Home › Forums › Letters of Credit

GOODS DESCRIPTION, PORT OF DISCHARGE, BENEFICIARY'S NAME

4 replies [Last post]
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 00:54
UCP800
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2008
Posts:
Printer-friendly versionPDF version

Dear Expert,

 

May I ask for your opinion of the following :

 

L/C 45A:  NOVAPRESS SILK

    

Q1. B/L PRESENTED SHOWING INCOMPLETE GOODS DESCRIPTION NOVAPRESS INSTEAD OF NOVAPRESS SILK

  

I TREAT IT IS NOT A DISCREPANCY BY REFERRING

   

UCP 600 Article 14

 e. In documents other than the commercial invoice, the description of the goods, services or performance, if stated, may be in general terms not conflicting with their description in the credit.

    Q2. L/C REQUIRED full set clean on board ocean bill of lading

44E :  any Finnish port

44F: Huangpu, Guangzhou, China

 

DISCREPANCY

  1. B/L SHOWING PORT OF DISCHARGE HUANGPU, CHINA INSTEAD OF

HUANGPU, GUANGZHOU, CHINA

 

 Q3. LC 59 BENEFICIARY:            ABC TIMBER OY.      FINLAND.   DOCUMENTS PRESENTED AS FOLLOWS:

insurance policy showing assured name:  ABC TIMBER OY

B/L showing shipper :         ABC TIMBER OY

insurance policy endorsement, B/L blank endorsement  SIGNED but its company chop showing ABC TIMBER.

 Discrepancy :B/L AND INSURANCE POLICY ENSORED BY ABC TIMBER INSTEAD OF  ABC TIMBER OY.

 PLEASE COMMENT WHETHER THE DISCREPANCIES ARE VALID OR NOT.

Thank you for your assistance.

Regards,

LEUNG, KS

‹ LC from Jordon , Iraq , Iran and Iserail Neeed Help!!!If my bl state port of loading like this, would it be a discrepancies under ucp600? ›
Top
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 05:33
#1
Abrar
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2009
Posts:
Goods' description etc

Q1. I'm not so sure. "Novapress" appears to refer to a brand, whereas "silk" is a generic product.   Had the B/L referred to "silk" instad of just "Novapress", one could argue that the description had been stated in general terms, but simply stating "Novapress" does not necessarily indicate what the goods are.

Q2. No discrepancy. I believe that Guangzhou and Huangpu ports are both the same and interchangeable. This should be able to be verified by a relatively simple process on the document checker's part. Absence of reference to China is also not a discrepancy (refer ICC opinion 470/TA.708 rev & TA.701).  

Q3.  Techcnically a discrepancy ; on the basis that neither the B/L nor insurance document bears a valid endorsement, and therefore the B/L does not confer negotiability, nor is the benefits under the insurance policy able to be transferred.

Looking at the issue from within the context of the complete presentation, one could assert that the same company is being referred to, but from a legal perspective, I am not sure whether the respective contract of carriage or the contract of insurance would be compromised, on the basis of assertion that for the B/L, the endorser is not the same party as the consignor, and that for the insurance policy, the endorser is not the same party as the assured, and that therefore neither endorsement is legally effective. Safer option would be to raise the discrepancy.  

 

Top
Mon, 08/23/2010 - 06:47
#2
cristiand
Offline
Joined: 08/10/2007
Posts:
name of company

I agree with Abrar on comments on Q1 and Q2 but differ in oppinion on Q3. Looking at the beneficiary's location as Finland , pls note that OY is Finnish abbreviation for Osakeyhtio which in Finnish means Limited/Incorporated or Osakeyhtiö which means Limited Company. OY after a company name cannot stands for anything else than above. 

However the inquirer has not make any reference whthere or not other document (such as invoice, etc) bear a letterhead with a/m finnish words and same stamp exists on that. I would say only on document basis we can have a clear view.

I would not treat this a discrepancy.

Top
Mon, 08/23/2010 - 07:17
#3
Abrar
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2009
Posts:
Missing "OY"

Hi Christian

Yes, I agree with you in respect to Q3 (LTD/OY), and I do believe that the context of the overall presentation and the related documents would likely influence whether such a discrepancy can be raised.

Ths is the caveat that I added to my previous view,  i,e that the documents would most likely pass muster with a bank document checker, but I wonder whether the missing OY might raise some legal issues as regards the effectiveness of the endorsement ?   

 

Top
Tue, 08/24/2010 - 00:20
#4
cristiand
Offline
Joined: 08/10/2007
Posts:
Wondering...

Hi Abrar

I was wondering in which form the endorsement had been done. The inquirer left so much room for interpretation due to absence of critical information and he has not reverted with clarification.

Was the endorsement made by stamp and signature or simply by typing the name ABC TIMBER. This could be a piece of unsolved puzzle.  In case of stamp , I have seen the name of companies not carrying any abbreviation like one discussed but expanding this as explained.  

Top