MUST COURIER RECEIPT INDICATE CONTRACT NUMBER AND DATE?

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 substance should prevail over form — and why ICC opinions remain essential guidance for practitioners.

QUESTION

Dear Mr. Old Man,

I would appreciate your expert opinion on the following case.

The LC requires:

Field 46A (amongst other documents):

Beneficiary’s certificate along with relevant courier receipt certifying that one set of photocopied shipping documents plus 1/3 original bill of lading has been sent to the applicant within 5 days after shipment date.

Field 47A:

“All documents must show contract number and date.”

In the presentation:

• All documents, including the beneficiary’s certificate, showed the contract number and date as required.
• However, the courier receipt attached to the beneficiary’s certificate did not indicate the contract number and date.

The issuing bank refused the presentation, citing the discrepancy:

“Courier receipt not indicating contract number and date.”

Is this discrepancy valid?

I would appreciate your soon reply.

Best regards,

M.M

______

ANSWER

Hi M.M,

The discrepancy raised by the issuing bank is not valid.

Under the credit, the requirement is for a beneficiary’s certificate, along with a relevant courier receipt, certifying dispatch of documents to the applicant. In other words, the courier receipt is supporting evidence forming part of the same document requirement — it is not a separately required document in its own right.

Since the beneficiary’s certificate, which is the principal document required by the LC, already indicates the contract number and date, there is no requirement for the accompanying courier receipt to repeat that information.

This interpretation is consistent with ICC Opinion R696 / TA583rev, which confirms that where a required document is supported by ancillary evidence, compliance with general conditions is satisfied when the principal document itself complies.

Accordingly, the refusal based on this discrepancy is unjustified.

Kind regards,

Mr. Old Man