LC calls for a copy of non negotiable sea waybill.
the beneficiary presents the original bill of lading.
As I understand it is the discrepancy. Should the bank check the content of original B/l and outline all the discrepancies there? Or it can refuse it without cheking?
Its a great pleasure reading your blog. The blog content is powerful.Very Good.
debt consolidation options
debt consolidation plan
Sub art. 17 d of UCP600 (qualified by ISBP para. 31) would allow presentation of an original in lieu of a copy, even when a copy is required under the LC. The only exception to this rule is when presentation of an original, instead of a copy would not be desirable or acceptable, such as in the case of original transport documents being required to be forwarded to the consignee outside the LC, for early clearance purposes. In this case, if the LC requires presentation of a non-negotiable copy of a negotiable transport document, the bank must either declare the fate of the original negotiable transport documents, or otherwise, expressly state that an original in lieu of a copy is not acceptable.
In your case, an original or copy of a sea waybill are both non-negotiable, so it could be interpreted that a photocopy/carbon copy of the original non-negotiable sea waybill, or a non-negotiable copy of the original sea waybill would both be acceptable.
In the absence of any further information as to the fate of the originals or prohibition of presenting originals under the LC, there would not be any valid grounds for raising a discrepancy.
On a wider point, had the LC restricted presentation of an original, or had indicated fate of the originals, my view is that the only discrepancy that should be raised is that an original of the sea waybill has been presented, instead of a copy of the sea waybill. There should not be any need to examine the document further for compliance under the LC.
I am a little bit confused, as ISBP 31 says: "Where an original would not be accepted in lieu of a copy, the credit must prohibit an original ... and where a credit calls for a copy of a transport document and indicates the disposal instructions for the original of that transport document,an original transport document will not be acceptable"
Our LC does not indicate that disposal instructions. So how should I check?
This is in fact a bit difficult question to answer without having seen the document presented.
However – in my view the answer given by Abrar is all wrong. This has nothing to do with originals and copies! Where the L/C calls for a non-negotiable sea waybill, the transport document presented must be examined according to UCP 600 article 21.
A bill of lading is covered by article 20.
The difficult part is the “however named” doctrine which allows for a different title. However a sea waybill is by nature different from a bill of lading – so based on the information given I would clearly consider this a discrepancy: It is the wrong document that is being presented.
Dalai Lama: “Share your knowledge. It is a way to achieve immortality”
Welcome back! It's a big surprise to read your comment after long-term-absence. How about Peter M, Frammi, Armagedo? This forum really misses such voices!
Back to the topic, I see your point. But in some cases, e.g., when the presented B/L can otherwise comply with UCP600 art.21(seaway bill), would you accept it or not? It's hard to refuse it, isn't it?
Dear Adel, thank you very much for your comments.
I and Abrar, have discussed the issue further in details in priviate chat and came to the same conclusion that the presentation of an ORIGINAL BL under LC which calls for a COPY of NON-negotiable say way bill is a discrepancy and the document should be checked according to the article 21.
Thanks for your comments again!
waiting for your comments on other issues! :)
Point conceded- my answer was based on my misconception that we were discussing the issue of presentation of an original sea waybill as opposed to a copy of a sea waybill. I should have read the query more carefully!
Thanks for clarification !
I have already explained to Adel, that we have clarified the issue in details and came to the same opinion. It is very difficult sometimes to get information from the mere question and clarification is need from the party raising the issue.
Thank you both, Adel and Abrar! :)