MAIL ADVICE OF NEGOTIATION; PORT-TO-PORT BILL OF LADING NOT INDICATING PLACE OF DELIVERY

by Old Man on Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 1:31pm
QUERY FROM VTTT

Dear Mr. Old Man,

I am writing to seek your support for my 3 situations as follows:

1) In F78 (Instruction to paying/accepting/negotiating bank), an irrevocable LC at sight states:

ON RECEIPT OF MAIL ADVICE OF NEGOTIATION WE SHALL COVER AS PER INSTRUCTION RECEIVED
(LC available with any bank by negotiation)

Does this mean that the payment will be effected only on receipt of mail advice of negotiation? If presenting bank make a presentation of a compliance docs to issuing bank and do not send mail advice of negotiation (because they did not negotiated the docs), will issuing bank pay them within 5 working days after receipt the docs?

2) L/C shows the following information:
– Port of Loading : Any port in Japan
– Port of Discharge: Any port in Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
– Place of Delivery: Haiphong, Vietnam

Required transport document: ocean bill of lading covering port-to-port shipment

Bill of lading presented appears on its face in details as follows:

– Port of Loading : Tokyo port, Japan
– Port of discharge: Cat Lai port, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam

The box “Place of Delivery” in the bill of lading is left blank, i.e., not indicating Haiphong, Vietnam.

The issuing bank rejects the bill of lading citing the discrepancy “ Bill of lading not indicating the place of delivery as required by the L/C.

Is the discrepancy valid?

3) The L/C requires:
– Port of loading: any port in Japan
– Port of discharge: Haiphong port, Vietnam
– F47: Port of discharge in shipping documents if differs from LC acceptable but final place of delivery must be Haiphong port.

Please let me know whether they are the same meaning as:

– Port of loading: any port in Japan
– Port of discharge: any port in Vietnam
– Place of delivery: Haiphong port, Vietnam

Many thanks and best regards,
————————————
ANSWER
.
Hi,
.
1) The documents sent by the presenter to the issuing bank would be accompanied by a covering letter which includes the presenter’s instructions for reimbursement or payment. If the documents are negotiated, the presenter may so indicate in the covering letter and claim reimbursement from the issuing bank.
It is the covering letter that is treated as mail advice of negotiation.
Where the presenter does not negotiate the documents, the instructions may be as follows: “[We hereby certify that the documents are complying with the credit terms and conditions]. Please remit the proceeds to our account with Bank …..under advice to us.
In both cases the issuing bank must honour if the documents presented constitute a complying presentation.
.
2) According to Document No.470/1128, where a credit indicates any 3 fields from 44A, E, F or B (or all of them), then a multimodal or combined transport document should be required. Notwithstanding that the described credit is badly issued, i.e., requiring an ocean port-to-port bill of lading instead of a multimodal transport document and that the bill of lading presented is to be examined against Article 20, not Article 19, the bill of lading presented must indicate the place of delivery to comply with the L/C requirement.
.
3) It is understood from the stipulation in F47A that the bill of lading presented may indicate a port of discharge other than Haiphong port; however, if this is the case, then the bill of lading must also indicate Haiphong port as the place of delivery.
.
The alternative stipulation is to some extent the same as the original stipulation. But the original stipulation appears to be better.
.
Just a quick reply.
.
Best regards,
Mr. Old Man