bills of lading to ensure that the right ones are chosen. If not, your shipment will likely be delayed.

Cornell University, Legal Information Institute. " Bill of Lading ."

International Trade Administration. “ Common Export Documents .”

Comite Maritime International. " York-Antwerp Rules (YAR) ."

• Accounting History and Terminology 1 of 35
• Absorption Costing Explained, With Pros and Cons and Example 2 of 35
• What Is an Amortization Schedule? How to Calculate with Formula 3 of 35
• Average Collection Period Formula, How It Works, Example 4 of 35
• Bill of Lading: Meaning, Types, Example, and Purpose 5 of 35
• What Is a Cash Book? How Cash Books Work, With Examples 6 of 35
• Cost of Debt: What It Means and Formulas 7 of 35
• Cost of Equity Definition, Formula, and Example 8 of 35
• Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP) Analysis: What It Is and the Formula for Calculating It 9 of 35
• Current Account: Definition and What Influences It 10 of 35
• Days Payable Outstanding (DPO) Defined and How It's Calculated 11 of 35
• Depreciation: Definition and Types, With Calculation Examples 12 of 35
• Double-Declining Balance (DDB) Depreciation Method Definition With Formula 13 of 35
• EBITDA: Definition, Calculation Formulas, History, and Criticisms 14 of 35
• Economic Order Quantity: What Does It Mean and Who Is It Important For? 15 of 35
• 4 Factors of Production Explained With Examples 16 of 35
• Fiscal Year: What It Is and Advantages Over Calendar Year 17 of 35
• How a General Ledger Works With Double-Entry Accounting Along With Examples 18 of 35
• Just-in-Time (JIT): Definition, Example, and Pros & Cons 19 of 35
• Net Operating Loss (NOL): Definition and Carryforward Rules 20 of 35
• NRV: What Net Realizable Value Is and a Formula To Calculate It 21 of 35
• No-Shop Clause: Meaning, Examples and Exceptions 22 of 35
• Operating Costs Definition: Formula, Types, and Real-World Examples 23 of 35
• Operating Profit: How to Calculate, What It Tells You, and Example 24 of 35
• Production Costs: What They Are and How to Calculate Them 25 of 35
• What Is a Pro Forma Invoice? Required Information and Example 26 of 35
• Retained Earnings in Accounting and What They Can Tell You 27 of 35
• Revenue Recognition: What It Means in Accounting and the 5 Steps 28 of 35
• What Is a Sunk Cost—and the Sunk Cost Fallacy? 29 of 35
• Triple Bottom Line 30 of 35
• Variable Cost: What It Is and How to Calculate It 31 of 35
• Work-in-Progress (WIP) Definition With Examples 32 of 35
• Write-Offs: Understanding Different Types To Save on Taxes 33 of 35
• Year-Over-Year (YOY): What It Means, How It's Used in Finance 34 of 35
• Zero-Based Budgeting: What It Is and How to Use It 35 of 35

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Case Study: How Decision Engines Automate Bill of Lading For A Large Pharmaceutical Distributor

Bill of Lading documents is one of the most complex and important pieces of paperwork in the business world. They are used to document and track shipments of goods and can be extremely helpful in ensuring that all parties involved in a transaction are on the same page.

However, bill of lading documents can also be quite confusing, as they often contain a lot of technical jargon and legal terms. If you’re not familiar with the bill of lading documents, you might be wondering what exactly they are, and what information is typically included in them.

And, unfortunately, many companies’ bill of lading is still done on paper. This system is outdated and inefficient, which causes a lot of issues.

Decision Engines Automate Bill of Lading

One such company is a large pharmaceutical distributor. Its vendors use a multitude of shippers, each with its own format of bill of lading documents and systems. Advance Ship Notices are sent directly to the distributor by the vendors as soon as the goods are shipped.

However, there is no id correlation between the ASN, BOL, and Shipper tracking code when the goods are received at the warehouse. This causes a lot of problems, as it is an error-prone manual process to find the match, which results in unnecessary re-orders, low stock, missed credits due to back orders, etc.

Fortunately, there is a solution to this problem. By implementing Decision Engines AI solutions, the distributor can greatly improve the efficiency and accuracy of their shipping process.

Decision Engines scans a variety of formats of BOL paperwork, integrates with SAP, and intelligently matches ASN, Shipper Code, and BOL number while keeping the logistics SOR up to date. This means that there is no need for manual intervention, and the whole process is much more efficient.

Decision Engines offers a suite of solutions that can reduce error rates by up to 80%. Our products have been shown to provide an immediate ROI, saving our clients millions of dollars.

If you’re struggling with a complex and error-prone bill of lading process, Decision Engines can help. We offer a free consultation to discuss your specific needs and see how our AI solutions can benefit your business. Contact us today to get started!

Bill Of Lading (BOL) Resources

What is a Bill of Lading?

A bill of lading is a document that is used to track shipments of goods. It typically contains a lot of technical jargon and legal terms and can be quite confusing if you’re not familiar with it.

Why is a bill of lading important?

A bill of lading is important because it can help to ensure that all parties involved in a transaction are on the same page. It can also be used to document and track shipments of goods.

What is the purpose of a bill of lading?

The purpose of a bill of lading is to document and track shipments of goods. It can also be used to help ensure that all parties involved in a transaction are on the same page.

What information is typically included in a Bill of Lading?

Typically, a bill of lading will include the name and address of the shipper, the name and address of the recipient, a description of the goods being shipped, the date of shipment, and the bill of lading number.

What is a Bill of Lading Number?

A bill of lading number is a unique identifier that is assigned to each bill of lading. It is used to track the shipment and can be helpful in ensuring that all parties involved in the transaction are on the same page.

What are some of the problems with a paper-based bill of lading?

Paper-based bill of lading can be quite inefficient and error-prone. This is because there is no id correlation between the ASN, BOL and Shipper tracking code when the goods are received at the warehouse. This can result in unnecessary re-orders, low stock, missed credits due to back orders, etc.

Similar Posts

What is Automated Redaction? How Finance Companies Can Save Time And Money by Using Them

Automated Redaction is the process of removing Personally identifiable information (PII) from a document. This can be done manually, but it…

Aligning Your Business Strategy with Automation: The Key to Success

In today’s fast-paced business world, companies are always looking for ways to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and increase profitability. One of…

Unveiling the Misconceptions and Realities of Robotic Process Automation

Let’s bring clarity to the recent misconceptions surrounding automation and RPA in particular – and set the record straight. Automation is…

5 Top Finance Functions That Automation Can Enhance

Business companies may be different from each other in many ways, yet they all share the same basic finance functions. All…

Invoice Processing With Low-Code Platforms: 10 Ways To Leverage It

Invoice processing with low-code platforms is steadily becoming the new favorite among businesses, big and small. Compared to manual or paper-based…

How Digitization and Automation are Driving Businesses in the Era of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a profound impact on businesses of all sizes and in all industries. One trend that has…

• Supply Chain
• Executive Insights
• Marketing Solutions
• Advertising
• Product Review
• White Papers
• Post by Post
• Hariesh Manaadiar
• Testimonials
• Recognition

House Bill of Lading vs Master Bill of Lading: Their Key Differences

Bills of lading play a critical role in the shipping and logistics industry. They serve as a legal contract that acknowledges the receipt of goods and outlines the terms of shipment. 

They are evidence of the contract of carriage between the actual shipper, carrier, and recipient. So, they facilitate smooth transactions and ensure accountability throughout the shipping process. 

In this intricate web of logistics, you need to understand the nuances between various types of bills of lading for efficient cargo management and trade.

If you are new to shipping logistics, you may rely on industry experts to navigate the complexities of bills. 

This article aims to shed light on the distinctions between house bill of lading vs master bill of lading. We will also discuss how they help the entire consolidated shipment.

Understanding Bills of Lading

A Bill of Lading ( B/L ) is necessary in international shipment. It serves as both a receipt and a contract. It signifies the transfer of goods from the shipper to the carrier. 

The document contains details such as type, quantity, and condition. The B/L is evidence of the carrier’s obligation to transport the goods and the recipient’s right to claim them upon arrival.

The B/L is a legal document that establishes terms of shipment, outlines responsibilities, and ensures compliance with regulations. This primary document can facilitate transparent and efficient transactions across the global supply chain.

What is a House Bill of Lading?

A House Bill of Lading (HBL) is of utmost importance in international shipping. It becomes more valuable in freight forwarders or Non-Vessel Operating Company scenarios. Unlike a Master Bill of Lading (MBL) issued by the ocean carrier, the HBL is issued by a freight forwarder or NVOCC. They act as an intermediary between the shipper and the carrier. 

The House Bill of Lading contains essential information about the consignment. It includes details of the shipper and consignee, the goods’ description, and the carriage terms. 

When is a House Bill of Lading Used?

A House Bill of Lading (HBL) is commonly used in scenarios involving less-than-container load (LCL) shipments. It’s useful when multiple shipments from different shippers are consolidated into a single container. In such cases, freight forwarders or Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) issue HBLs to individual shippers. 

Each represents a specific consignment within the consolidated container. The HBL is a contractual agreement between the shipper and the freight forwarder or NVOCC detailing the carriage terms and specifying each party’s obligations and liabilities. 

It also acts as a receipt of goods and provides documentation for customs clearance and tracking purposes. Using HBLs simplifies the logistics process for LCL shipments and facilitates efficient cargo management.

What is a Master Bill of Lading?

A Lading Master Bill or Master Bill of Lading (MBL) is a critical document in the shipping industry. It serves as the primary contract of carriage between the actual carrier of the goods, typically the shipping line, and the shipper. 

Unlike the House Bill of Lading (HBL), which is issued by freight forwarders, or Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs), the MBL is issued by the carrier itself. It represents the agreement between the carrier and the shipper for transporting goods from the port of origin to the port of destination. 

The Master Bill of Lading contains information related to the shipment, including the voyage number, vessel name, and details of the ports of loading and discharge. 

When is a Master Bill of Lading Used?

A Master Bill of Lading (MBL) is valid during full container load (FCL) shipments, where an entire container is dedicated to the goods of a single shipper. In FCL shipments, the carrier issues the MBL to the shipper. 

Here, it serves as the primary contract of carriage for transporting goods from the port of origin to the port of destination. The MBL establishes the terms and conditions of shipment between the carrier and the shipper. 

As the carrier’s official document, the MBL ensures accountability and transparency throughout shipping . It acts as legal evidence of the contractual obligations of both parties involved in transporting goods.

Comparing House and Master Bills of Lading

Understanding the differences between House and Master Bills of Lading will help you facilitate the international shipping and logistics process. These two documents serve distinct purposes and carry unique implications for shippers and carriers. 

If you can differentiate between them, you can have clarity and accuracy in managing cargo shipments. Below are the main differences between House and Master Bills of Lading:

• House Bill of Lading (HBL) : Freight forwarders or Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) issue HBL. It acts as an intermediary between shippers and carriers.
• Master Bill of Lading (MBL) : The actual goods carrier issues the MBL. Typically, this is the shipping line responsible for transporting the cargo.
• HBL : Consolidates multiple shipments from different shippers into a single container. It is a contract between the shipper and the freight forwarder or NVOCC.
• MBL : Represents the contract of carriage between the carrier and the shipper. It outlines the terms and conditions of shipping for the entire container load.

Legal Implications

• HBL : Establishes contractual agreements between the shipper and the freight forwarder or NVOCC, specifying obligations, liabilities, and responsibilities during shipment.
• MBL : Defines the contractual relationship between the carrier and the shipper. It details the carrier’s obligations for transporting the goods and the shipper’s rights and responsibilities.

Practical Implications

The differences between House and Master Bills of Lading have practical implications for shippers, consignees, and carriers. Shippers need to select the appropriate document for their shipping needs, while consignees rely on clear terms for planning. 

Carriers must adhere to the terms outlined in both bills. Plus, they must ensure smooth transactions and effective communication throughout shipping. Understanding these distinctions streamlines operations and facilitates efficient logistics management.

Choosing the Right Bill of Lading

Choosing the appropriate Bill of Lading ensures efficient shipping operations. The type of Bill of Lading selected can significantly impact various aspects of the shipping process. Here are a few factors to consider:

• Shipment Type: The nature of the shipment, whether a full container load (FCL) or less-than-container load (LCL), influences the choice between a house and a master Bill of Lading. FCL shipments typically use a master Bill of Lading, while LCL shipments often require a House Bill of Lading to consolidate multiple shipments.
• Parties Involved: The number and roles of parties involved in the shipping transaction can determine the type of Bill of Lading you need. A House Bill of Lading may be more appropriate to accommodate individual consignments in complex logistics arrangements with multiple shippers, consignees, and intermediaries.
• Contractual Arrangements: The terms and conditions agreed upon by the shipper and the carrier influence the choice of Bill of Lading. It is essential for shipments where the shipper contracts directly with the carrier. On the other hand, when a freight forwarder or NVOCC is involved, a House Bill of Lading is issued to consolidate shipments and manage documentation efficiently.
• Liability and Risk Management: Considerations of liability and risk management also play a role in selecting the appropriate Bill of Lading. The type of Bill of Lading chosen can impact the allocation of risk and responsibility between the parties involved in the shipment, affecting insurance coverage and dispute resolution in case of damages or losses.
• Regulatory Compliance: Compliance with international trade regulations and legal requirements may dictate the type of Bill you need for specific shipments. Jurisdictions may have different documentation standards and legal frameworks for using Bills of Lading. s.

You must select the right Bill of Lading depending on shipment type, parties involved, contractual arrangements, liability and risk management, and regulatory compliance. 

Common Misconceptions

Misconceptions about House and Master Bills of Lading often arise from the complexities of international shipping. 

One common myth is that the Master Bill of Lading holds more legal weight than the House Bill of Lading. In reality, both documents are legally binding and outline the terms of shipment.

Another misconception is that the House Bill of Lading is only necessary for smaller shipments. However, its usage depends on various factors beyond shipment size, including the involvement of multiple parties. 

Final Thoughts

Understanding the differences between House and Master Bills of Lading can help you navigate logistics management. We highlighted how these documents play distinct roles in global trade operations.

House Bills of Lading, issued by intermediaries like freight forwarders or NVOCCs, consolidate shipments and establish contracts between shippers and intermediaries. Meanwhile, Master Bills of Lading, issued by carriers, serve as primary contracts of carriage for entire container loads.

By grasping these nuances, stakeholders can navigate international shipping complexities more efficiently, ensure legal compliance, and facilitate transactions. With this knowledge, you will be capable of making informed decisions that optimize shipping strategies. If you aren’t sure, you can seek help from professionals to streamline logistics operations.

Visit Our Sponsors

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, fraud and bills of lading.

Journal of Financial Crime

ISSN : 1359-0790

Article publication date: 1 March 1996

Because of their nature, bills of lading present numerous opportunities for fraudsters to manipulate the commodity trades. These opportunities arise because of the unique range of functions that such bills perform. What follows is a brief exposition of the three main legal functions of a bill of lading, as well as three areas of commerce where bill of lading frauds frequently occur.

Bassindale, J. (1996), "Fraud and Bills of Lading", Journal of Financial Crime , Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 33-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025751

Copyright © 1996, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Maritime Container Shipping News Breakbulk News Port News
• Surface Trucking News Rail News
• Air Cargo Air Cargo Carriers News Air Cargo Forwarder News
• Supply chain Logistics Technology News Industrial Real Estate News Transport, Trade, and Regulation News Last Mile News Cool Cargo News
• Resources Magazine Newsletters Multimedia White Papers Special Reports Press Releases Media Kit Other
• Container Shipping News
• Breakbulk News
• Trucking News
• Air Cargo Carriers News
• Air Cargo Forwarder News
• Logistics Technology News
• Industrial Real Estate News
• Transport, Trade, and Regulation News
• Last Mile News
• Cool Cargo News
• Newsletters
• White Papers
• Special Reports
• Press Releases

Latest News

Teamsters canada vote overwhelmingly to authorize rail strike as soon as may 22, power grid upgrade, robust charging network needed for electric vehicles: ata, soaring trans-pacific spot rates add twist to last-minute service contract talks.

• Baltimore readying for return of Asia volumes as recovery takes shape: port CEO
• East Coast ports grapple with ro/ro vessel diversions as Baltimore reopens

More News & Analysis

Federal conciliators have tried since March 1 to negotiate a deal between Canadian Pacific-Kansas City, Canadian National Railway and the Teamsters rail conference, without success.

Although electric trucks are improving, the electricity and charging networks needed to power them are not ready, Pitt Ohio’s Taki Darakos told a US House committee.

The jump in spot rates comes as factories in China saw an increase in purchase orders in April while strong US imports are expected to continue into May.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.