ISBP PARAGRAPH 23 NEEDS TO BE CHANGED

2 Comments

1. 

   abrar2

   September 16, 2010 at 4:09 pm

   Hi Mr. Old Man Whilst I agree with your draft recommendation,I am not clear as to why a distinction needs to be necessarily made between documents issued by the beneficiary and documents issued by third parties. The key point, as you indicate is that whilst it is recommended that all documents required under the LC should be issued in the language of the credit, the documents' compliance against the terms of the credit and the function of the document itself would be required to be determined against the data content thereon, and this must be in the language of the credit.

   Reply

2. 

   mroldmanvcb

   September 16, 2010 at 11:09 pm

   Hi Abrar,I doubt that a Japanese checker is unable to check the documents issued in Burmese. Similarly, a Vietnamese like me is unable to check documents issued in Burmese or Hindu language unless it is translated into English – the language of the credit. To avoid this problem some prudent banks would always stipulate in their LCs that all documents must be made in English. The requirement that all documents issued by the beneficiary must be in the language of the credit can be easily satisfied as this is quite within the beneficiary’s capacity. Yet, the requirement that all documents issued by third parties must be in a specific language is beyond the beneficiary's control. In some non-English speaking countries, documents such as c/o, CMR … are pre-printed in dual language or in a language other than English. The beneficiary seems to be unable to ask issuers to change the pre-printed form of the document but complete it in the requested language.

   Reply