1110rev_Consolidated_Opinions_Oct08_final.pdf - Department of Policy and Business Practices Mr Wilko Gunster Secretary General ICC Netherlands Postbus

1110rev_Consolidated_Opinions_Oct08_final.pdf - Department...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 50 pages.

Department of Policy and Business Practices 38 Cours Albert 1er, 75008 Paris, France Tel +33 (0)1 49 53 28 28 Fax +33 (0)1 49 53 28 59 3 November 2008/TS/wj E-mail [email protected] Website Document 470/1110rev final Mr. Wilko Gunster Secretary General ICC Netherlands Postbus 95309, 2509 CH Den Haag Bezuidenhoutseweg 12, 2594 AV Den Haag The Netherlands 3 November 2008 Subject: Document 470/TA.657rev (UCP 600) Dear Mr. Gunster, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the opinion of the Banking Commission. QUOTE We advised and confirmed a L/C which was issued by ‘Bank X’ in Country I. After having received and checked the documents we found the following discrepancies. First discrepancy The CMR provides conflicting information regarding the carrier i.e., two carriers are named for the same routing and goods. Explanation: In Box 16 (the name of the Carrier) of the presented CMR document the name quote [ Company S ] unquote was inserted. In Box 23 (signature and name of the Carrier) the name quote [ Company C ] unquote was inserted . There was a signature placed in this box. Box 17 ( the name of the successive carrier) was not completed. Second discrepancy The date of receipt of the goods and the date of issuance have been corrected and should be authenticated by the party making the change.
Image of page 1
Department of Policy and Business Practices 2 Document 470/1110rev final Explanation Box 4 (the place and date of receipt of the goods) was filled in with the typed wording quote France….11-2007 unquote and box 21 ( the place and the date of issuance ) was filled in with the typed wording quote Breda…..11-2007 unquote. In both boxes was manually written, in blue ink and on the dots, quote 28 unquote. We informed beneficiary about the two discrepancies observed by us and we agreed to send the documents to Bank X for payment. Later, we received an ‘advice of refusal’ from Bank X mentioning several discrepancies from which we quote two: 1. CMR Field 16 contradictory and not complete. 2. CMR Corrections and additions not signed. Although Bank X drafted the wording of the two discrepancies in a different way, we understood that it endorsed the two discrepancies observed by ourselves, which we had communicated to the beneficiary. Later the documents were returned to us by Bank X and we returned the documents to the beneficiary. Beneficiary, however, now opines that the two discrepancies observed by the issuing bank and by ourselves are absolutely not material and it demands immediate payment from us, as the confirming bank. Please let us know whether you endorse the two discrepancies. UNQUOTE We discussed the two items within our Organization and we concluded as follows QUOTE First discrepancy Analysis Sub-article 14 (d) of UCP 600 reads:
Image of page 2
Department of Policy and Business Practices 3 Document 470/1110rev final Data in documents, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice need not be identical, but must not conflict with data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 50 pages?

  • Fall '17
  • m jkn

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes