
In export transactions, the appearance of two company names as consignees on shipping documents may seem like a simple operational detail, but this practice carries significant legal and logistical risks. Why do shipping lines avoid such bills of lading (B/L), and why do freight forwarders remain tight-lipped about them? This article examines the underlying logic and dangers of dual-consignee B/Ls, offering crucial guidance for trade professionals.
The fundamental issue lies with master bills of lading (M/BL), which typically prohibit dual consignees. The reason is straightforward: in case of disputes, determining which party should receive the goods becomes problematic. If the carrier delivers to Company A while Company B claims rightful ownership, liability becomes legally ambiguous. Shipping companies refuse to assume such potential risks.
While house bills of lading (H/BL) theoretically allow dual consignees through letters of indemnity (LOI), this approach remains exceptionally hazardous. Should complications arise, the freight forwarder assumes disproportionate liability—potentially severe enough to threaten business continuity.
Dual-entity listings appear commonly on certificates of origin or property deeds, but their application to bills of lading requires extreme caution. Workarounds like "O/B" (on behalf of) or "C/O" (care of) may offer partial solutions, but direct dual-consignee listings retain the inherent risks described above.
Trade organizations should therefore avoid dual-consignee B/Ls entirely, designating a single, unambiguous recipient. When special circumstances necessitate alternative arrangements, consultation with legal and logistics experts becomes essential to develop compliant, risk-mitigated solutions—never relying on high-risk instruments like LOIs as substitutes for proper documentation.