When Does Additional Information Become Conflicting Data Under UCP 600?

A reader raised an interesting follow-up question after my previous Q&A on contact names and addresses in letters of credit. If a document shows an address or contact name that differs from the credit, can it simply be regarded as additional information? Or does it become conflicting data that gives rise to a discrepancy?

The distinction is subtle but important. Let’s examine it in light of UCP 600 and ISBP 821.

Question

Dear Mr. Nguyen,

Could you let us know on the basis of which UCP articles and/or which grounds you would raise a discrepancy regarding the beneficiary’s and applicant’s addresses on documents other than transport documents when they differ from those stated in the L/C?

Also, what is your view on contact names appearing on documents that differ from those in the L/C? Aren’t they merely additional information rather than contradictory data?

Thank you very much for your clarification.

Bruno Guillory

_______

Answer

Answer

Dear Bruno,

Thank you for your thoughtful follow-up question.

1. Different addresses on documents other than transport documents

ISBP 821 paragraphs D19-D20, E15-E16 and F13-F14 provide specific guidance for transport documents. They state that where a credit requires the applicant or issuing bank to appear as the consignee or notify party, the transport document need only indicate the relevant name. The address and contact details stated in the credit need not be shown.

However, if the transport document does include the address or contact details, they must not conflict with those stated in the credit.

For all stipulated documents, UCP 600 sub-article 14(j) further provides that the addresses of the beneficiary and the applicant need not be the same as those stated in the credit or in any other stipulated document, provided they are within the same country as the respective addresses stated in the credit.

For example:

Example 1 – Acceptable

L/C

ABC Company
100 Pasteur Street, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Invoice

ABC Company
100 Wall Street, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Although the street address is different, both addresses are in Vietnam. Accordingly, this is acceptable under UCP 600 sub-article 14(j). This remains the case even if “100 Wall Street” does not actually exist, as banks examine documents and are not expected to investigate the factual existence of an address.

Example 2 – Discrepant

L/C

ABC Company
100 Pasteur Street, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Invoice

ABC Company
100 Wall Street, New York, USA

This is discrepant because the address is not within the same country as that stated in the credit, contrary to UCP 600 sub-article 14(j).

2. Is a different address merely additional information?

In my opinion, UCP 600 sub-article 14(j) provides a specific rule for addresses. Therefore, a different address is acceptable provided it is within the same country as the address stated in the credit.

The same reasoning does not automatically apply to contact names. If a document includes a contact name that conflicts with the one stated in the credit, it may constitute conflicting data under UCP 600 sub-article 14(d), as there is no equivalent provision in UCP 600 permitting differences in contact names.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man