Da Nang Beach, Vietnam
QUESTION
Dear Mr. Old Man,
Thanks a lot for valuable views and comment. I asked you about correction and representation of documents, but now I have faced with a new situation that requires your opinion.
The situation is as follows:
We, the issuing bank, checked the documents and found a discrepancy on the invoice. We gave a notice of refusal stating the discrepancy on the invoice. The presenter sent us a corrected invoice to replace the discrepant invoice. We considered this as a new presentation and checked all documents once more and we found a discrepancy on the packing list that we failed to state in our first notice of refusal.
We want to know whether we can issue another notice of refusal with respect to the discrepancy on the packing list that we failed to point out in our first notice of refusal?
Is there any ICC opinions to support our action?
Regards,
Ahmed (Egypt)
————
ANSWER
Hi,
You can raise discrepancies (if any) on the re-presented documents only. You cannot raise additional discrepancies on the first presentation that you missed to point out in your first notice of refusal, i.e., you cannot issue another notice of refusal with respect to the discrepancy on the packing list.
At your request and for your reference, please find quotation of ICC Opinion TA764rev:
QUOTE
The additional discrepancy is not to be considered, as banks only have one opportunity to raise discrepancies for each presentation. In this case, since the additional discrepancy pertained to documents presented in the first presentation, it should have been identified at the time the first presentation was made and as part of the initial refusal notice.
UNQUOTE
Kind regards,
Mr. Old Man
Hadeel Labadi
April 5, 2015 at 2:02 am
Dear Mr. old man
in case of the documents are compiled in its content but we as a bank found that the documents are fraud and its not real, even though it’s complied.
can we refuse the documents or we just chick the discrepancy in the content of the documents and we ignore the the material of the documents.
thank you
Hadeel Labadi
mroldman
April 5, 2015 at 12:19 pm
Dear Hadeel Labadi,
According to Article 34 UCP 600 a bank assumes no liability or responsibility for the falsification of any documents. If the payment has been made by the time the fraud is observed, the bank would not in position to recover the payment from the beneficiary. However, if when checking the presented documents the bank has good reasons to believe that the documents are fraudulent, it should inform the applicant of the same and urge the applicant to seek an order from the court to suspend the payment.
Local laws always prevails over the UCP rules. Upon receipt to the court’s stop payment order, the bank can inform of the presenter the same. If the presenter is the bank that has negotiated the documents without being aware of any fraud at the time of negotiation, it may resist the court’s order based on Article 34 UCP 600.
Regarding fraudulent documents, I ever published in LC Views an article “Recourse in case the documents are discrepant or forged”.
It can also be read here https://nhducdng.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/recourse-in-case-the-documents-are-discrepant-or-forged/
Kind regards,
Mr. Old Man
Nghi
April 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Dear Mr Oldman
Nhờ anh giúp em trường hợp này:
LC quy định AWB consigned to ABC bank, AWB xuất trình thể hiện: consigned to ABC bank, Ha noi. Ngân hàng em bắt bất hợp lệ dựa vào điều kiện 14J nhưng trong điều này ho ghi the address and contact details fo the applicant appear as part of the consignee.. chỉ duy nhất chữ applicant nên em thấy o an tâm khi cải bất hợp lệ này. Nhờ anh chỉ dẫn ạ
Em cam ơn anh nhiều
mroldman
April 16, 2015 at 9:50 pm
See my answer to Nhantran.
Carol
August 2, 2016 at 2:22 pm
Dear Mr. Old Man,
First of all, thank you so much for all useful info and knowledge that you have shared with us so far. Having this wonder while working with L/C, I hope to receive your kind advise on the case below:
– Goods was loaded in 40′ HQ container
– BL shows 40 HC container
– Invoice, Packing list and Beneficiary’s certificate show 40′ HQ container
The negotiating bank raises a discrepancy here: BL shows 40′ HQ which is “conflict” with Inv, PL and Ben’s certificate.
What do you think about the above discrepancy that the bank raised?
It seems to be a simple issue but to a beneficiary like us, sometimes it causes troubles because some shipping lines just show it differently (HC and HQ) on their BL. Our bank sometimes raises discrepancy about the mark ‘ too (40’HQ and 40HQ).
I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you
Best regards,
Carol
mroldman
August 2, 2016 at 4:46 pm
The length and the width of 40′ HC container and 40′ HQ container are the same, but the height and the capacity of 40′ HC container and 40′ HQ container are different.
Those who follow strict compliance doctrine can raise the discrepancy if the LC requires 40′ HQ container whereas documents shows 40′ HC container.
However, 40′ HQ container and 40 HQ container should be treated as a typing error. No discrepancy!