Can a Mistyped Covering Schedule Justify a Discrepancy Under UCP 600?

Intro

A simple typing error can sometimes lead to an unnecessary dispute in documentary credit operations. But can an incorrectly dated covering schedule justify a late-presentation discrepancy when the documents were actually presented within the stipulated time limit?

In this case, the issuing bank refused to withdraw the discrepancy and intended to deduct a discrepancy fee from the proceeds of a usance L/C. Mr. Old Man examines whether the presenting bank has grounds to challenge the issuing bank’s position, with reference to two relevant ICC Opinions.

Question

Dear Mr. Old Man,

Hope you are doing well.

We have a query regarding a discrepancy raised in connection with our export documents under a local L/C (i.e., within Nepal).

The commercial invoice is dated 18 September 2026, while the bill of exchange is dated 21 September 2026.

The documents were presented to us within the stipulated presentation period, and our covering schedule should have been dated 30 September 2026. However, due to an error on our part, the covering schedule was erroneously dated 11 September 2026.

The issuing bank has now raised a discrepancy under UCP 600 sub-article 14(i). We verbally informed the issuing bank that the error was on our part and that the documents had actually been presented within the stipulated period. However, the issuing bank refused to withdraw the discrepancy. It has accepted the documents for maturity on the stipulated date, as this is a usance L/C, but intends to deduct a discrepancy fee from the payment.

Do you see any grounds for us to contest this discrepancy?

Deeptishree Shrestha

______

Answer

Dear Deeptishree,

Thank you for your question.

Under UCP 600 sub-article 14(i), a document may be dated prior to the issuance date of the credit, but must not be dated later than its date of presentation.

However, a covering schedule is not a document stipulated in the credit. Therefore, in my view, the issuing bank has no valid grounds to raise a discrepancy solely because the date on the covering schedule indicates that the documents were presented after the stipulated presentation period, particularly when the presenting bank confirms that the documents were actually presented within the prescribed time limit and that the date on the covering schedule was entered incorrectly.

You may refer to the following ICC Opinions in support of your position:

• ICC Opinion R373 concludes that where a cover letter from the negotiating bank is dated after the latest date for presentation or the expiry date of the credit, a statement in the cover letter certifying that the terms and conditions of the credit have been complied with is sufficient to evidence timely presentation.
• ICC Opinion R481 goes a step further, establishing that even if the cover letter does not contain such a certification, the negotiating bank may subsequently confirm that the documents were presented within the prescribed time limits.

I would suggest that you formally write to the issuing bank, explaining that the date on the covering schedule was a clerical error and requesting that the discrepancy and the associated fee be withdrawn. You should also provide evidence, if available, confirming the actual date on which the documents were presented.

In your message, I would specifically refer the issuing bank to ICC Opinions R373, R481 and TA933rev in support of your position.

In my opinion, you have reasonable grounds to contest the discrepancy charge, since an incorrectly dated covering schedule should not, in itself, establish that the documents were presented late.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man