Uncategorized TWO OR THREE DECIMAL PLACES? By Mr Old Man Posted on July 13, 2014 3 min read 2 0 3,088 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Reddit Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr QUESTION Dear Expert, Mr. Old Man, May I ask for your opinion of the following : L/C called forfull set clean on board ocean bill of lading , consigned to order, blank endorsed. LC field 45A goods description : BLEACHED SOFTWOOD KRAFT PULP QUANTITY: 1000 ADMT Invoice presented showing BLEACHED SOFTWOOD KRAFT PULP QUANTITY: 994.781 ADMT B/L presented showing BLEACHED SOFTWOOD KRAFT PULP QUANTITY: 994.780 ADMT ISSUING BANK CLAIMED DISCREPANCY OF : B/L presented showing QUANTITY 994.780 ADMT instead of QUANTITY 994.781 ADMT Please comment whether a TYPING ERROR on B/L in this case is acceptable or not? And whether any ICC opinion, DOCDEX referring this issue. Thank you for your assistance. Regards, Leung KS ————- ANSWER Dear Leung, It is recognized by international standard practice that the quantity of goods in metric ton would be calculated or rounded to two decimal places. So, the quantity shown in the invoice and the bill of lading in this case should be 994.78 ADMT. The fact that the bill of lading shows 994.780 ADMT and the invoice shows 994.781 ADMT does not make them conflict. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no discrepancy in this respect. Regarding decimal places there have been ICC opinions and DOCDEX decision. I would like to quote here for your reference: R218: Regarding gross weight differs in bill of lading from other documents, ICC concludes: “Rounding-off the gross weight in this case (bill of lading showing gross weight 44.595 and other documents showing 44,595.2) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCONSISTENCY AMONGST THE DOCUMENTS [emphasis added]. DOCDEX Decision No. 241: Regarding the case where the gross weight of all the packing lists, when added up, amounted to 1627.7 kg. The airway bill indicated a weight of 1627.0 kg. On this point the experts expressed different views. However, the decision is a majority one that there was no discrepancy. Hope my answer is helpful. Kind regards, Mr. Old Man P/S: Kn Chan: Thank you for reminding me of R218
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?