{"id":5007,"date":"2026-04-21T12:32:29","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T09:32:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/?p=5007"},"modified":"2026-05-28T10:51:59","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T07:51:59","slug":"shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/","title":{"rendered":"Shipment on the Last Day of the Period: B\/L Date or Actual Completion of Loading?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_71 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-transparent ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">\u0421\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#Why_the_question_even_arises\" title=\"Why the question even arises\">Why the question even arises<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#What_shipment_means_under_English_law\" title=\"What shipment means under English law\">What shipment means under English law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#What_date_the_bill_of_lading_must_bear_The_Wilomi_Tanana\" title=\"What date the bill of lading must bear: The Wilomi Tanana\">What date the bill of lading must bear: The Wilomi Tanana<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#What_the_GAFTA_and_FOSFA_proformas_say\" title=\"What the GAFTA and FOSFA proformas say\">What the GAFTA and FOSFA proformas say<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#How_the_buyer_can_rebut_the_bill_of_lading_date\" title=\"How the buyer can rebut the bill of lading date\">How the buyer can rebut the bill of lading date<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#If_the_BL_carries_a_wrong_date_the_two_rights_of_the_buyer_under_Kwei_Tek_Chao\" title=\"If the B\/L carries a wrong date: the two rights of the buyer under Kwei Tek Chao\">If the B\/L carries a wrong date: the two rights of the buyer under Kwei Tek Chao<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#The_carriers_liability_for_a_false_date_The_Saudi_Crown_and_Standard_Chartered_Bank_v_PNSC\" title=\"The carrier&#8217;s liability for a false date: The Saudi Crown and Standard Chartered Bank v PNSC\">The carrier&#8217;s liability for a false date: The Saudi Crown and Standard Chartered Bank v PNSC<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#What_the_seller_should_do_if_loading_will_not_be_finished_in_time\" title=\"What the seller should do if loading will not be finished in time\">What the seller should do if loading will not be finished in time<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/shipment-bill-of-lading-date-or-loading\/#Practical_takeaways\" title=\"Practical takeaways\">Practical takeaways<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<p>A CIF grain contract, shipment period: July. The vessel is brought alongside on 30 July, loading runs all night, and the final tonnes drop on board at 01:30 on 1 August. The master signs the bill of lading and dates it &#8220;31 July&#8221;. Formally everything looks clean: the B\/L is dated the last day of the shipment period. But the loading was actually finished in August.<\/p>\n<p>The question is simple and uncomfortable at the same time: <strong>what exactly counts as the moment of shipment \u2014 the bill of lading date or the date when loading was actually completed?<\/strong> The answer determines whether the buyer may reject the goods, terminate the contract and claim damages under the default clause \u2014 or whether the seller&#8217;s obligation is performed on time and there is nothing to argue about.<\/p>\n<p>In this article I work through this narrow but very expensive question on the ground of English law and the practice of GAFTA and FOSFA arbitrations.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_the_question_even_arises\"><\/span>Why the question even arises<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In commodity trading the shipment period is a hard condition of the contract (a condition, not a mere warranty). Under the classic authority <strong>Bowes v Shand (1877) 2 App Cas 455, HL<\/strong>, timely shipment is an essential term of a CIF contract: if goods are shipped outside the period, the buyer is entitled to reject regardless of whether the quality of the goods is impaired, and regardless of the buyer&#8217;s motives.<\/p>\n<p>The facts: a contract for 8,200 bags of Madras rice with shipment &#8220;March and\/or April&#8221; 1874. In reality, 8,150 bags were loaded and covered by bills of lading dated February \u2014 that is, before the contractual period began; only 50 bags made it on board in March. The House of Lords upheld the buyer&#8217;s right to refuse acceptance of the goods: the stipulation as to the shipment period is an essential term of the contract, and since the bulk of the cargo had been shipped outside the period, the consignment did not legally answer the contractual description, regardless of quality. The fact that a small portion fell within the period did not save the deal. The ruling in Bowes v Shand remains good law and is applied, in particular, by GAFTA and FOSFA arbitrators.<\/p>\n<p>Hence the practical pain point: the trader needs to know precisely <strong>when<\/strong> shipment &#8220;took place&#8221;. If it was the evening of 31 July \u2014 everything is fine. If it was the morning of 1 August \u2014 the contract is broken and the buyer acquires expensive rights. The difference between these two outcomes can be measured in tens of percent of the contract value (market-to-contract difference) plus default damages under the relevant default clause.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_shipment_means_under_English_law\"><\/span>What shipment means under English law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>English law understands shipment under a CIF contract as <strong>the actual loading of the goods on board the vessel<\/strong>. It is not delivering the goods at the port to the carrier&#8217;s agent, not the start of loading, not berthing, and not the signing of the bill of lading. A simple practical consequence follows from this: <strong>shipment is deemed completed when loading is fully finished<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>If 50,000 tonnes are being loaded under a single contract and cargo operations finish after midnight on 1 August, shipment &#8220;took place&#8221; on 1 August \u2014 even if the operation extended through the three preceding days of July. Partial loading within the period does not save the seller: what matters is the completion of loading.<\/p>\n<p>The logic of Incoterms points in the same direction. Rule CIF A2 (Delivery) in the Incoterms 2010 and 2020 editions requires the seller to &#8220;deliver the goods by placing them on board the vessel&#8221; \u2014 that is, actually to place the goods on board the vessel at the port of shipment during the agreed period. This does not literally equate to &#8220;completion of loading&#8221;, but it is consistent in substance with English common law: until the goods are on board, shipment has not taken place.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_date_the_bill_of_lading_must_bear_The_Wilomi_Tanana\"><\/span>What date the bill of lading must bear: The Wilomi Tanana<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>If shipment means completion of loading, the follow-up question is: what exact date should the master put on the bill of lading? This is answered by <strong>Mendala III Transport v Total Transport Corp (The Wilomi Tanana) [1993] 2 Lloyd&#8217;s Rep 41<\/strong>. The court laid down a general rule: a &#8220;shipped&#8221; bill of lading should bear <strong>the last day on which the goods covered by that bill were loaded<\/strong>, not the date the bill was physically signed.<\/p>\n<p>This rule matters for two reasons. First, the master sometimes signs the B\/L significantly later than the end of loading \u2014 particularly in string trading, where the final wording of the document is agreed between several counterparties along the chain. Second, several B\/Ls can be issued in respect of a single voyage \u2014 covering different parcels, different holds, different consignees. Each B\/L must reflect the date when loading of the specific parcel covered by it was completed \u2014 which may be an earlier date than the overall end of loading of the vessel. Accordingly, the proposition &#8220;shipment is complete when all loading is finished&#8221; holds true only where a single B\/L covers the entire consignment; with parcel bills the question must be analysed separately for each bill.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\">\n<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1279\" src=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/efimborisov-wiIqTWoiUQY-unsplash.jpg\" alt=\"Grain loading onto a bulk carrier in port\" class=\"wp-image-4994\" title=\"\" srcset=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/efimborisov-wiIqTWoiUQY-unsplash.jpg 1920w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/efimborisov-wiIqTWoiUQY-unsplash-901x600.jpg 901w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/efimborisov-wiIqTWoiUQY-unsplash-1024x682.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/efimborisov-wiIqTWoiUQY-unsplash-1536x1023.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/efimborisov-wiIqTWoiUQY-unsplash-270x180.jpg 270w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/efimborisov-wiIqTWoiUQY-unsplash-370x245.jpg 370w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">The date in the B\/L must reflect the moment loading was actually completed \u2014 not the time the bill was signed<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_the_GAFTA_and_FOSFA_proformas_say\"><\/span>What the GAFTA and FOSFA proformas say<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The logic of The Wilomi Tanana is compatible with the text of the standard CIF proformas of GAFTA and FOSFA \u2014 but with an important nuance: it is expressly embedded only in GAFTA.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAFTA<\/strong>. Take <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gafta.com\/contracts\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">GAFTA Contract No. 48<\/a> (CIF\/CIFFO\/C&amp;F\/C&amp;FFO Tale Quale, applicable to many grains and pulses) \u2014 <strong>Clause 6 PERIOD OF SHIPMENT<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\"><em>&#8220;As per bill(s) of lading dated or to be dated&#8230; The bill(s) of lading <\/em><em>to be dated when the goods are actually on board<\/em><em>. <\/em><em>Date of the bill(s) of lading shall be accepted as proof of date of shipment in the absence of evidence to the contrary<\/em><em>.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Identical wording appears in GAFTA 100, GAFTA 24, GAFTA 25, GAFTA 38 and in other CIF\/CFR proformas of GAFTA.<\/p>\n<p><strong>FOSFA<\/strong>. An equivalent provision is found in FOSFA CIF proformas. In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fosfa.org\/contracts\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">FOSFA Contract No. 54<\/a> (vegetable and marine oil in bulk CIF, in the 1 April 2021 edition) it appears in <strong>Clause 7 DECLARATION OF SHIPMENT<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"has-black-color has-pale-cyan-blue-background-color has-text-color has-background\"><em>&#8220;The date of the &#8216;on board&#8217; Bill\/s of Lading shall be considered proof of the date of the shipment <\/em><em>in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary<\/em><em>.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The key difference lies in the standard of proof. GAFTA requires simply &#8220;evidence to the contrary&#8221;; FOSFA requires <strong>&#8220;conclusive evidence&#8221;<\/strong> \u2014 meaning compelling, decisive evidence, not literally &#8220;irrebuttable&#8221; proof. This is a higher threshold. A buyer under a FOSFA contract who challenges the B\/L date will need a weightier evidential basis than a GAFTA buyer, all else being equal. In close, borderline cases this difference can be outcome-determinative.<\/p>\n<p>Both clauses express the same idea. The B\/L date is accepted as a <strong>presumption<\/strong> of the date of shipment, but that presumption is <strong>rebuttable<\/strong> \u2014 under both GAFTA and FOSFA. If the other side produces (under GAFTA \u2014 just evidence; under FOSFA \u2014 conclusive evidence) that loading was actually completed on a different date, the presumption falls away. GAFTA goes one step further and expressly places on the seller\/carrier the duty to date the B\/L to the moment loading is finished (&#8220;to be dated when the goods are actually on board&#8221;); the FOSFA wording does not spell this duty out explicitly, but it flows from the general logic of common law and from the very phrase &#8220;on board&#8221; B\/L.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"How_the_buyer_can_rebut_the_bill_of_lading_date\"><\/span>How the buyer can rebut the bill of lading date<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The B\/L date under English law is prima facie evidence \u2014 an ordinary rebuttable presumption. It can be rebutted with the standard documents generated during loading:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Statement of Facts (SOF)<\/strong> \u2014 the chronology of cargo operations, signed by the agent, the master, and the stevedores.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Notice of Readiness (NOR)<\/strong> \u2014 the master&#8217;s formal notice that the vessel is ready.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Ship&#8217;s log \/ deck log<\/strong> \u2014 records the start and end times of loading.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Surveyor&#8217;s report<\/strong> \u2014 the report of the inspector (draft survey, tally) present during operations.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Port records<\/strong> \u2014 records of the port control service and AIS data on the vessel&#8217;s movements.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Tally sheets<\/strong> \u2014 tally records with time stamps.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>If the combination of these documents shows that loading was completed on 1 August, the presumption under GAFTA Clause 6 (or FOSFA 54 Clause 7) is rebutted, and a B\/L dated &#8220;31 July&#8221; is treated as false-dated. Under FOSFA, as noted above, the standard of proof is higher \u2014 the evidence must be &#8220;conclusive&#8221;, so the completeness and internal consistency of the evidential picture is of particular importance.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\">\n<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" src=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/officestock-O2o1hzDA7iE-unsplash.jpg\" alt=\"Bill of lading and contract on a trader&#039;s desk\" class=\"wp-image-4998\" title=\"\" srcset=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/officestock-O2o1hzDA7iE-unsplash.jpg 1920w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/officestock-O2o1hzDA7iE-unsplash-900x600.jpg 900w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/officestock-O2o1hzDA7iE-unsplash-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/officestock-O2o1hzDA7iE-unsplash-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/officestock-O2o1hzDA7iE-unsplash-270x180.jpg 270w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">In a shipment-date dispute the court looks not only at the B\/L but at the entire voyage documentation<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"If_the_BL_carries_a_wrong_date_the_two_rights_of_the_buyer_under_Kwei_Tek_Chao\"><\/span>If the B\/L carries a wrong date: the two rights of the buyer under Kwei Tek Chao<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Kwei Tek Chao v British Traders and Shippers Ltd [1954] 2 QB 459<\/strong> is the key authority on the consequences of false-dating. The facts: CIF Hong Kong, shipment no later than 31 October; the goods were actually loaded on 3 November, but the B\/L was falsely dated 31 October.<\/p>\n<p>Devlin J formulated the principle of <strong>two independent rights of rejection<\/strong> of a CIF buyer:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The right to reject the documents<\/strong> \u2014 arises at the moment of tender of documents. If at that stage the buyer discovers the discrepancy (or could have discovered it), he is entitled to refuse to pay against and accept the documents.<\/li>\n<li><strong>The right to reject the goods<\/strong> \u2014 becomes exercisable at landing and after examination of the goods. Acceptance of the documents without reservation does not destroy this separate remedy track: if false-dating comes to light after payment against the documents, the second right is held in reserve and becomes exercisable when the goods are landed and inspected at the port of discharge.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This fundamentally changes the balance: false-dating of the B\/L is not &#8220;cured&#8221; by the fact that the buyer accepted the documents without noticing the problem. Until the goods are landed and the reasonable period for examination has elapsed, the second right remains in the buyer&#8217;s hands.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_carriers_liability_for_a_false_date_The_Saudi_Crown_and_Standard_Chartered_Bank_v_PNSC\"><\/span>The carrier&#8217;s liability for a false date: The Saudi Crown and Standard Chartered Bank v PNSC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The buyer has yet another independent claim \u2014 this time not against the seller, but against the <strong>carrier<\/strong>. The starting authority is <strong>The Saudi Crown [1986] 1 Lloyd&#8217;s Rep 261<\/strong>. The facts: a CIF contract for ricebran; the B\/Ls were dated 15 July whereas loading was actually completed on 26 July. Sheen J held the shipowners liable to the CIF purchaser for <strong>misrepresentation<\/strong> of the date of shipment made by <strong>the shipowners&#8217; agents authorised to sign bills of lading<\/strong>. The reasoning: the agents had actual authority to insert the date in the B\/L, the B\/L is issued in the shipowner&#8217;s name, and when it bears an incorrect date it amounts to a misrepresentation addressed to the consignee.<\/p>\n<p>This approach was confirmed and significantly strengthened by the House of Lords in a more recent case \u2014 <strong>Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [2002] UKHL 43<\/strong>. The facts: a CIF sale of Iranian bitumen to Vietnam, payment by letter of credit through Standard Chartered Bank with a shipment deadline of 25 October 1993. Loading was not in fact completed by that date, and the parties (seller and carrier) agreed to issue falsely dated B\/Ls bearing the date &#8220;25 October 1993&#8221;. The documents were presented to the bank, and the bank paid out more than USD 1.1 million under the L\/C. Loading was in reality only finished in December 1993.<\/p>\n<p>The House of Lords held: (a) the deliberate issuance and tender of falsely dated B\/Ls to the bank in order to obtain payment under the letter of credit, in these circumstances, amounted to deceit; (b) a director of the seller company bears <strong>personal<\/strong> liability for the submission of false documents, notwithstanding that he acted on behalf of the company; (c) contributory negligence on the part of the bank is <strong>not a defence<\/strong> to a claim in deceit.<\/p>\n<p>Standard Chartered v PNSC is the leading modern case on this topic. It shows that antedating a B\/L in commodity trading is not &#8220;cured&#8221; by formal paperwork and is not cushioned by the corporate structure. In practice, this is one of the decisions that must be kept in mind when analysing any disputed situation around a B\/L date.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, where false-dating is established, the buyer has three parallel lines of attack: (1) breach of condition against the seller under the CIF contract, (2) misrepresentation\/deceit against the carrier and the signatories, and (3) where a bank is involved \u2014 the bank&#8217;s claim under the L\/C against the presenter of false documents.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\">\n<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" src=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/jonathanborba-dxkQaKhI36E-unsplash.jpg\" alt=\"Master entering a date on the bill of lading\" class=\"wp-image-5002\" title=\"\" srcset=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/jonathanborba-dxkQaKhI36E-unsplash.jpg 1920w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/jonathanborba-dxkQaKhI36E-unsplash-900x600.jpg 900w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/jonathanborba-dxkQaKhI36E-unsplash-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/jonathanborba-dxkQaKhI36E-unsplash-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/jonathanborba-dxkQaKhI36E-unsplash-270x180.jpg 270w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">The B\/L date is not a date of convenience \u2014 it is a formal representation of the date loading was completed<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_the_seller_should_do_if_loading_will_not_be_finished_in_time\"><\/span>What the seller should do if loading will not be finished in time<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>If loading will not be completed within the shipment period, false-dating the B\/L is a path with serious risks. Standard Chartered v PNSC shows that where the facts come to light, liability can be personal and can pierce the corporate veil.<\/p>\n<p>The legal instruments available depend on the form of contract:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Contracts on GAFTA and FOSFA proformas<\/strong>: most CIF proformas contain an <strong>Extension of Shipment Clause<\/strong> giving the seller up to an additional 8 days (in exchange for carrying charges and a price allowance). The conditions of the extension clause, the size of the allowance, the notice deadlines and the applicability thresholds vary across different proformas and editions. One must check the exact text that the parties have incorporated into their contract. I analysed the extension mechanism in detail on the example of a situation with several bills of lading in the article <a href=\"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/how-does-the-gafta-extension-clause-work-if-the-seller-has-issued-several-bills-of-lading-for-parts-of-the-shipment\/\">&#8220;How does the GAFTA Extension Clause work if the seller has issued several bills of lading&#8221;<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Bespoke CIF contracts without a proforma<\/strong>: an extension clause may be absent. The legal route then is to agree with the buyer on an additional period by side letter or addendum. This is possible where there is a working relationship and the buyer is willing to accept compensation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Force majeure<\/strong>: if the cause of delay fits the force majeure definition in the contract (usually set out in detail in the proformas), the seller may invoke force majeure, subject to the notice procedure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Practical_takeaways\"><\/span>Practical takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>For the CIF seller: shipment &#8220;takes place&#8221; only on completion of loading \u2014 not at its beginning and not at the moment the B\/L is signed. Asking the master to put an earlier date on the document is a questionable course. If the facts come out, the buyer acquires the right to reject documents and goods (Kwei Tek Chao), a parallel claim by the carrier or the bank for misrepresentation (Standard Chartered v PNSC) becomes available, and a director of the seller company is exposed to personal liability. The more reliable path is to make timely use of the extension clause (if the contract is on a GAFTA\/FOSFA proforma) or to negotiate an extension with the buyer by addendum.<\/p>\n<p>For the CIF buyer: the B\/L date is not the truth \u2014 it is a presumption. Always cross-check it against the SOF, NOR, ship&#8217;s log, port records and AIS data. Where a discrepancy is detected, record it immediately and preserve both rights \u2014 rejection of documents and rejection of goods. If the B\/L is clearly false-dated, the parallel claim against the carrier for misrepresentation can materially improve the buyer&#8217;s position, especially where the seller is in an offshore jurisdiction and enforcement against him is problematic.<\/p>\n<p>For all parties in string trading: false-dating of a single B\/L &#8220;flows&#8221; through the entire chain of contracts. Each intermediate buyer-seller acquires its own right of rejection. A chain reaction can halt the movement of tens of thousands of tonnes of goods.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>If you have a dispute around a bill of lading date, false-dating or review of the shipment period in a GAFTA or FOSFA arbitration \u2014 please get in touch:<\/p>\n<p>\ud83d\udce7 <a href=\"mailto:danil@danil-hristich.com\">danil@danil-hristich.com<\/a><br \/>\n\ud83d\udcf1 <a href=\"https:\/\/t.me\/danilhristich\" target=\"_blank\">Telegram<\/a> \u00b7 <a href=\"https:\/\/wa.me\/380632956265\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WhatsApp<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A CIF grain contract, shipment period: July. The vessel is brought alongside on 30 July, loading runs all night, and the final tonnes drop on board at 01:30 on 1 August. The master signs the bill of lading and dates it &#8220;31 July&#8221;. Formally everything looks clean: the B\/L is dated the last day of<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4990,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"rank_math_title":"Shipment: Bill of Lading Date or Completion of Loading? \u2014 Danil Hristich","rank_math_description":"What counts as shipment under a CIF contract: the bill of lading date or actual completion of loading? Bowes v Shand, The Wilomi Tanana, Kwei Tek Chao, Standard Chartered v PNSC, GAFTA 48 and FOSFA 54.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"shipment bill of lading date","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,28],"tags":[314,359,705,14,350,13,298,793,784],"class_list":{"0":"post-5007","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-main","9":"tag-billoflading-3","10":"tag-cif","11":"tag-english-law-3","12":"tag-fosfa","13":"tag-fosfa-54","14":"tag-gafta","15":"tag-gafta48","16":"tag-period-of-shipment","17":"tag-shipping-law-en"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5007"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5007\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5015,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5007\/revisions\/5015"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4990"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danil-hristich.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}