Mr Old Man Q&A PARTIAL SHIPMENTS UNDER SUB-ARTICLE 31 (B) By Mr Old Man Posted on October 19, 2015 3 min read 21 3 146,634 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Reddit Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr QUESTION Dear Mr. Old Man, LC does not allow partial shipments. Documents were presented to the issuing bank in two separate covering schedules. The first set reached the issuing bank’s counter on 5 October, 2015 and the second set on 8 October, 2015. However, the bills of lading in the two sets showed goods were shipped on the same vessel for the same journey and destination. Can we (the issuing bank) refuse the documents stating the discrepancy “partial shipments”? Thank you in advance. Best regards, TT —- ANSWER Hi, I ever gave my answer to the same question a few years ago. According to UCP 600 sub-article 31 (b), A PRESENTATION consisting of more than one set of transport documents evidencing shipment commencing on the same means of conveyance and for the same journey, provided they indicate the same destination, will not be regarded as covering a partial shipment, even if they indicate different dates of shipment or different ports of loading, places of taking in charge or dispatch… The documents in your case were presented to your bank in two separate presentations with two separate covering schedules for separate drawings. Therefore, you can refuse both presentations for the same discrepancy “partial shipments” notwithstanding that the bills of lading show shipment made on the same vessel, the same journey and for the same destination. If the presenting bank rejects the discrepancy, you may draw its attention to the word “A PRESENATION” in sub-article 31 (b), which means a single presentation, not two or more separate presentations.. I have recently come across the same topic on www.linkedin.com . Some experts opine that it should be acceptable if the two sets of documents are presented separately but there is a cross reference or a link between the two covering schedules stating that the documents presented under the two covering schedules constitute one single presentation. This view is worth noting. For your reference, here is the link: https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/3709833-6060093153988403201 Kind regards, Mr. Old Man
IS THE NOMINATED BANK REQUIRED TO VERIFY WHETHER THE BENEFICIARY HAS AUTHORIZED THE PRESENTING BANK TO PRESENT THE DOCUMENTS?
CAN THE ISUING BANK CITE “LATE PRESENTATION” AS A DISCREPANCY SOLELY BASED ON THE DATE OF THE COVER LETTER?
IS THE NOMINATED BANK REQUIRED TO VERIFY WHETHER THE BENEFICIARY HAS AUTHORIZED THE PRESENTING BANK TO PRESENT THE DOCUMENTS?
CAN THE ISUING BANK CITE “LATE PRESENTATION” AS A DISCREPANCY SOLELY BASED ON THE DATE OF THE COVER LETTER?