Intro Another interesting question on documentary examination: the documents were allegedly presented to the nominated bank within the stipulated presentation period, but the bank’s covering schedule was dated after the latest date for presentation. The schedule also contained a certification that the documents were presented within the credit validity. Does that certification prevent the issuing bank from raising a “late …

Introduction A practical question has arisen concerning a D/P (Documents against Payment) collection involving goods of Sudanese origin. The goods—watermelon seeds—were shipped from Sudan and have already arrived at customs. The importer intends to make payment in AED to the beneficiary in Dubai. The collecting bank received an MT199 from Mashreq Bank New York setting out its sanctions and internal …

Introduction An issuing bank assumes a primary obligation to honor a complying presentation under article 7 of UCP 600. However, beneficiaries occasionally raise a more difficult question: What happens if the issuing bank becomes insolvent, is subject to international sanctions, or is otherwise unable to fulfill its undertaking? Would the central bank, the ministry of finance, or another government authority …

It is common for documentary credits to require that all presented documents indicate the credit number. In practice, however, typographical errors occasionally occur. A frequently asked question is whether an issuing bank may refuse documents when the credit number appears incorrectly, even though the mistake is merely the result of a typing error. The following question concerns a situation in …

Under a sight letter of credit, the issuing bank is required to honour a complying presentation. However, UCP 600 also grants banks up to five banking days to examine the documents. The question often arises whether an issuing bank that effects payment after the expiry of the five-day examination period is liable to pay late-payment interest, particularly when the credit …

A recurring question in documentary credit practice is whether the issue date of a bill of lading may be treated as the shipment date when the document is pre-printed “Received by the carrier” but also bears the wording “Clean On Board”. The answer is not always straightforward and depends on the interaction between UCP 600, ISBP, and ICC Banking Commission …

Introduction: The interpretation of documentary requirements containing multiple alternatives linked by the word “or” can sometimes lead to different conclusions between the issuing bank and the beneficiary. The following case concerns an L/C clause requiring a certificate relating to the treatment of wood packing material, where the issuing bank and the beneficiary bank adopted different interpretations of the same wording. …

A reader recently asked whether an air waybill would be discrepant if it uses the terms “Origin Station” and “Destination Station” instead of “Airport of Departure” and “Airport of Destination” required by the letter of credit. The reader also asked whether the presence of both a Master Air Waybill (MAWB) number and a House Air Waybill (HAWB) number, together with …

A credit requires a “full set clean on board bill of lading” but, at the same time, field 44A specifies an inland place of taking in charge, while fields 44E and 44F indicate the port of loading and port of discharge. A multimodal transport document is subsequently presented, bearing only the notation “Received for Shipment” and no dated on-board notation. …

A negotiation credit is normally expected to expire in the beneficiary’s country, where the nominated bank is located. But what happens when an L/C is available by negotiation with any bank in the beneficiary’s country while the place of expiry is stated in the issuing bank’s country? This question highlights an unusual drafting issue that could expose the beneficiary to …