CASE STUDY - UCP 600, ICC 2007 1. A credit subject to UCP 600 has the following terms: +One original and two copies forwarder's cargo receipt, consigned to applicant, notify ABC Inc. with freight collect. Please contact XYZ Forwarder Inc, 100 Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario L4S 2L1 Canada. Mr. So Good Tel: 905 888 8888 Fax 905 888 9999 to arrange delivery of goods. All loading charges are for the account of beneficiary. The issuing bank refuses to pay due to following discrepancy in the forwarder's cargo receipt (FCR): The FCR does not show “All loading charges are for the account of beneficiary”. But in the beneficiary's signed certificate required by the credit, it has covered such condition, namely: We hereby certify that: 1. This shipment does not contain any wood packing material. 2. No child labour is involved in the manufacture of the goods. 3. The beneficiary holds the applicant harmless against copyright infringement, if any. 4. All loading charges are for the account of beneficiary. Questions: Q1 Is the issuing bank correct in its refusal? 2. A credit subject to UCP 600, allowing partial shipments, has the following terms: “+One original and two copies beneficiary's signed statement to warrant that: 1. The goods are free of copyright infringement. 2. No child labour is involved in the manufacturing. 3. No wood packing materials are used. 10,000 pcs. remote control helicopters, red, with batteries PO No. 12345 for East Coast USA. 8,000 pcs. remote control sport cars, blue, with batteries PO No. 12346 for West coast USA.” The commercial invoice indicates shipment of 10,000 pcs. helicopters to East Coast only. The issuing bank refuses the beneficiary's signed statement with following reason:
“The beneficiary's signed statement, covering 8,000 pcs. remote control sport cars for West Coast, as well as 10,000 pcs. helicopters for East Coast, is not consistent with the goods covered by the commercial invoice.” Questions: Q1 Is the issuing bank correct in its refusal? 3. A credit subject to UCP 600 calling for 10,000 MT of cement does not allow partial shipments or drawings. Two sets of stipulated documents are presented. One set containing Bill of Lading (BL) 1 is presented in the morning of 1 May 2010 and another set containing BL 2 is presented in the afternoon of 1 May 2010, using a different covering letter or schedule. BL 1 of voyage No. 888 shows carriage by MV OMG covering 6,000 MT of cement to be discharged at New York. BL 2 showing carriage by the same vessel MV OMG of same voyage No. 888 covering 4,000 MT of cement is to be discharged at New York. The issuing bank refuses the two presentations stating: “Partial shipment is made and this is not allowed in the credit.” The beneficiary argues that according to article 31 (b) of UCP 600, the two shipments carried by the same vessel, on the same voyage and to the same destination are not partial shipments.
- Fall '14
- Legal documents, Bill of lading, Commercial item transport and distribution, UCP, Waybill