This case involved a dispute between the plaintiff freight forwarders and the defendant bank. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's requirement that a master bill of lading must insert the name of the defendant bank (as authorised dealer (AD)) as consignee, instead of the plaintiffs' or its designated agents' names as consignee, went beyond the guidelines contained in s 8(1) of ch 22 of the Guidelines for Foreign Exchange Transactions of the Bangladesh Bank and should therefore be declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The plaintiffs issue bills of lading known as house bills. The shippers then issue master bills of lading on the basis of the house bills prepared by the freight forwarding agent and endorsed by the bank. At present, in Bangladesh it is mandatory for both the house bill of lading issued by the freight forwarding agent and the master bill of lading issued by the carrier to be endorsed by the concerned bank/authorised dealer. The plaintiffs object to this requirement imposed on them by the defendant bank and seek a writ of mandamus.

Held: The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a legal basis for a writ of mandamus.

The issues before the Court were:
(a) whether a house bill of lading issued by a freight forwarding agent is a bill of lading; and
(b) whether the provision with regard to the house bill of lading issued by the freight forwarding agent and the master bill of lading issued by the carrier having to be endorsed by the concerned bank as authorised dealer goes beyond s 8(1) of the Guidelines for Foreign Exchange Transactions 2009.

On the first issue, the court reviewed academic writing, the UCP 600 and other sources to determine what a bill of lading is. The Court noted that art 1.7 of the Hamburg Rules defines a bill of lading as meaning 'a document which evidences a contract of carriage by sea and the taking over or loading of the goods by the carrier, and by which the carrier undertakes to deliver the goods against surrender of the document. A provision in the document that the goods are to be delivered to the order of a named person, or to order, or to bearer, constitutes such an undertaking'. Article 14.2 of the Hamburg Rules says that the bill of lading may be signed by a person having authority from the carrier. A bill of lading signed by the master of the ship carrying the goods is deemed to have been signed on behalf of the carrier.

According to art 1.b of the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 (the Act), 'contract of carriage' applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title, in so far as such document relates to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the relations between a carrier and a holder of the same. After receiving the goods into his charge, the carrier, or the master or agent of the carrier, shall, on demand of the shipper, issue to the shipper a bill of lading (art 3.3 of the Act). The bill of lading can be treated as conclusive evidence as between the carrier and a receiver and as at least prima facie evidence as between the carrier and the shipper, as to the number or weight or quantity and apparent order and condition of the cargo on loading (see art 3.7 of the Act; Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, art 3.4; Hamburg Rules, art 16.3). After the goods are loaded, the bill of lading must be issued by the carrier, master or agent of the carrier to the shipper (art 3.7 of the Act). Under The Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier includes the owner or charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper (art 1.a). Under the Hamburg Rules carriers conclude a contract of carriage of goods by sea with a shipper. These Rules also cover actual carriers, which include any person entrusted by the carrier to perform all or part of the carriage of the goods.

According to art 1.a of the Act, a freight forwarder is neither the owner nor the charterer of the vessel, and therefore has no authority to issue any bill of lading. Therefore, a house bill of lading issued by a forwarding agent acting solely in the capacity of an agent to arrange carriage is not a bill of lading at all, but is at the most a receipt for the goods coupled with an authority to enter into a contract of carriage on behalf of the shipper. It is not a document of title, does not fall within the Bills of Lading Act 1855, and it is unlikely that it would ever be regarded as a good tender under a CIF contract.