QUESTION REGARDING SUB-ARTICLE 14 (K)

(Quoted from DC-PRO Discussion Forum 21-28 Jan, 2016)

The discussion focuses on UCP 600 sub-article 14 (k), which says “The shipper or consignor of the goods indicated on any document need not be the beneficiary of the credit”.

Antoine (Lebanon)

The shipper on any document presented need not be the beneficiary of the credit according to art 14 k. But if such art is excluded in the credit, would you accept a document indicating a shipper other than the beneficiary?

In my opinion, I would say yes, as I do not see any rule I can rely upon to support my refusal.
I welcome your views
———

Judith (France)

The ICC has often stated that it is not good practice for an issuing bank to simply exclude a specific article of the UCP, stating it is necessary to explicit exactly what “replaces” the exclusion. If not, it leads to confusion, as it does in this case. The issuing bank should simply state, “All documents must evidence beneficiary as shipper”, if that is what they want. Otherwise I agree with you that simply excluding 14 k does not remove the possibility of having another entity indicated as shipper.

———-

N.H. Duc (Vietnam)

Hi Judith,

I agree with you, but I find the below conclusion in R634 / TA638rev:

“Sub-article 14 (k) – by excluding this sub-article, the issuing bank is effectively stating that the shipper or consignor on any document must be the named beneficiary.”

What do you think?

———–

Rita Ricci (Canada)

Thanks N.H. Duc,

On reading the inquiry posted, I also recalled the same opinion R634 which is clear. UCP 600 sub-article 14k. states in part that the shipper or consignor “need not be the beneficiary”. If the sub-Article is excluded from the LC, it means the shipper or consignor “needs to be” the beneficiary.

———–