Home › Forums › Letters of Credit

copy of non-negotiable sea waybill

4 replies [Last post]
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 05:21
LB
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2010
Posts:
Printer-friendly versionPDF version

The credit calls for : “non-negotiable copy of  sea waybill”.

While checking the presented document I referenced to ISBP  article 20, which clearly says:

“Where a credit allows for the presentation of a copy transport document rather than an original, the credit must explicitly state the details to be shown. Where copies (non-negotiable) are presented, they need not evidence signature, dates, etc.”

However UCP 600 article 21 (non-negotiable sea waybill) says:

a.      
A non-negotiable say waybill, however named, must appear to:

i)   Indicate the name of the carrier and be signed
by…

 

The presented document under  L/C is not signed.

Please provide me with your opinion.

‹ amendemnt from without confirmation to MAY ADD DOCUMENTS LOST IN TRANSIT ›
Top
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 08:42
#1
Abrar
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2009
Posts:
non-negotiable sea waybill

A "non-negotiable copy of sea waybill", is not necessarily the same as a "non-negotiable sea waybill". The first refers to a copy, and the second refers to an original. Whether as a copy or in the original, both are non-negotiable, but the first can be a photocopy or simply a file copy. Since in this case, a copy is being called for it need not evidence signatures, etc (ISBP para 20), whereas an original (non-negotiable) sea waybill would require one (Art. 21)     

Top
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 09:05
#2
LB
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2010
Posts:
non-negotiable sea waybill

Thank you for clarification. 

Now everything is clear. I was a bit confused before. 

Top
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 06:19
#3
cvrkswami
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2010
Posts:
non negotiable copy of sea way bill

By indicating that the non negotialbele copy of sea way bill to be submitted, the intention  of the issuer of LC , appears to be that proof of loading the goods should be produced.  ISBP  takes a view such document need not be signed. This view is based on the logic, as non negoitable copy do not serve any purpose and only an information , the signature or name of the carrier is not important.

The article of UCP is based on the logic, that any written matter can be called as document only if it is signed by the author of the narration and the document indicates the name of the carrier as an addtional proof of despatch.

Based on these opinions, I am inclined to go with the UCP provisions and consider unsigned document as a discrepancy.

CVRK

An exbanker, into education now! ( can undertake select syndication)

Top
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 07:28
#4
LB
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2010
Posts:
ISBP/UCP

Thanks for your response. I share your opinion.

But as I know ISPB and UCP 600 should be read in their entirety and not in isolation. While we can encounter here that they may somehow conflict with each other.

If I list all the discrepancies in the refusal letter, including that the signature is not presented, the counterpart can argue that while checking/preparing the document he was guiding by ISBP.

I have other serious discrepancies in the document for refusal (the port of loading different;  no LC reference, though strictly required by credit, etc.) But still, should I include the  discussed one in the refusal letter?

Top