ATE PRESENTATION; SHIPPING MARK

QUESTION

Hi,

LC stated:

F 45: Packing and shipping mark as per contract no. KS.KB.PT86-02/2012

F 48: Documents to be presented within 07 days after BL date.

The negotiating bank presented the documents without confirming whether the documents were complying. The issuing bank refused the documents citing the following discrepancies:

– Late presentation (based on the date of the covering letter).

– Invoice: Shipping mark showing name and address of a party other than the applicant.

The negotiating bank rejected the discrepancies raised by the issuing bank as follows:

QUOTE

WE REFER TO YOUR MT734 OF 13 JUL UNDER REF 018337101200075 OUR REF 6875600989 FOR USD27,421.50 AND DISAGREE WITH DISCREPANCIES QUOTED.

1) WE OMITTED TO CERTIFY IN OUR COVERING SCHEDULE REGARDING LATE PRESENTATION. WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT DOCUMENTS WERE PRESENTED WITHIN THE LATEST PRESENTATION DATE AND EXPIRY DATE OF THE CREDIT. KINDLY ACCEPT OUR CERTIFICATION IN GOOD FAITH.

2) OUR RECORDS EVIDENCE THAT LC DID NOT PROVIDE ANY SPECIFIC SHIPPING MARK INSTEAD OF REQUIRED FOR SHIPPING MARK 'AS PER CONTRACT NO. KS.KB.PT86-02/2012'. THEREFORE EVEN IF ALL THE DOCUMENTS INDICATED WITH SAME SHIPPING MARK, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND NOT CONSTITUTE A DISCREPANCY. AS PER UCP 600 ARTICLE 4 A CREDIT BY ITS NATURE IS A SEPARATE TRANSACTION FROM THE SALE OR OTHER CONTRACT ON WHICH IT MAY BE BASED. BANKS ARE IN NO WAY CONCERNED WITH OR BOUND BY SUCH CONTRACT, EVEN IF ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO IT IS INCLUDED IN THE CREDIT. WE FAIL TO SEE THE BASIS OF QUOTING SUCH DISCREPANCY.

PLEASE BE GUIDED AND UPLIFT THE INVALID DISCREPANCY.

KINDLY EFFECT PROMPT PAYMENT AND ENSURE THAT NO DISCREPANCY FEE IS DEDUCTED UPON PAYMENT.

UNQUOTE

Was the presenter correct?

Best regards,

LM

—————

ANSWER

Hi all,

Agreed with the presenter's view.

1) Regarding the dícrepancy "late presentation", covering letter is not a document required by the L/C, hence, you should not have raised the discrepancy based on the date of the covering letter. The presenter re-comfirmed that the documents were presented within the stipulated period for presentation and L/C validity, so the discrepancy should be lifted.

2) L/C should not have stipulated "Packing and shipping mark: as per contract No.KS.KB.PT86-02/2012". This requirement can be satisfied by either (i) the same wording, i.e., "Packing and shipping mark: as per contract No.KS.KB.PT86-02/2012 " or (ii) any wording.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man