When Does Additional Information Become Conflicting Data Under UCP 600?

A reader raised an interesting follow-up question after my previous Q&A on contact names and addresses in letters of credit. If a document shows an address or contact name that differs from the credit, can it simply be regarded as additional information? Or does it become conflicting data that gives rise to a discrepancy?

The distinction is subtle but important. Let’s examine it in light of UCP 600 and ISBP 821.

Question

Dear Mr. Nguyen,

Could you let us know on the basis of which UCP articles and/or which grounds you would raise a discrepancy regarding the beneficiary’s and applicant’s addresses on documents other than transport documents when they differ from those stated in the L/C?

Also, what is your view on contact names appearing on documents that differ from those in the L/C? Aren’t they merely additional information rather than contradictory data?

Thank you very much for your clarification.

Bruno Guillory

_______

Answer

Dear Bruno,

Thank you for your thoughtful follow-up question.

1. Different addresses on documents other than transport documents

ISBP 821 paragraphs D19-D20, E15-E16 and F13-F14 provide specific guidance for transport documents. They state that where a credit requires the applicant or issuing bank to appear as the consignee or notify party, the transport document need only indicate the relevant name. The address and contact details stated in the credit need not be shown.

However, if the transport document does include the address or contact details, they must not conflict with those stated in the credit.

Although this guidance is expressed in the context of transport documents, I believe the same principle should generally be applied when examining other documents under UCP 600 sub-article 14(d), which requires that data in a document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, must not conflict with the data in the credit.

Accordingly, if a document states the applicant’s or beneficiary’s address and that address conflicts with the address stated in the credit, I would consider it a discrepancy.

For example:

L/C

ABC Company
100 Pasteur Street, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Invoice

ABC Company
100 Wall Street, New York, USA

This is clearly conflicting information and, in my opinion, constitutes a discrepancy.

2. Is a different address merely additional information?

In my opinion, the answer depends on whether the credit itself specifies an address.

• If the credit does not state the applicant’s or beneficiary’s address, an address appearing on a document may simply be regarded as additional information.
• However, if the credit does state an address, a different address is no longer merely additional information. It becomes conflicting information and is therefore discrepant under UCP 600 sub-article 14(d).

The same reasoning applies to contact names. If a document includes a contact name that conflicts with the one stated in the credit, it is no longer merely additional information. It identifies the same party differently and therefore constitutes conflicting data.

In short, additional information is acceptable only so long as it does not conflict with the credit. Once it conflicts with the data stipulated in the credit, it becomes a discrepancy under UCP 600 sub-article 14(d).

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man