Chào các bạn.
Chúng ta bắt đầu tuần mới bằng Điều e8 eUCP nhé.
Điều e8 quy định về thông báo từ chối. Khác với UCP 600, eUCP không có quy định cho phép ngân hàng phát hành tùy nghi liên hệ với người mở LC để xin ý kiến bỏ qua các bất hợp lệ.
Điều 16 (b), (c) và (d) UCP 600 vẫn tiếp tục được áp dụng.
Các bạn lưu ý một số lý do từ chối khác theo eUCP, đó là không đọc được dữ liệu do sai định dạng (wrong format), chứng từ điện tử không được xác thực, nguồn tham chiếu bên ngoài không thể truy cập được, ngoại trừ trường hợp được quy định tại Điều e7 (d)(ii).
Điều e8 – Thông báo từ chối được quy định như sau:
Nếu một ngân hàng được chỉ định hành động theo sự chỉ định, một ngân hàng xác nhận, nếu có, hoặc ngân hàng phát hành đưa ra thông báo từ chối chứng từ xuất trình bao gồm các chứng từ điện tử và không nhận được chỉ thị của bên được thông báo từ chối về định đoạt các chứng từ điện tử trong vòng 30 ngày theo lịch kể từ ngày đưa ra thông báo từ chối, ngân hàng sẽ gửi trả lại bất kỳ chứng từ bằng giấy nào mà trước đó chưa được gửi trả lại cho bên đó, nhưng có thể tùy nghi định đoạt các chứng từ điện tử theo cách được cho là thích hợp mà không chịu bất kỳ trách nhiệm nào.
Các bạn cũng lưu ý thêm quy định về thời hạn hoàn trả chứng từ trong trường hợp ngân hàng được chỉ định, ngân hàng xác nhận hoặc ngân hàng phát hành không nhận được chỉ thị của bên nhận thông báo từ chối.
Các bạn đọc nguyên bản bằng tiếng Anh Điều e8 và cả phần COMMENTARY để hiểu sâu thêm nhé.
Chúc các bạn đầu tuần vui vẻ!
Mr. Old Man
—-
ARTICLE e8
NOTICE OF REFUSAL
If a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank, provides a notice of refusal of a presentation which includes electronic records and does not receive instructions from the party to which notice of refusal is given for the disposition of the electronic records within 30 calendar days from the date the notice of refusal is given, the bank shall return any paper documents not previously returned to that party, but may dispose of the electronic records in any manner deemed appropriate without any responsibility.
CHANGES FROM eUCP VERSION 1.1
• Minor structural changes
• Former sub-articles (a) (i) and (ii) moved for relevance to article e7 (Examination)
COMMENTARY
The eUCP does not contain any specific rules concerning an approach by the issuing bank to the applicant in order to seek a waiver of discrepancies. In this respect, UCP 600 sub-article 16 (b) (Discrepant Documents, Waiver and Notice) continues to apply.
Furthermore, the notice process as outlined in UCP 600 sub-articles 16 (c) and (d) (Discrepant Documents, Waiver and Notice) remains applicable.
ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL UNDER THE eUCP
In addition to the reasons for refusing a presentation under the terms of the credit and UCP 600, the eUCP provides potential further reasons for refusing to honour a presentation. Where applicable, these could include:
Wrong format (document unreadable) The electronic record was not presented in the format required by the credit under eUCP article e5 (Format).
Electronic record not authenticated The electronic record was not authenticated under eUCP sub-article e6 (f) (Presentation).
External source/hyperlink not accessible (identifying the source) The external source referenced in the presentation was not accessible, except as provided in subarticle e7 (d) (ii).
DISPOSITION OF DOCUMENTS
The return of electronic records creates a problem unparalleled in the paper world. In the paper world, there exists a unique piece of paper that can be held or returned. In the world of electronic records, the data remains with the bank even after it has been returned. Moreover, the electronic record is not unique because the presenter also has the data in its system even though it has been presented and, additionally, the beneficiary is likely to have it even though the data may have been sent by a third person presenter.
These considerations are compounded when the data is contained on an external system. As a result, there is not likely to be any unique value attached to the electronic record and less reason to place any emphasis on its return or to reinforce these rules with the threat of preclusion. To accommodate these differences, eUCP sub-article e8 provides that the bank need not hold or archive these records indefinitely. Unless the presenter provides other instructions within 30 calendar days from the date that the notice of refusal is given, the bank must return any paper documents and ‘may dispose of the electronic records in any manner deemed appropriate without any responsibility’. This rule places the onus of communicating instructions regarding the treatment of electronic records on the presenter.
IMPACT ON NOTICE OF REFUSAL
eUCP sub-article e8 departs from the approach of UCP 600 article 16 (Discrepant Documents, Waiver and Notice) in that UCP 600 does not provide an express deadline for action, although banks are free under UCP 600 to return paper documents at any time.
As a result, it would be good practice, although not absolutely necessary, for a bank to include in its notice of refusal a statement with regard to eUCP article e8 and its policy with regard to the disposition of documents. Such a statement could provide that: “Pursuant to eUCP article e8, we will return all electronic records to the electronic address from which you transmitted the documents to us, and will delete all records from our systems other than those related to the failure to comply, without responsibility on our part unless you provide us with instructions to the contrary within 30 calendar days from the date of this notice.”
Under UCP 600, the ‘presenter’ will normally be one entity, either the beneficiary or its agent or a nominated bank. Unless the issuing bank permits separate presentations of paper documents under the eUCP, there will only be one presenter of paper documents under the eUCP as well. However, with respect to electronic records, there may be multiple presenters. The eUCP does not require that the electronic records be returned at all, and if the issuing bank elects to return them after non-receipt of disposal instructions, the bank, at its option, may return them either to the presenter or to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary wishes to have the electronic records returned to a specific person other than the presenter, it should ensure it is so stated in any notice of completeness or in a timely response to the notice of refusal.
DISPOSAL OF DATA
Decisions on the appropriate method of disposal of electronic records may be contingent upon the data itself and the circumstances. As used in article e8, ‘dispose of’ does not necessarily denote ‘destroy’ or ‘delete’. In fact, such terms may not actually be feasible with an electronic record. In formulating its policy regarding the disposition of electronic records, a bank should take into account matters of proof in the event that its decision to refuse payment is challenged. Where a bank has dishonoured, it would be well advised to retain proof of the non-conformity of the presentation. Much like the paper environment where banks usually keep copies of paper documents, banks may also choose to archive the electronic records received.
