Disqualified serversFrom the above graph it should be clear that some of the web servers are missing, the reason is that I was unable to have them completely benchmarked as they stopped replying when the request rate passed a certain critical value. The servers that are missing are:MagnumPy, i was able to obtain a reply rate of 500 RPS, but when the request rate passed the 700 RPS mark, MagnumPy crashedConcurrence, I was able to obtain a successful reply rate of 700 RPS, but it stopped replying when we fired more than 800 requests a second at the server. However, since Concurrence does support HTTP/1.1 keep alive connections and behaves correctly when benchmarked under a lower connection rate but higher request rate you can find its results in the HTTP/1.1 benchmarkCogen, was able to obtain a reply rate of 800 per second but stopped replying when the request rate was above 1500 per second. It does have a complete benchmark under the HTTP/1.1 test though.WSGIRef, I obtained a reply rate of 352 but it stopped reacting when we passed the 1900 RPS markPaster, obtained a reply rate of 500 but it failed when we passed the 2000 RPS markInterpretationFrom the servers that passed the benchmark we can see that they all have an admirable performance. At the bottom we have Twisted and Gunicorn, the performance of Twisted is somewhat expected as well it isn’t really tuned for WSGI performance. I find the performance of Gunicorn somewhat disappointing, also because for example Aspen which is a pure Python from a few years back, shows a significant better performance.
We can see however, that
increasing the worker count does in fact improve the performance as it is able to obtain a reply rate competitive with Aspen.The other pure python servers, CherryPy
and Tornado seem to be performing on par with ModWSGI. It looks that CherryPy has a slight performance edge over Tornado. So, if you are thinking to change from ModWSGI or CherryPy to Tornado because of increased performance you should think again. Not only does this benchmark show that there isn’t that much to gain. But you will also abandon the process/thread model meaning that you should be cautious with code blocking your interpreter.The top performers are clearly FAPWS3, uWSGI and Gevent. FAPWS3 has been designed to be fast and lives up the expectations, this has been noted by others as well as it looks like it is being . uWSGI is used successfully in production at (and in development by) the Italian . Gevent is a relatively young project but already very successful. Not only did it perform great in the previous async server benchmark but its reliance on the Libevent HTTP server gives it a performance beyond the other asynchronous frameworks.I should note that the difference between these top 3 is too small to declare a clear winner of the ‘reply rate contest’. However, I want to stress that with almost all servers I had to be careful to keep the amount of concurrent connections low since threaded servers aren’t that fond of lots concurrent connections. The async servers (Gevent, Eventlet, and Tornado) were happy to work on whatever was being thrown at them. This really gives a great feeling of stability as you do not have to worry about settings such as poolsize, worker count etc..Most of the servers have an acceptable response time. Twisted and Eventlet are somewhat on the slow side but Gunicorn shows, unfortunately, a dramatic increase in latency when the request rate passes the 1000 RPS mark. Increasing the Gunicorn worker count lowers this latency by a lot but it still on the high side compared with for example Aspen or CherryPy.The low error rates for CherryPy, ModWSGI, Tornado, uWSGI should give everybody confidence in their suitability for a production environment.HTTP 1.1 Server resultsIn the HTTP/1.1 benchmark we have a different list of contestants as not all servers were able to pipeline multiple requests over a single connection. In this test the connection rate is relatively low, for example a request rate of 8000 per second is about 800 connections per second with 10 requests per connection. This means that some servers that were not able to complete the HTTP/1.0 benchmark (with connection rates up to 5000 per second) are able to complete the HTTP/1.1 benchmark (Cogen and Concurrence for example).This graph shows the achieved request rate of the servers and we can clearly see that the achieved request rate is higher than in the HTTP/1.0 test. We could increase the total request rate even more by increasing the number of pipelined requests but this would then lower the connection rate. I think that 10 pipelined requests is a ok generalization of a webbrowser opening an average page.The graph shows a huge gap in performance difference, with the fastest server Gevent we are able to obtain about 9000 replies per second, with Twisted, Concurrence and Cogen we get about 1000. In the middle we have CherryPy and ModWSGI with them we are able to obtain a reply rate around the 4000. It is interesting that Tornado while being close to CherryPy and ModWSGI seems to have an edge in this benchmark compared to the edge CherryPy had in the HTTP/1.0 benchmark. This is along the lines of our expectations as pipelined requests in Tornado are cheaper (since it is Async) then in ModWSGI or CherryPy. We expect this gap to widen if we increase the number of pipelined requests. However, it falls to be seen how much of a performance boost this would provide in a deployment setup as Tornado and CherryPy will then probably be sitting behind a reverse proxy, for example NGINX. In such a setting the connection type between the upstream and the proxy is usually limited to HTTP/1.0, NGINX for example does not even support HTTP/1.1 keep alive connections to its upstreams.The best performers are clearly uWSGI and Gevent. I benchmarked Gevent with the ’spawn=none’ option to prevent Gevent from spawning a Greenlet, this seems fair in a benchmark like this. However, when you want to do something interesting with lots of concurrent connections you want each request to have its own Greentlet as this allows you to have thread like flow control. Thus I also benchmarked that version which can be seen in the Graph under the name ‘Gevent-Spawn’, from its results we can see that performance penalty is small.Cogen is getting a high latency after about 2000 requests per second, Eventlet and Twisted show an increased latency fairly early as well.The error rate shows that Twisted, Concurrence and Cogen have some trouble keeping up, I think all other error rates are acceptable.Memory UsageI also monitored the memory usage of the different frameworks during the benchmark. The benchmark noted below is the peak memory usage of all accumulated processes. As this benchmark does not really benefit from additional processes (as there is only one available processor) I limited the amount of workers when possible.From these results there is one thing that really stands out and that is the absolutely low memory usage of uWSGI, Gevent and FAPWS3. Especially if we take their performance into account. It looks like Cogen is leaking memory, but I haven’t really looked into that. Gunicorn-3w shows compared with Gunicorn a relatively high memory usage. But it should be noted that this is mainly caused by the switch from the naked deployment to the deployment after NGINX as we now also have to add the memory usage of NGINX. A single Gunicorn worker only takes about 7.5Mb of memory.Let’s Kick it up a notchThe first part of this post focussed purely on the RPS performance of the different frameworks under a high load. When the WSGI server was working hard enough it could simply answer all requests from a certain user and move on to the next user. This keeps the amount of concurrent connections relatively low making such a benchmark suitable for threaded web servers.However, if we are going to increase the amount of concurrent connections we will quickly run into system limits as explained in the introduction.
This is commonly known as the C10K problem. Asynchronous servers use a single thread to handle multiple connections and when efficiently implemented with for example EPoll or KQueue are perfectly able to handle a large amount of concurrent connections.So that is what we are going to do, we are going to take the top-3 performing WSGI servers namely Tornado, Gevent and uWSGI (FAPWS3 lack of HTTP/1.1 support made it unsuitable for this benchmark) and give them 5 minutes of ping-pong mayhem.You see, ping-pong is a simple game and it isn’t really the complexity that makes it interesting it is the speed and the reaction of the players. Now, what is 5 minutes of pingpong mayhem? Imagine that for 5 minutes long every second an Airbus loaded with ping-pong players lands (500 clients) and each of those players is going to slam you exactly 12 balls (with a 5 second interval). This would mean that after 5 seconds you would already have to return the volleys of 2000 different players at once.Tsung Benchmark SetupTo perform this benchmark I am going to use , which is a multi-protocol distributed load testing tool written in Erlang. I will then have 3 different machines simulating the ping-pong rampage. I used the following Tsung script.
&?xml version=&1.0&?&
&!DOCTYPE tsung SYSTEM &/usr/share/tsung/tsung-1.0.dtd& []&
&tsung loglevel=&warning&&
&client host=&tsung2& use_controller_vm=&false& maxusers=&800&/&
&client host=&tsung3& use_controller_vm=&false& maxusers=&800&/&
&client host=&bastet& use_controller_vm=&false& maxusers=&800&/&
&/clients&
&server host=&tsung1& port=&8000& type=&tcp&/&
&/servers&
&monitoring&
&monitor host=&tsung1& type=&erlang&/&
&/monitoring&
&arrivalphase phase=&1& duration=&5& unit=&minute&&
&users interarrival=&0.002& unit=&second&/&
&/arrivalphase&
&sessions&
&session name='wsgitest' probability='100'
type='ts_http'&
&for from=&0& to=&12& incr=&1& var=&counter&&
&http url='http://tsung1:8000/' version='1.1' method='GET'/&
&/request&
&thinktime random='false' value='5'/&
&/session&
&/sessions&
Tsung Benchmark ResultsLet me first state that all the three frameworks are perfectly capable to handle this kind of load, none of the frameworks dropped connection or ignored requests. Which I must say is already quite an achievement, considering that they had to handle about 2 million requests each.Below the concurrent connection graph we can see the system load, the cpu usage and the free memory on the system during the benchmark. We can clearly see that Gevent put less strain on the system as the CPU and Load graph indicate. In the memory graph we can see that all frameworks used a consistent amount of memory.The readers that still pay close attention to this article should note that the memory graph displays 4 lines instead of 3. The fourth line is Gevent compiled against , the new release of Libevent has been said to . But it is still an alpha version and the memory graph shows that this version is leaking memory. Not something you want on your production site.The final graph shows the latency of the 3 frameworks we can see a clear difference between Tornado and its competitors as Tornado’s response time hovers around 100ms, uWSGI around 5ms and gevent around 3ms. This is quite a difference and I am really amazed by the low latency of both Gevent and uWSGI during this onslaught.Summary and RemarksThe above results show that as a Python web developer we have lots of different methods to deploy our applications. Some of these seem to perform better than others but by focussing only on server performance I will not justify most of the tested servers as they differ greatly in functionality. Also, if you are going to take some stock web framework and won’t do any optimizations or caching, the performance of your webserver is not going to matter as this will not be the bottleneck. If there is one thing which made this benchmark clear is that most Python Web servers offer great performance and if you feel things are slow the first thing to look at
is really your own application.When you are just interested in quickly hosting your threaded application you really can’t go wrong with Apache ModWSGI. Even though Apache ModWSGI might put a little more strain on your memory requirements there is a lot to go for in terms of functionality. For example, protecting part of your website by using a LDAP server is as easy as enabling a module. Standalone CherryPy also shows great performance and functionality and is really a viable (fully Python) alternative which can lower memory requirements.When you are a little more adventurous you can look at uWSGI and FAPWS3, they are relatively new compared to CherryPy and ModWSGI but they show a significant performance increase and do have lower memory requirements.Concerning Tornado and performance, I do not think Tornado is an alternative for CherryPy or even ModWSGI. Not only does it hardly show any increases in performance but it also requires you to rethink your code.
But Tornado can be a great option if you do not have any code using blocking connections or are just wanting to look at something new.And then there is , it really showed amazing performance at a low memory footprint, it might need some adjustments to your legacy code but then again the monkey patching of the socket module could help and I really love the cleanness of Greenlets. There has already been
even with SQLAlchemy.And if you want to dive into high performance websockets with lots of concurrent connections you really have to go with an asynchronous framework. Gevent seems like the perfect companion for that, at least that is what we are going to use.Tags, , , , Leave a ReplyPostsFollow如何繕制提單 - 外貿單證 |
您的位置：
如何繕制提單
通常信用證對提單的規定舉例如下：
例1. Full set of clean on board ocean bill of lading made out to
order (of…) blank endorsed marked “Freight prepaid” notifying
applicant.
例2. 2/3 set of clean on board marine B/L consigned to accounted,
endorsed to the order of ABC Co. Marked “Freight collect” and notify
party as Hg Co.
例3.A complete set of clean multi-modal transport document made out
to our order endorsed to ABC Co. Marked “Freight payable at
destination” notifying the applicant.
海運提單一般就是指港至港已裝船提單(Port to port shipped on board marine bill of
lading)，習慣簡稱為海運提單。海運提單的格式，每家船公司都有自己不同的格式，但各項欄目、內容基本一致。出口商繕制提單和銀行審核提單的基本要求是“單證相符”。下面介紹海運提單的繕制及審核中注意事項。(參見提單示樣)
1.Shipper，托運人。托運人也稱發貨人(Consignor)，是指委託運輸的當事人。如信用證無特殊規定，應以受益人為托運人。如果受益人是中間商，貨物是從產地直接裝運的，這時也可以實際賣方為發貨人，因為按UCP500規定，如信用證無特殊規定，銀行將接受以第三者為發貨人的提單。不過此時必須考慮各方面是否可行的問題，
案例： 某年A進出口公司接到國外開來信用證規定：“…Hongkong Shun Tai Feeds Development Co.as
shipper on Bill of
Lading.”(…以香港順泰飼料發展公司作為提單發貨人)。A進出口公司在裝運時即按信用證上述規定以轉口商香港順泰飼料發展公司作為提單的發貨人。但在向銀行交單時單證人員才發現：該提單系空白抬頭，鬚髮貨人背書。提單既以香港順泰飼料發展公司作為發貨人，則應以香港該公司蓋章進行背書。但該公司在本地既並無代表，結果只好往返聯繫，拖延了三個星期香港才派人來背書。後因信用證過期無法議付，造成損失。
2.Consignee，收貨人。這是提單的抬頭，是銀行審核的重點專案。應與托運單中“收貨人”的填寫完全一致，並符合信用證的規定。
例1.來證要求Full set of B/L Consigned to ABC Co.，則提單收貨人一欄中填Consigned to
例2.來證要求 B/L issued to order of Applicant，查Applicant為Big A
Co.，則提單收貨人一欄中填to order of Big A Co.。
例3.來證要求Full set of B/L made out to our order，查開證行名稱為Small B
Bank，則提單收貨人一欄中填to order of Small B Bank, 或填to Small B Bank’s order。
收貨人欄的填寫必須與信用證要求完全一致。任何粗心大意和貪圖省事的填法都可能是單證不符點。不符點的例：B/L issued to the
order of ABC Co. Ltd. Whereas L/C required“ to ABC Co. Ltd.”。
(提單開成憑ABC公司指定人指示，而信用證要求“憑ABC公司指示)。抬頭為特定的公司與這一公司的指定人是完全不同的，前者只有這一特定的公司可以提貨，提單不能轉讓，後者提單經此公司背書便可以轉讓。又如，假設信用證上規定的地名是簡稱，而提單上寫的是全稱，也是不符點。
如果是托收方式中的提單，本欄一般填“To order”或填“To order of
shipper”均可，然後由發貨人背書。不能做成收貨人指示式，因為這樣的話代收行和發貨人均無法控制貨權；未經代收行同意的話，也不能做成代收行指示式，因為UCP522第10條規定：事先未征得銀行的同意，貨物不應直接運交給銀行或做成銀行抬頭或銀行指示性抬頭。
3.Notify party，被通知人。即買方的代理人，貨到目的港時由承運人通知其辦理報關提貨等手續。
(1)如果信用證中有規定，應嚴格按信用證規定填寫，如詳細位址、電話、電傳、傳真號碼等，以使通知順利。
(2)如果來證中沒有具體說明被通知人，那麼就應將開證申請人名稱、地址填入提單副本的這一欄中，而正本的這一欄保持空白或填寫買方亦可。副本提單必須填寫被通知人，是為了方便目的港代理通知聯繫收貨人提貨。
(3)如果來證中規定Notify…only，意指僅通知某某，則Only一詞不能漏掉。
(4)如果信用證沒有規定被通知人地址，而托運人在提單被通知人後面加注詳細地址，銀行可以接受，但無須審核。
4.Pre-carriage by，前段運輸；Port of transhipment，轉船港；如果貨物需轉運，則在此兩欄分別填寫第一程船的船名和中轉港口名稱。
Vessel，如果貨物需轉運，則在這欄填寫第二程的船名；如果貨物不需轉運，則在這欄填寫第一程船的船名。是否填寫第二程船名，主要是根據信用證的要求，如果信用證並無要求，即使需轉船，也不必填寫第二程船名。如來證要求In
case transshipment is effected. Name and sailing date of 2ND ocean
vessel calling Rotterdam must be shown on
B/L(如果轉船，至鹿特丹的第二程船船名，日期必須在提單上表示)，只有在這種條款或類似的明確表示注明第二程船名的條款下，才應填寫第二程船船名。
6. Port of Lading，裝運港。
(1) 應嚴格按信用證規定填寫，裝運港之前或之後有行政區的，如Xingang/Tianjin，應照加。
(2) 一些國外開來的信用證籠統規定裝運港名稱，僅規定為“中國港口”(Chinese ports, Shipment from
to…)，這種規定對受益人來說比較靈活，如果需要由附近其他港口裝運時，可以由受益人自行選擇。制單時應根據實際情況填寫具體港口名稱。若信用證規定“Your
port”，受益人只能在本市港口裝運，若本市沒有港口，則事先須洽開證人改證。
(3)如信用證同時列明幾個裝運港(地)，提單只填寫實際裝運的那一個港口名稱。
(4)托收方式中的提單，本欄可按合同的買方名稱填入。
7.Port of Discharge，卸貨港(目的港)。
8.Final destination，最終目的地。如果貨物的目的地就是目的港，空白這一欄。填寫目的港或目的地應注意下列問題：
(1) 除FOB價格條件外，目的港不能是籠統的名稱，如European main
port，必須列出具體的港口名稱。如國際上有重名港口，還應加國名。世界上有170多個港口是同名的，例如“Newport”(紐波特)港同名的有五個，愛爾蘭和英國各有一個，美國有兩個，還有荷屬安的列斯一個；“Portsmouth”(樸資茅斯)港也有五個，英國一個，美國四個；“Santa
Cruz (聖克魯斯)港有七個，其中兩個在加那利群島(Canary Islands)，兩個在亞速爾群島(Azores
Islands)，另外三個分別在阿根廷、菲律賓和美國；而“Victoria”(唯多利亞)港有八個，巴西、加拿大、幾內亞、喀麥隆、澳大利亞和塞舌耳、馬來西亞和格林伍德都有。
(2) 如果來證目的港後有In transit
to…，在CIF或C&F價格條件，則不能照加，只能在其他空白處或嘜頭內加注此段文字以表示轉入內陸運輸的費用由買方自理。
(3) 美國一些信用證規定目的港後有OCP字樣，應照加。OCP即Overland Common
Points，一般叫做“內陸轉運地區”，包括North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebrasla,
Colorado, New Mecico起以東各州都屬於OCP 地區範圍內。例如San Francisco OCP，意指貨到三藩市港後再轉運至內陸。San
Francisco OCP Coos Bay，意指貨到三藩市港後再轉運至柯斯灣。新加坡一些信用證規定“Singapore PSA”，
PSA意指Port of Singapore
Authority，即要求在新加坡當局碼頭卸貨。該碼頭費用低廉，但船舶擁擠，一般船隻不願意停泊該碼頭，除非承運人同意。
(4) 有些信用證規定目的港後有Free port (自由港)，Free zone (自由區)，提單也可照加，例如Aden(亞丁)，Aqaba(阿喀巴)，Colon(科隆)，Beirut(貝魯特),
Port Said (賽得港)這些目的港後應加Free Zone，買方可憑此享受減免關稅的優惠。
(5) 如信用證規定目的港為Kobe/Negoga/yokohama，此種表示為賣方選港，提單只打一個即可。如來證規定Option
Kobe/ Negoga/yokohama，此種表示為買方選港，提單應按次序全部照打。
(6) 如信用證規定某港口，同時又規定具體的卸貨碼頭，提單應照打。如到檳城目的港有三種表示：“Penang”、
“Penang/Butterworth”、 “Penang/Georgetown”。後兩種表示並不是選港，Butterworth
和Georgetown 都是檳城港中的一個具體的卸貨碼頭，如果信用證中規定了具體的卸貨碼頭，提單則要照填。
案例 信用證規定海運提單，貨從上海運到丹麥Aarhus，我出口公司在提單上有關裝卸各欄填制為：
Port of Lading：SHANGHAI
　　Port of Discharge：(空白)
　　Final destination：AARFUS
單據寄到國外銀行，開證行拒付，理由是AARFUS應為卸貨港，而不是目的地。信用證規定的是海運，屬於港至港運輸，AARFUS是一個港口而不是內陸城市，因此，它只能是卸貨港，而不是最後目的地。如果運輸方式是多式聯運，從上海裝船到歐洲某一港口，再通過陸運到AARFUS，那麼AARFUS可做為最後目的地，而卸貨港則為歐洲港口。
9. No. of Original
B/L，正本提單的份數。只有正本提單可流通，交單，議付，副本則不行。UCP500第23條指出，提單可以是一套單獨一份的正本單據，但如果簽發給發貨人的正本超過一份，則應該包括全套正本。出口商應按信用證規定來要求承運人簽發正副本提單份數。並在交單議付時，應提交信用證要求的份數。單據上忘記打上正本份數或某份提單沒有“正本”字樣，都是不符點。信用證中對份數的各種表示法：
例1. Full set of B/L，是指全套提單，按習慣作兩份正本解釋。
例2. Full set (3/3) plus 2 N/N copies of original forwarded through
lading，本證要求提交全部製作的三份正本。這裏的(3/3)意為：分子的數位指交銀行的份數，分母的數位指應制作的份數。N/N
(Non-Negotiation)意為不可議付，即副本。
例3. Full set less one copy on board marine bills of
lading，指應向議付行提交已裝船海運提單，是全套正本(至少一份正本)。
例4. 2/3 original clean on board ocean bills of
lading，指製作三份正本提單，其中兩份向議付行提交。
10. Mark &
No.，標誌和號碼。俗稱嘜頭。嘜頭即為了裝卸、運輸及存儲過程中便於識別而刷在外包裝上的裝運標記，是提單的一項重要內容，是提單與貨物的主要聯繫要素，也是收貨人提貨的重要依據。提單上的嘜頭應與發票等其他單據以及實際貨物保持一致，否則會給提貨和結算帶來困難。
(1)如信用證上有具體規定，繕制嘜頭應以信用證規定的嘜頭為准。如果信用證上沒有具體規定，則以合同為准。如果合同上也沒有規定，可按買賣雙方私下商訂的方案或受益人自定。
(2) 嘜頭內的每一個字母、數位、圖形、排列位置等應與信用證規定完全一致，保持原形狀，不得隨便錯位、增減等。
(3) 散裝貨物沒有嘜頭，可以表示“No mark”
或“N/M”。裸裝貨物能常以不同的顏色區別，例如鋼材、鋼條等刷上紅色標誌，提單上可以“Red stripe” 表示。
11. Number and kind of
packages，件數和包裝種類。本欄填寫包裝數量和包裝單位。如果散裝貨物無件數時，可表示為“In bulk
”(散裝)。包裝種類一定要與信用證一致。
案例 某A公司出口一筆大豆，合同規定以舊、修補麻袋包裝。信用證對於包裝條件卻規定：“Packed in gunny
bags”(麻袋包裝)。A公司按合同規定，貨物以舊、修補麻袋包裝，提單按信用證規定“麻袋包裝”繕制。承運人在簽發提單時發現貨物包裝是舊袋且有修補，要求在提單上加注。A公司考慮提單加添批註造成不清潔提單則無法議付，以為合同即規定允許貨物以舊、修補麻袋包裝，買方不會有異議，所以改制單據為貨物以舊、修補麻袋包裝。單據交議付行議付時，議付行也疏忽未發現問題，單到開證行卻被拒付，其理由：信用證規定為“Packed
in gunny bags.”(麻袋包裝)，而發票與提單卻表示為“Packed in used and repaired gunny
bags.”(舊、修補麻袋包裝)，故單證不符。A公司幾經交涉無果，結果以削價處理才結案。
12.Description of
goods，商品名稱。商品名稱應按信用證規定的品名以及其他單據如發票品名來填寫，應注意避免不必要的描述，更不能畫蛇添足地增加內容。如信用證上商品是Shoes
(鞋子)，絕不能擅自詳細描述成Men’s canvas shoes (男式帆布鞋)，或Ladies’ casual shoes
(女式輕便鞋)等。如果品名繁多、複雜，則銀行接受品名描述用統稱表示，但不得與信用證中貨物的描述有抵觸。如果信用證規定以法語或其他語種表示品名時，亦應按其語種表示。
13. Gross Weight (kos)，毛重(公斤)。毛重應與發票或包裝單相符。如裸裝貨物沒有毛重只有淨重，應先加Net
weight 或 N.W.，再注具體的淨重數量。
14. Measurement，尺碼。即貨物的體積。以立方米為計量單位，小數點以下保留三位。FOB價格條件下可免填尺碼。
15.Freight
clause，運費條款。運費條款應按信用證規定注明。如信用證未明確，可根據價格條件是否包含運費決定如何批註。主要有以下幾種情況：
(1) 如果是CIF、CFR等價格條件，運費在提單簽發之前支付者，提單應注Freight paid (運費已付)或Freight
prepaid (運費預付)。
(2) FOB、FAS等價格條件，運費在目的港支付者，提單應注明Freight collect、Freight to
collect、Freight to be collected (運費到付或運費待收)，或注Freight payable at
destination (運費目的港支付)。
(3) 如信用證規定Charter party B/L acceptable (租船契約提單可以接受)，提單內可注明Freight as
per charter party 表示運費按租船契約支付。
(4) 如果賣方知道運費金額或船公司不願意暴露運費費率的情況下，提單可注Freight paid as arranged
(運費已照約定付訖)，或者運費按照約定的時間或辦法支付，提單可注Freight as arranged, 或者, Freight
payable as per arrangement。
(5)對於貨物的裝船費和裝卸費等負擔問題，經常船方要求在提單上注明有關條款，如“F.I.”(Free In)：船方不負擔裝船費；
“F.O.”(Free Out)：船方不負擔卸船費；
　　“F.I. O.”(Free In and Out)：船方不負擔裝船費和卸船費；
　　“F.I. O.S.”(Free In , Out and Stowed)：船方不負擔裝卸費和理艙費；
　　“F.I. O.S.T.”(Free In , Out, Stowed and Trimmed)：船方不負擔裝卸費和理艙費；
16.Special condition in B/L，特殊條款。特殊條款的例如下：
例1. Bill of lading must specifically state that the merchandise has
been shipped or loaded on bard a named vessel and /or bill of lading
must evidence that merchandise has been shipped or loaded on board a
named vessel in the on –board notation.
信用證要求在提單上特別地注明貨物裝上一隻定船名的船。雖然在提單上已有一個欄目填船名，但對方仍然堅持用文字證明。這是對方強調裝載船的表示。一般托運人會接受，於是在提單的空白處打上
We certify that the merchandise has been shipped on a ship name ***.
例2. Bill of lading should mark freight payable as per charter party,
evidencing shipment from whampoa, China to U.S, gulf port.
這是要求強調運費根據租船契約支付，並強調裝運由中國的黃埔至美國的哥爾夫波特港的特殊條款。在填寫提單時，不應因這兩項內容已注在欄目中填寫而放棄重寫一次，應在提單空白處打上Fright
has been payable as per charter party. 和 The shipment has been made
from whampoa, China to U.S, gulf port.
例3. 來證要求：Terms as intended in relation to name of vessel, port of
loading and port of arrival are not acceptable.
這是不允許在有關船名、裝運港、目的港表達中出現“預計”字樣的條款。在具體製作提單過程中應遵照辦理。
例4. 來證要求：issuing company’s certificate confirming that the vessel
named in B/L is a vessel of a conference line. This document is only
to be presented in case of shipment be sea freight.
這是一個限制托運人必須把貨物交給班輪公會承運的條款。托運人在收到來證時就應根據實際情況決定是否能做得到。從製作提單的具體方式來看有兩種處理辦法：其一是由船公司出具一張船籍證，證明裝載船是某班輪公會的；其二，由船公司在簽發提單時務必在提單上加注證明該船是某班輪公會的。
17.Place and date of
Issue，提單簽發地點和日期。簽單位址通常是承運人收受貨物或裝船的位址，但也有時不一致，例如，收受或裝運貨物在新港(Xingang)而簽單在天津。也有的甚至不在同一國家。提單簽發的日期不得晚於信用證規定的裝運期，這對出口商能否安全收匯很重要。本提單正面條款中已有裝上船條款(Shipped
on board the vessel named above…)，在這種情況下簽單日期即被視為裝船日期。 18.Laden on
Vessel，已裝船批註。有些提單正面沒有預先印就的類似已裝上船的條款，這種提單便稱為備運提單。備運提單轉化為已裝船提單的方式有兩種：
(1)在提單的空白處加“已裝船”批註或加蓋類似內容的圖章。例如“Shipped on Board”，
有的只加“On
Board”，然後加裝船日期並加提單簽發的簽字或簡簽。所謂簡簽，是指簽字人以最簡單的簽字形式通常只簽本人姓名中的一個單詞或一個字母來代替正式簽字。
(2)在備運提單下端印有專供填寫裝船條款的欄目：Laden on Board the
Vessel，已裝船標注。有人稱之為“裝船備忘錄”。裝船後，在此欄處加注必要內容，如船名等，並填寫裝船日並由簽字人簽字或簡簽。
19. Signed for the Carrier，提單簽發人簽字。按照UCP500規定，有權簽發提單的是承
運人或作為承運人的具名代理或代表，或船長或作為船長的具名代理或代表。如果是代理人簽字，代理人的名稱和身份與被代理人的名稱和身份都應該列明。
第三部分：單證綜合知識
有關單證知識的60個問答
1、銀行是否接受出具日期早於信用證出具日期的單據，如果接受，前提條件是什么？
可以。信用證沒有禁止接受出具日期早於信用證出具日期的單據。
2、什么時候銀行才認為，運輸單據上所包括的“clean on board”的條件已經滿足？
一是沒有不清潔批註，二是，對於裝船提單，無須裝船批註；對於收妥待運提單，需裝船批註。滿足上述兩個條件，即可認為，提單已經滿足“clean
on board”的條件。
3、before 15th April我公司提單簽發日期4月15日，可否？
不可以。BEFORE不含當日。
4、L/C規定裝運期為after 15th April，1990 until 30th，April，1990，我實際提單日期為15th
April 1990或30th April，1990是否可以？
首先，需要明確提單日期是否就是裝船日期，對於收妥待運提單，是以裝船批註日期作為裝船日期，假如提單日期就是裝船日期，那么，根據UCP500第四十七條，提單日期為15th
April 1990不可接受，提單日期為30th April 1990可接受。
5、L/C在FOB條件下，要求提單在運費條款中注明：FREIGHT PAYABLE AS PER CHARTER PARTY
是否可以？為什么？
不可以。一方面，按照常理，FOB條件下，出口方不承擔運費，所以提單上應注明“運費待收”（Freight
collect），但也存在特殊情況，即進口方要求出口方支付運費，這需要信用證特別規定；另一方面，如果信用證沒有規定可以接受租船合約提單，銀行是不能接受含有租船合約提單或類似詞語的提單的。
6、L/C上“SHIPPER LOAD AND COUNT”AND“SAID BY SHIPPER TO
CONTAIN”可否接受，為何？
可以。因為現代運輸大多是採用集裝箱運輸，往往是由托運人在集裝箱堆場或集裝箱轉運站將貨物裝入集裝箱並封印，承運人一般不再開箱查驗。所以為了免除自己在這方面的責任，承運人往往會在提單上注明上述兩段詞語，大意是集裝箱內所裝的貨物數量及內容是由托運人所述。當然，這種方式，也存在隱患：貨物有可能不是托運人所聲明的種類、數量。
7、開證行收到倒簽提單，並有根據，開證行以偽造單據為由提出拒付，可否？
不可以。銀行只能以單據表面存在不符拒付。但在法律上，可以以偽造單據為由進行抗辯。
8、若L/C要求交單期起算日為貨運單據的簽發日（DATE OF ISSURANCE）在RECEIVED B/L中ON
BOARD日期和B/L簽發日不同，應從何日期起算？
應從B/L簽發日期起算。
9、L/C金額7000元，擔保出運8000元，然後修改增幅10000元，則可用金額為多少？
可用金額為10000元。
10、L/C最晚裝期4月15日，效期4月25日，未規定交單期，若B/L，4月3日，4月15日議付，過期否？
12、DOCUMENTS MUST BE PRESENTED FOR NEGOTIATION WITHIN 10 DAYS，FROM
B/L DATE，或AFTER B/L DATE，若B/L為1日，則最晚交單期分別為多少？
最晚交單日分別為10日和11日。
13、L/C金額前UP TO USD10000，00 NOT EXCEEDING USD10000，00 NOT EXCEEDING
USD1000，00而不准分運，出運時的金額如何掌握？
出運時金額不得超出USD10000。
14、雙到期的L/C，若L/C項下提前發運，則交單期如何？
交單期在信用證中是否有規定？如有，按照規定的交單期限掌握；若無，則對於雙到期的L/C，如果提前發運，則交單期限為該裝運日至效期之間的時間。
15、若保險單要求IN DUPLICATE PLUS ONE COPY，制單時如何提供單據？
兩正一副。
16、SHIPMENT AT 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF L/C，ISSUE則裝運日如何掌握？
在開證日後（不含開證日期）的第90天。
17、提單上批註“SHORT SHIPPED ONE BALE”是否構成不清潔提單？
短裝一包，信用證是否允許？如果不允許，則構成不清潔提單。
18、信用證要求提供的是潔淨已裝船提單（CLEAN ON BOARD B/L），現船公司簽發的聯合運輸提單是備運（RECEIVED
FOR SHIPMENT）提單，該怎么辦？
由船公司進行裝船批註。
19、什么叫預約保險單（OPEN POLICY）？有什么作用？
是基於長期合作，保險人與被保險人之間簽訂的預約保險或保險約定。可以避免繁雜的保險手續，可以防止漏保，保費定期結算及可以優惠，減少被保險人的資金佔用。
20、可轉讓信用證通常被第一受益人作為從第二受益人出口的貨物中獲取差價利益的一種支付手段，因此：
（一）第一受益人在把信用證轉讓第二受益人時對原證的那些條款可作必要的改動？
（二）第二受益人發貨後提交的出口單據為什么必須通過轉讓銀行？
（一）信用證金額、單價，投保比率，效期、裝期、交單期限。
（二）因為便於第一受益人換單。
21、什么是“倒簽提單”（ANTEDATED BILL OF LADING）
什麼是“預借提單”（ADVANCED BILL OF LADING）其危害性如何？
倒簽提單是指簽發提單時將提單上記載的裝船日期提前的提單。
預借提單是指貨物尚未開始裝船或者尚未全部裝船的情況下，簽發的已裝船提單。
二者都是將提單的簽發日期提前，使得實際日期與提單所記載的日期不符，構成虛假和欺詐，屬於違法行為。一旦被發現，承運人可能被訴諸法律。
22、請將提單應否背書由誰背書填入空格、
　　提單抬頭　　　　　　　　　　　應否背書由誰背書
　　TO ORDER 應背書 SHIPPER
　　TO ORDER OF SHIPPER 應背書 SHIPPER
　　TO ORDER OF XX BAND 應背書 XX BAND
　　TO ORDER OF ACCOUNTEE 應背書 ACCOUNTEE（即申請人）
23、在一份SWIFT來證中其代號CODE 39A POS/NEG 5/5是什么意思？
信用證可用金額可以增減5%。
24、信用證分批裝運條款為SEVERAL SHIPMENTS 請問應分幾批出運？
一批（不含一批）以上。
25、保兌信用證，出口單據經保兌行審核無誤，但開證行收到單據後認為有不符點，拒絕付款，保兌行因此也不同意付款給出口公司，理由是保兌行只有在開證行倒閉的情況下才承擔保兌責任，請問這個理由是否成立？
不成立。因為保兌行承擔獨立審單的責任，其付款與否不取決於開證行。
26、什么叫“交換提單”SWITCH B/L
是指在直達運輸的條件下，應托運人的要求，承運人承諾，在某一約定的中途港憑在啟運港簽發的提單另換發一套以該中途港為啟運港，但仍以原來的托運人為托運人的提單，並注明&在中途港收回本提單，另換發以該中途港為啟運港的提單&或&Switch
B/L&字樣的提單。
27、不可轉讓的運輸單據（NON-NEGOTIAABLE TRANSPORT DOCUMENT）是否要憑運輸單據提貨？
不需要。憑到貨通知及收貨人身份證明即可提貨。
28、出口內衣500箱，每箱裝5打，共計2500打，國外開來信用證條款要求裝運標誌（SHIPPING
MARK）及標明數量（QUANTITY）請問我們在做裝運標誌時，是標明每箱數量5打，還是總數量2500打？
標明總數量2500打。
29、信用證要求提供“LAND-SEA COMBINED TRANSPORT
B/L”但又規定不可轉運，貨從內地裝火車到香港裝海*，與不可轉運有矛盾，以上條款是否需要聯繫客戶修改？
不需要。UCP500第26條規定，即使信用證禁止轉運，銀行也將接受注明轉運將發生或可能發生的多式運輸單據，但同一多式運輸單據須包括運輸全程。
30、國外A銀行開來一張保兌信用證，請國內B銀行加保兌，B銀行將該證通知受益人C公司，未加任何批註，這是不是默示：它對信用證的保兌已經認可、
不是。如果B行同意保兌，在通知受益人時，須明確書面聲明。
31、HAWB是什麼單證？它與MAWB有什麼關係？
HAWB是HOUSE AIR
WAYBILL的簡稱，即航空分運單，由運輸行簽發（該運輸行本身沒有飛機）。運輸行將攬收後拼裝的貨物交航空運輸公司，由航空運輸公司簽發的運輸單據是MASTER
AIR WAYBILL，簡稱MAWB。
32、可轉讓信用證，有關轉讓的銀行費用由第一受益人（讓與人）還是第二受益人（受讓人）負擔？
應由第一受益人承擔。
33、USANCE DRAFT是什麼匯票？
遠期匯票。
34、信用證要求PACKING LIST TO BE MADE OUT IN NEUTRAL FORM怎麼做？
即PACKING LIST 不要顯示出具人的名稱。
35、對美國出口是不是可提供普惠制產地證？
36、A銀行開出的信用證，經B銀行保兌，在付款責任上，這兩家銀行有沒有第一性和第二性的區別？
37、L/C轉讓中的受讓人英文叫什麼？
TRANSFEREE。
38、商檢證書的日期早於信用證開證日期，可否被銀行接受？
只要信用證未禁止，則可以接受。
39、信用證中的ACCOUNTEE指誰？
指開證申請人。
40、香港某客戶開來一張信用證，號碼為123，購買襯衫1000打，“不准分批”，因貨未備妥，經修改為“允許分批”，該L/C項下1000打襯衫後來分兩次出運，隨後，該客戶又開來第二張信用證，除數量，金額，裝效期與第一張信用證有所不同，其餘條款套用第一張信用證“SIMILAR
TO L/C NO，123”，這張信用證項下貨物可否分批？
國際商會不鼓勵、不提倡套開信用證。本問題存在模糊之處，前證的條款是否包含修改後的條款呢？就本題而言，應該是不允許分批。
41、在什麼樣的情況下，需要投保賣方利益險？
在採用貨到付款或托收等商業信用的收款方式且採用FOB或CFR術語時，按照合同的規定，賣方沒有辦理貨運保險的義務，而由買方根據情況自行辦理。如果履約時行情對買方不利，買方拒絕接收貨物，就有可能不辦保險，這樣一旦貨物在途中出險就可能導致錢貨兩空。如不得已採用這兩種術語成交，賣方應在當地投保賣方利益險。
42、限制議付的信用證，交給非信用證指定的銀行議付，有何風險？
可能被開證行以“非指定銀行交單”拒付，另外，即使開證行接受非指定銀行交單，到期地點也改在了開證行櫃檯。
43、信用證要求出RECEIPTED INVOICE 受益人該怎樣處理？
“RECEIPTED INVOICE”是指的收妥發票, 又稱錢貨兩訖發票(COMMERCIAL INVOICE DULY
RECEIVED), 當信用證要求提供這種發票時, 出口公司要在發票上明確表示貨款已收到. 在填制此種發票時, 就在發票上注明
“RECEIPTED INVOICE”或證明 “PAYMENT RECEIVED AGAINST XXX BANK L/C NO.XXX
DATED XXX”字樣.
44、保險條款中的WITHOUT FRANCHISE是什麼意見？
這個詞語很少見到，應該是沒有免賠率，即發生損失，保險公司全部理賠。常見的是I.O.P，不計免賠率。
45、L/C裝期和效期的最後一天適逢法定的節假日，可否順延到下一個工作日、
效期可順延，裝期不可以。
46、什麼叫對開信用證？
即兩家銀行互為開證行和通知行，多見於易貨貿易和補償貿易等。
47、普惠制是發達國家給發展中國家提供的一種關稅優惠制度，它有三項原則，請說出是哪三項？
普遍的；非歧視的；非互惠的。
48、什麼叫“清潔提單”
沒有明確不清潔批註的提單。
49、信用證數量前有“大約”字樣，但金額10萬美圓前沒有“大約”字樣，我貨略有超裝，發票總金額為102000美圓，10萬美圓在信用證項下議付，2000美圓作托收處理，議付銀行審單後已接受辦理，但單到國外，開證行以發票金額與信用證金額不符拒收，請問是否合理？
50、匯票的PAYEE是誰？
51、出口貨物從倉庫或工廠運往碼頭途中出險，在CIF條件下出口商品已辦保險，可根據W/W（倉至倉）條款要求保險公司賠償損失；在CFR條件下，可否由進口商品出面要求保險公司賠償？
在貨物出險之前，進口商是否已經辦理保險，何時辦理保險？如沒有，則無法向保險公司索賠。
52、某船公司的提單，在左下角簽章處印刷了“SIGNED FOR”或者“SIGNED FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE
CARRIER”字樣，這種提單由船公司代理簽章，寄到國外，遭到開證行拒付，為什麼？
出單人身份不明確。
53、信用證沒有允許分批和允許轉船的條款，可否分批和轉船？
允許分批，允許轉運。
54、（AIR WAYBILL）航空運單是不是NEGOTIATABLE DOCUMENT？它能不能做成空白抬頭TO ORDER、
是，不能。
55、出口單證內容要求達到“四個一致”，是哪四個一致？
單證一致，單單一致，單貨一致，證同一致。
56、廠商發票的出廠價和某些海關發票中的國內市場價格都是以人*幣表示的，這個價格應高於或低於出口發票。
57、L/CCHANG償付銀行償付時要不要單證？
不要。只須匯票或者索償電。
58、海運提單背面的鉛印條款，如與信用證條款不符，銀行是否可以拒付？
不可以，銀行不審核提單背面條款。
59、信用證和托收相結合的付款方式（即部分貨款由L/C支付，其餘貨款在托收項下支付，全套單據是附在信用證匯票項下，還是附在托收匯票下？
全套單據應附在托收匯票項下。
60“THE CREDIT DOES NOT BEAR OUR CONFIRMATION AND DOES NOT INVOICE
ANY UNDERTAKING ON OUR PART”信用證上的這一條款是開證行？通知行？還是保兌行所加的？
通知行所加，意思是不加具保兌