Transport documents continue to generate some of the most sensitive discrepancies under letters of credit. When time pressure meets documentary precision, practical solutions are sometimes tested against strict examination standards. The following question raises an issue that many practitioners may encounter in real transactions. As always in documentary credit practice, interpretation may differ among banks and jurisdictions. Readers are welcome …

Intro From time to time, L/C applicants try to build a little flexibility into the credit structure. One common request arises when a beneficiary operates in more than one location and has not yet decided where the documents will be negotiated. Can an L/C show two possible expiry places instead of one? A reader recently raised this practical question. Question …

In international trade, intermediaries often wish to keep their buyer and supplier from knowing each other. One common concern is whether the supplier’s name will appear on the bill of lading when the goods are shipped directly to the buyer. A reader recently raised this practical question. Question Dear Mr. Old Man, I am a middleman who received an order …

In SWIFT MT700, Fields 45A (Description of Goods and/or Services) and 46A (Documents Required) are classified as optional. For many practitioners, this raises an immediate question: If these two fields define what is being sold and what documents must be presented, how can they possibly be optional? A recent question from a colleague highlights this apparent contradiction. Question Hi, A …

Introduction Questions frequently arise when the same company name appears in different capacities within a documentary credit transaction — particularly where the address differs. Does a difference in address automatically create a conflict under UCP 600? Or must such differences be assessed in light of the document’s role and the credit’s requirements? The following case illustrates this issue. ____ Question …

Introduction In practice, disputes often arise when applicants request additional details to be inserted in the commercial invoice — even though the credit itself does not expressly require such information. The following question concerns whether the inclusion of notify parties and consignee details in a commercial invoice may create a discrepancy, and whether a special clause relating to the beneficiary …

Introduction UPAS LCs (Usance Payable at Sight) are widely used to combine supplier liquidity with buyer credit terms. However, operational questions often arise when the credit is restricted to a nominated (discounting) bank, but the beneficiary presents documents directly to the issuing bank instead. Does bypassing the restricted bank create a discrepancy? Can the issuing bank refuse the documents on …

Intro In practice, a confirming bank may receive a request to add its confirmation under an MT700, but subsequently advise the credit to the beneficiary through another bank using an MT710. This may raise questions regarding: the treatment of Field 49 in MT710, whether the confirming bank must issue a separate confirmation letter, and how the beneficiary understands the scope …

Executive Abstract This article examines whether an issuing bank may refuse to reimburse a confirming bank after the confirming bank has declared a presentation compliant. Where the issuing bank determines that the documents contain discrepancies and issues a refusal before reimbursement becomes due, Article 16(a) of UCP 600 permits refusal. The confirming bank’s declaration of compliance does not eliminate the …

Understanding required data, Form M, and the limits of applicant–beneficiary agreements In documentary credit practice, credits sometimes require documents to indicate specific reference numbers issued by government authorities or other institutions. One example is Form M, a document used in Nigeria. Questions may arise when the importer does not want the number shown or indicates that discrepancies will be accepted. …