Letter of Credit Forum

Dear Shahriar,

It could hapened, some time, that the FW is acting on behalf of beneficiary to prepare the shipping documents and this what I beleive in this case.

The FW is acting as an a gent for the Local Airline as well, consequently, he entered into an agreement with international airline company to dispach the goods to port of dicharge.

The FW convinced the international line to accept the house AWB to deliver the goods to the consignee.

It could also hapened some time that the FW indicates his agent in place of final destination as a delivery agent in his house AWB.

Anyhow, the aforesaid AWB is complied and the bank in no way is responsible to check any document except to the extent stipulated in the UCP. i.e on the basis of the documents alone as appear from their face.

However, the probability of fraud or miscoudct is still stand and that why ICC Opinion is cautious about this.

Please, also check my case on;

  http://letterofcreditforum.com/node/278

And as it said in our local proverb: "He who tasted a snakebite, horrifying by a movement of rope"

Best,

Ghubshawi

The ICC opinion has to be taken in a broader context than just this example.  The ICC is addressing that if the examiner knows from their own experience that the information is false, then they must address it, as this is potentially fraud.  A good example would be a case from my experience

.

I had a letter of credit that called for a residual drawing based on the acceptance certificate of a thrid party to be issued on or after a specified date.  We received the certificate on that date via overnight courier.  This means that the beneficiary had posession of the certificate a day before it should have been issued according to the letter of credit.  Therefore, with the knowlege that the certificate could not be real, we refused the drawing. The ICC make sense in this case, as we could not turn a 'blind eye' to this issue, becuase to ignore this is a negligent act by the bank.

.

The case utilized by the ICC to explain this scenario is weak at best.  There is no possible way for an examiner to know about every industry, nor should this examiner have actually truly known. 

For example I have been booked on a flight XYZ with a carrier 1 only board a plane of carrier 2 on their flight ABC. It is the same flight, just booked on a sharing agreement between carriers to share routes. 

So knowing that ABC Airlines does not have a flight to xx Airport is actually not enought. Did the examiner know what sharing agreements  ABC Airlines?

Let me know your thoughts.

-LC Sam

Hi!

My reaction is so, since ICC opinions are differ from one to another. I mean that in some cases 2 pages of describing situation and questions are finished with just "dry" conclusion whether it is correct or not in view of UCP provisions and in other cases they start to philosophize.

And here is the second situation.

What is important in this case?

The answer should be brief, clear and to come from DOCUMENTARY nature of letters of credit which clearly stated in Article 5 of UCP600.

All other is secondary and should not be taken into account.

Otherwise checkers should be not only specialists in airway routes and flights, prominent geographists, but then they also to be big specialists in all and any fields of existing business.

IMHO, such a philosophy in official conclusions will lead to that LC checkers will have doubts whether or not they are right EVEN in cases they 100% right under UCP and ISBP. 

Good luck

Hi to all please some one make me understand what is confrim L/C .