Intro  Time calculations under Letters of Credit often look simple, yet the word “within” continues to cause confusion — especially when readers focus on the example given in ISBP 821 paragraph A14(b)(i) and wonder whether the permitted period should extend both before and after the shipment date.  The following Q&A addresses a very practical question: When an LC requires documents …

Intro From time to time, beneficiaries find themselves facing draft Letters of Credit containing conditions that appear unnecessary, impractical, or even deliberately risky. Are these merely poor drafting practices, or are they “discrepancy traps” waiting to happen?  In the following exchange, Mr. Old Man shares his views on how sellers should respond when confronted with such LCs — and why …

Intro In documentary credit practice, mismatches between Incoterms® rules and LC document requirements are a frequent source of confusion — and disputes. One such classic mismatch arises when a credit issued under EXW Incoterms nevertheless requires the presentation of an air waybill (AWB). Is this automatically wrong? Or merely risky?  A reader raised the issue bluntly — and rightly so. …

(This Q&A is excerpted from a discussion by the Trade Services Update editors (LCM_QUERY 2026-01) Intro In documentary credit practice, the loss of an original bill of lading after a complying presentation has been made often gives rise to confusion between payment obligations under a letter of credit and the practical arrangements required to obtain delivery of the goods. Parties …

Intro One of the core principles of a documentary credit is that payment depends solely on complying documents, not on disputes arising from the underlying commercial contract. From time to time, however, beneficiaries encounter LCs that attempt to dilute this principle by inserting clauses linking payment to buyer–seller disputes. The following Q&A addresses such a case and explains why these …

Intro Drafts (bills of exchange) are among the most misunderstood elements in documentary credit practice. Although UCP 600 and ISBP 821 provide guidance, inconsistent LC drafting and legacy habits continue to cause confusion—especially when drafts are mentioned in some fields of the LC but not listed as required documents. In the Q&A below, Mr. Old Man responds to a set …

  Intro In LC practice, refusals often arise not because a document is missing, but because banks read documentary requirements in isolation rather than in context. One recurring issue is whether supporting evidence attached to a required document must independently comply with a general condition such as “all documents must show contract number and date”. The following Q&A illustrates why …

Intro There have been cases where an issuing bank refused to honour a credit on the grounds that the beneficiary presented the documents at a branch other than the branch expressly nominated in the LC, even though both branches belong to the same bank and are located in the same country. In such cases, the beneficiary is unable to re-present …

Intro In LC practice, commercial invoices are often treated as rigid documents that must strictly mirror the credit amount. However, UCP 600 allows for a degree of flexibility — provided banks understand where discretion ends and obligation begins. One such provision is UCP 600 sub-article 18(b), which deals with invoices issued for amounts exceeding the LC value. The following Q&A …

Intro Credits that split payment between shipment and installation often cause confusion when partial shipments are involved. The key question is whether payment should be linked to a percentage of the invoice or a percentage of the LC amount. Question Dear Mr. Old Man, We have an LC for USD 10,000, available by payment. The LC provides: * 80% payable …