With DPU Destination Terminal for railfreight the goods are indeed unloaded from the railcar at the terminal as part of the seller’s contract of carriage.

Delivery of the goods is “unloaded” by the seller at the destination place, in this case the port of discharge.

Delivery of the goods is “not unloaded” by the seller at the destination place. It would be unusual that delivery by road would be to a terminal for the buyer to then collect.

Delivery of the goods is “not unloaded” by the seller at the destination place. There is however a problem with DAP Airport

Delivery of the goods is “not unloaded” by the seller at the destination place. There is however a problem with Delivery at Paid (DAP) Container Freight Station (CFS).

The current Incoterms 2020 rules, like those in previous versions before them, are entirely devoid of any clue to assist the very people they are all about – the seller and the buyer.

In CPT/CIP, the seller’s obligation is to deliver the goods to its own carrier on the agreed date or within the agreed period. See my earlier post on delivery for CPT/CIP.

As with all eleven of the Incoterms 2020 rules, risk transfers from the seller to the buyer instantly at delivery. I explained a few days ago the variability of “delivery” which is not mentioned in the wording of these two rules, conveniently for the lawyers but most inconveniently for the actual traders and their logistics people.

When either of these two Incoterms 2020 rules are used, it is the destination place that is named. For example, CPT Santiago means that the seller has contracted for carriage to Santiago.

Assuming we are looking at the normal type of Letters of Credit with the latest shipment date, port/airport of loading, port or airport of destination and requirement to present an onboard B/L or an AWB, then the answer is “NO”.