Home Uncategorized WHETHER HONG KONG IS PART OF CHINA

WHETHER HONG KONG IS PART OF CHINA

5 min read
2
0
2,833

Dear VCB TF members and all,

Your best wishes sent to Mr. Old Man is one day earlier than Mr. Old Man’s birthday. Please treat this piece of news as my BIG THANK YOU to you

Regarding the question whether B/L showing Hong Kong as the port of loading is acceptable if the L/C requires shipment to be effected from any port of China, I ever answered in DCPro Forum as follows:

QUOTE
Despite the fact that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and practising “One Country Two Systems” with high degree of autonomy, I do believe China will strongly protest if anyone says Hong Kong now does not belong to China.

Hong Kong is part of China. So, if L/C requires shipment to be effected from any Chinese port, B/L showing on board at Hong Kong is acceptable.
UNQUOTE

The issue has been discussed by ICC BC whether the future ISBP will include the guidance that Hong Kong is acceptable as one of the Chinese ports.

It is rumoured that ICC China has decided that in principle Hong Kong is not part of China. It means that if the L/C requires any port of China as the port of loading/discharge, then B/L showing Hong Kong as port of loading/discharge is not acceptable.

Rumour is only rumour. In the last meeting of ICC BC in February 2013, ICC has concluded as follows:

QUOTE
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
When a credit indicates that shipment is to be effected from "Any Chinese Port"(or to "Any Chinese Port"), it is recognised that in the context of examination of documents on their face, in accordance with UCP 600 sub-article 14 (a), this would include Hong Kong being shown as the port of loading (or port of discharge).

However, applicants and beneficiaries should be aware that differing customs systems and regimes operate in Hong Kong and at ports in Mainland China. Therefore, a credit should specifically indicate where shipment is only to be effected from or to a port in Mainland China. This comment is particularly relevant to applicants who are based in Mainland China that may require, or at the very least expect, delivery to occur at a port in Mainland China as opposed to Hong Kong. Otherwise, banks will be required to honour or negotiate documents that indicate shipment from or to Hong Kong, even though the expectation under the contract and the credit may have been for the use of a port of loading (or discharge) in Mainland China.
UNQUOTE

The above is quoted ICC Document 470/1214 20 Feb, 2013.

Once again thank you for your best wishes on Mr. Old Man’s special day. Please treat this piece of news as my BIG THANK YOU to you

With warmest regards,
Mr. Old Man

Load More Related Articles
Load More By Mr Old Man
Load More In Uncategorized

2 Comments

  1. anonymous

    March 3, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    A2V writes:Opinion required.. thanks..A standby LC issued by Bank I was confirmed by Bank C expiring on 1 September 2002. There was no restriction on the presentation. The beneficiary presented the documents to Bank I on 29 August 2002 but was wrongly dishonoured on 2 September 2002 relying on invalid discrepancies, such as the commercial invoice was not marked "original" whereas the standby LC did not ask for such marking. The documents were returned to the beneficiary that received them on 5 September 2002. The beneficiary presented the same documents without any alteration to the confirming bank on 6 September 2002. The refusal notice from the confirming bank stated:"We refuse to pay due to presentation made after expiry of the standby LC. Meantime we are holding the documents at your disposal and risk."Is the confirming bank right in its refusal?

    Reply

  2. mroldmanvcb

    March 3, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    You do not let me know if the SBLC is subject to UCP 600 or ISP98. According to Article 6 UCP 600, an LC available with a nominated bank is also available with the issuing bank. Therefore, the beneficiary can make presentation directly to the issuing bank. If the complying documents are presented to the issuing bank before or on the last day for presentation and within the LC validitty, the issuing bank must pay. The beneficiary should have insisted the payment from the issuing bank.Whether the SBLC subject to UCP 600 or ISP98, the confirming bank’s refusal is valid as the documents were presented to their counter after the expirtion date.Sorry but no ICC opinions are given now.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF EXCLUSION OF UCP 600 SUB-ARTICLE 12b?

QUESTION Dear Mr. Old Man, I hope my email finds you doing well I would ask you if the iss…