Q&A Uncategorized QUESTIONS REGARDING SIGNATURE, NUMBER OF ORIGINALS, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA By Mr Old Man Posted on October 21, 2015 8 min read 2 0 2,237 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Reddit Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr QUESTION Dear Mr. Old Man, Please help me with the following: 1) LC requires “Signed commercial invoice”, but the invoice presented is signed with a stamp bearing the name of the beneficiary, e.g., ABC Co., Ltd. Can the stamp be treated as a signature? 2) LC does not require insurance policy to indicate number of originals. 2.1 Is it acceptable if one original insurance policy without indicating number of originals is presented? 2.2 Is it acceptable if more than one original insurance policy without indicating number of originals is presented? 2.3 Must an insurance document indicate number of originals if more than one original insurance document is issued? 3) LC stipulates: Port of loading : Any port in Europe; Port of Discharge: Any port in Ho Chi Minh city B/L presented shows a port in America as port of loading and a port in Vung Tau as port of discharge. Can I accept the B/L based on TA 796rev quoted below: QUERY The documentary credit in question called for shipment from “ANY NORTH EUROPEAN PORT” and the transport document required in field 46a was: “FULL SET OF CLEAN ON BOARD BILL OF LADING”. We (being nominated bank) received a bill of lading evidencing shipment from Antwerp, which we found to be within the scope of North Europe, since the geographical area of North Europe was not defined in the Credit. Much to our surprise the issuing bank refused the documents arguing that Antwerp is not within the geographical area or range stated in the Credit. The issuing bank further argued that Belgium is in Western Europe and not in Northern Europe and quoted an internet website (www.mapsofworld.com) where we could easily recheck. We kindly ask you to advise if the discrepancy cited by the issuing bank is correct. ANALYSIS The credit called for shipment from “ANY NORTH EUROPEAN PORT” and the transport document required in field 46a was: “FULL SET OF CLEAN ON BOARD BILL OF LADING”. The bill of lading evidenced shipment from Antwerp. The nominated bank believed the documents to comply as the geographical area of North Europe was not defined in the credit. The issuing bank refused the documents arguing that Antwerp is not within the geographical area or range stated in the credit. UCP 600 sub-article 14 (a) states that a bank must examine a presentation on the basis of the documents alone. It is not a matter for the ICC Banking Commission to define or determine geographical areas or ranges. The requirement in the credit is vague and clearly ambiguous. In accordance with ISBP 745 Preliminary Considerations paragraph (v), the applicant bears the risk of any ambiguity in its instructions to issue or amend a credit. Furthermore, an issuing bank should ensure that any credit or amendment it issues is not ambiguous or conflicting in its terms and conditions. It should not be necessary to refer to external resources in order to determine relevant facts. CONCLUSION The applicant and issuing bank must bear the risk of ambiguity for failing to express specifically how ‘Any North European Port’ is to be defined. In this case, the document is not discrepant.” Thank you in advance. Best regards, TC —————— ANSWER Hi, 1) If LC does not require the invoice to be signed manually, then such a stamp can be deemed to be the signature. The invoice in question is acceptable. For your reference Please find herewith ICC Opinion R718/TA691rev: “In terms of article 3, a stamp can act as a form of signature and its use would not in itself be a reason for refusal. However, the context of the use of the stamp is important and, in certain instances, the stamp may not qualify as representing a signature of the issuer. If an issuing bank requires a “manually” signed commercial invoice, then that qualification must be inserted into the credit. Otherwise, a stamp may be valid”. 2) 2.1 Acceptable. 2.2 Acceptable. 2.3 According to sub-article 28 (b) UCP 600, when the insurance document indicates that it has been issued in more than one original, all originals must be presented. However, it is not a MUST for an insurance document to indicate number of originals issued. 3) Not acceptable. The B/L in question is discrepant. A boy in grade 6 may know very well that America and Europe are two different continents. Ho Chi Minh city and Vung Tau are quite different places. Your case is different from that in TA796rev. Kind regards, Mr. Old Man ——————