Dear All
I received an LC from one of my clients with the following terms to be noted:
31C: DATE OF ISSUE: 06AUG2008
43P: PARTIAL SHIPMENT: NOT ALLOWED
45 A: Description of Goods and/or service:
“NAME OF GOODS: 500MT IRON SCRAP
PACKED IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT FOR USD 380,000.00”
=====================
All of above is Description of Goods under quotes “ ” above.
L/C INDICATES THAT TOLERANCE OF +/-5 % IS ALLOWED IN QUANTITY AND AMOUNT
We made the shipment of 502MT as we mentioned description of goods in the docs as follows:
“NAME OF GOODS: 502MT IRON SCRAP
PACKED IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT FOR USD 381,520.00”
We had no problems in the same as buyer paid the documents. It is to be noted that, in the whole LC, there is no mention of “quantity”, apart from what is mentioned in the description of goods above.
After that customer amended the same LC as follows:
DATE OF AMMENDMENT: 080908
NEW EXPIRY DATE: 30NOV2008
LATEST SHIPMENT DATE: 31OCT2008
Increase in Documentary Credit: USD 380,000.00
New Documentary Credit Amount after amendment: USD 760,000.00
Narrative:
+under field 45A,
Name of goods should be read:
“1,000 MT IRON SCRAP
PACKING IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT USD 760,000.00”
--Other remains unchanged.
===================
Now we have shipped another 510 MT under the above amendment. The buyer wants to cancel the order and cannot take delivery. Now we are very concerned about the documents not to have any discrepancy as they should be 100% perfect, not allowing any chance to the buyer to point out any discrepancy. We are now double minded as how to prepare the documents as L/C does not indicate the partial shipment but has been amended in description of Goods, for quantity and amount, as indicated above. In this regard I have two questions:
1. Since we are utilizing the full L/C (Amount and quantity) would this be considered as partial shipment? If yes, then how can we utilize the full LC by sending another set of documents of the above 2nd shipment?
2. How the descriptions of goods to be mentioned, we have two options below;
OPTION 1:
“NAME OF GOODS: 510MT IRON SCRAP
PACKED IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT FOR USD 387,600.00”
OR
OPTION 2: (exactly as the amended description of LC?)
“NAME OF GOODS: 1000MT IRON SCRAP
PACKED IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT FOR USD 760,000.00”
If option 2 is correct then should we mention actual “QUANTITY” and “AMOUNT” separately in the docs as the quantity shipped now is 510MT
Any accurate and legal feedback on above would be priceless.
Thanks.
John
Hi!Unfortunately, I don't
Hi!
Unfortunately, I don't see any chance to utilize an LC.
As soon as You'll present further part of the docs under this LC it will automatically mean the You've accepted the amendment.
As far as amendment doesn't make partial shipment allowed then partial shipment's are prohibited.
From now, one may formally think that for the first (earlier) part of docs under AMENDED LC the issuing bank has failed to work out those docs within 5 banking days or it got applicant's waiver of discrepancies.
But failure/acceprtance for/of the first part of docs doesn't mean that the second part will be subject to the same reasons.
Sad, but true, it was the fault of the benficiary who didn't check the WHOLE PICTURE after amendment done.
Under such circumstances, IMHO, issuing bank will in any case note presentation as partial and so discrepant and will refuse it.
Good luck
Description of Goods...
Hi All
Suppose if we still want to present documents to try a chance even if partial shipment is not allowed, we would like to know how the Description of Goods should be written.
Description of Goods in original LC was as per below
45 A: Description of Goods and/or service:
“NAME OF GOODS: 500MT IRON SCRAP
PACKED IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT FOR USD 380,000.00”
We made the first docs with description of goods as follows:
“NAME OF GOODS: 502MT IRON SCRAP
PACKED IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT FOR USD 381,520.00”
Docs were negotiated without any problem.
After that applicant needed more goods and amended the LC as follows:
DATE OF AMMENDMENT: 080908
NEW EXPIRY DATE: 30NOV2008
LATEST SHIPMENT DATE: 31OCT2008
Increase in Documentary Credit: USD 380,000.00
New Documentary Credit Amount after amendment: USD 760,000.00
Narrative:
+under field 45A,
Name of goods should be read:
“1,000 MT IRON SCRAP
PACKING IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT USD 760,000.00”
How the descriptions of goods to be mentioned, we have two options below;
OPTION 1:
“NAME OF GOODS: 510MT IRON SCRAP
PACKED IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT FOR USD 387,600.00”
OR
OPTION 2: (exactly as the amended description of LC?)
“NAME OF GOODS: 1000MT IRON SCRAP
PACKED IN BAGS IN CONTAINER
TOTAL AMOUNT CFR PANJANG PORT FOR USD 760,000.00”
If option 2 is correct then should we mention actual “QUANTITY” and “AMOUNT” separately in the docs as the quantity shipped now is 510MT ??
Any feedback would be valueable...
John
-John
-John
Hi!IMHO, basing on my
Hi!IMHO, basing on my expierience and ISBP paras 59, 60 both descriptions of goods are Ok provided that what has been actually shipped will be stated in invoice further. Good luck
ISBP paras 59, 60????
Dear Armagedo
would you please clarify what is ISBP paras 59, 60??
Can you send me a copy of such document?
Also, I am looking for a detailed document of UCP 600 laws with explanation and examples in detail. Can any one send me such copy at wordswordsandwords@hotmail.com
kind regards
John
ISBP 59 and 60
59.The description of goods, servces or performance in an invoice must reflect what has actually been shipped or provide. For eg, where there are two types of goods showin in the credit, such as 10 trucks and 5 tractors, an invoice that reflects only shipment of 4 trucks would be acceptable provided the credit does not prohibit partial shipment. An invoice showing the entire goods description as stated in the credit, then stating what has actually been shipped, is also acceptable.
60.An invoice must evidence the value of the goods shipped or services or performance provided. Unit prices(s), if any, and currency shown in the invoice must show any discounts or deductions required in the credit. The invoice may also show a deduction covering advance payment, discount, etc., not stated in the credit.
Now let's come to terms with Art. 31 a and ISBP paras 59-60
As per Art. 59 of ISBPs it is a discrepancy, which makes sense. Partial shipments were explicitly prohibited, so why should anyone open a back door to allow them??
But as per art. 31 a of UCP 600:
"Partial drawings or shipments are allowed."
When you're desparate, you could use this as an ambiguity which leads to a payment obligation of applicant and issuing bank. This is also supported by Common Sense: "Why should they amend a credit in a way it can not be utilized? It can only be meant in a way that one further complete shipment is allowed."
But legal matters - especially when settled in foreign countries - not always follow Common Sense.
______________________________________
You should search for an amendment allowing for at least one further delivery of 500 mT. But as you said, he wants to cancel the order, he wouldn't agree to such a further amendment.
Maybe the issuing bank would be prepared to agree that their amendment is to be understood in the way, that only one further delivery is to be made between 448 and 548 MT of iron scrap?
Let your bank ask them for an immediate reply by SWIFT.
__________________________________________
Concerning the goods description in invoice, why don't you write:
"total goods description as per letter of credit
no ... of ...:
name of goods: 1000 MT of iron scrap
..........
quantity delivered under this invoice:
name of goods: 510 MT of iron scrap
..........."
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
HSBC CONFORMS DOCUMENTS.....
Dear Friends
Just to update you on the above case of partial shipment, our bank HSBC has forwarded the documents to the issuing bank. HSBC has told me that the docs are perfectly complying and there is no discrepancy.....Alhamdulilah....Inshallah docs would get through from the issuing bank too....
This means that there are always different angles to view a situation where there is no clear and defined rule in the UCP for these type of issues...may be the bank had the same logic as mine - utilizing full LC is different from partial shipment which is incomplete utilization of LC...
regards
Muhammad Asim
Great News, I'm happy for you!
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
No please
Hi Friends,
you or HSBC must present this case to ICC in Paris for an official Opinion or indicate if three is already one. L/C practioniers must have something official and not to stay on the doubt or on the good willing of issuing bank. I agreed that this case was more of good sense than of legal sense, but many times the latter prevailed on the first one.
Please let me know
Ciao
Incomplete Utilization of LC
Dear Ciao
We had such things in mind in the last few weeks when we were preparing documents and wanted to make sure they comply the presentation. But then, we finally decided to make things happen as they happen. Because may be the issue of partial shipment turn out to be just a clot of our perception and the buyer, issuing bank and our bank may not even notice this confusion….
I consulted with one of world’s nine letter of credit experts . Based on the information, as I gave in this post above, his informal initial advise was that there is no case of partial shipment here.
Since now HSBC has termed our presentation as a perfectly complying so am pretty hopeful for the successful outcome. Since the issuing bank is in Indonesia and staff who checks the docs is not supposed to be so competent or may not have such deep understanding of letter of credits so they are expected to check docs as a routine process. But who knows……I am keeping my fingers crosses!!!!!!!!!
God Forbid, if they raised such discrepancy or any other invalid discrepancy then I would take them as well as the buyer to the court. I have consulted few lawyers and they said we would have a good cause of action against the bank and the applicant.
Lastly, I would like to say that I am a marketing person and these UCP and ISBP were foreign to me before this case. I was used to simple routine transactions of LC with my customers as I have my docs department as experts on the LC subject. After spending so much time on searching the interpretation of partial shipments for this case, what I have come to the conclusion that “a partial shipment is an incomplete utilization of LC” is this definition true?
Regards
Muhammad Asim
Great News!!!
Hi Asim,
It is a great news for me too!!!!!!!! .......
Dont worry, Issuing bank will also makes the dox comply ...
As I have already told you, i m also working in issuing bank side, I never pick such a discrepancy ... I have come across with the same issue 4 times .. but i never pick it as a discrepancy. I used my common sense. ...
Once again congratulations to you!!!!! :-)
I wish if you could be at issuing bank....
Dear Mujeeb
I wish if you could be at issuing bank for this case and fix my worries....hehehe
I also wish all document checkers take inspiration from you to use thier common sense which is not very common sometimes!!!!!
By the way, since you fairly use your intelligence while checking suhc documents but may be your customer (applicant) might not be happy with you as sometimes it may not be in in his favour that you use common sense.
Some one told me few days ago that some times, applicant sometimes bribe the person in charge at the banks to raise any descrepancy in the docs while beneficiary some times bribe the same person not to raise the descrepancy. This is very common in some countries..
Anyway, please pray for my case' success.
kind regards
Muhammad Asim
Invalid Discrepancy by the issuing Bank
Dear Experts
As expected the issuing bank has raised an absurd discrepancy in the presentation of documents ref. to above case:
Issuing bank states:
1. LATE PRESENTATION
2. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS NOT ISSUED SGS
As we found out these two discrepencies are based on the 2nd Amendment which was done by the applicant without our consent. We immediately refused the amendment and sent our bank written notice that we refuse the amendment as we have already sent documents to them by DHL. Our bank confirmed us the receipt of the rejection notice from us. In the original LC, the presentation time was not mentioned nor it asked for the certificate of analysis issued by SGS. It just asked "Certificate of analysis". BL date was October 28, 2008 and issuing bank recieved the docs from our bank on November 17. So by no means presentation is late.
We just recieved message from our bank that Issuing bank has raised the discrepencies and they are waiting for our reply. Issuing bank had just once chance of raising the discrepancy which they have utilized and both of these discrepancies are improper. I would love to know your thoughts on how should we respond to these discrepencies to our bank now.
Also, is there any time frame to respond to these invalid discrepencies from beneficiary?
Awaiting your replies..
Asim
Hi! My main confusion is
Hi!
My main confusion is that there is no "partial shipment" discrepancy :)))
Congratulations. At least issuing bank is no longer able to raise this as discrepancy - UCP Article 16(c) - "it must give a single notice ..."
As for descripancies noticed:
1/ Late presenatation.
Bullshit.
As far as no period for presentation were stated and Bs/L were called for in LC then Articl 14(c) is in force and rule of "21 calendar day after" is in force.
You was obviously in time since 21 days after 28 of October gives November 18 the latest which was yeterday when I suppose You've got notice of refusal.
By the way, with waht bank LC was available - issuing bank or Your bank?
2/ SGS certificate
Firstly ask Your bank whether they duly informed issuing bank about rejection of the Amendment 2 after your advice?
If Yes then nothing to say - amendment was not accepted and so doesn't exist.
But even, if Your bank has failed to duly inform issuing bank (I would kill them for this) there, IMHO, is a hole provided by the rules.
Amendment 2 was calling for certificate of SGS, but before this without SGS.
Presentation of 'non-SGS' certificate, IMHO, prooves that You was not in position to comply with Amendment 2, i.e. rejected it, otherwise You would definitely present SGS certificate. :)))
Article 14 (c) - amendment is not in force untill it is accepted by beneficiary by means of advice in reg this or by presentation of the documents complying with this amendment. Otherwise it's rejected.
Good luck
Thanks Armagedo
Tx for your time and reply..
Please note as follows:
1. Our bank HSBC even did not raise the partial shipment discrepancy infact they said the docs are perfectly complying. We were very hopeful that the issuing bank would not raise this discrepancy.
2. Our bank is the advising bank and LC is available from them. We presented docs through our bank (HSBC).
3. The issuing Bank raised late presentation discrepancy because in their 2nd Amendment, refused by us, they tried to add/change the following:
a). COA to be issued by SGS (In original DC, it only asked COA in one copy)
b). Certificate of origin to be issued by UAE Government (In original DC, no certificate of origin was asked. We did not presented any certificate of origin in the docs.
C). Presentation time to be within 5 days from BL date.
Since we refused the above (2nd) amendment so we presented docs as per original DC and amendment No. 1 in which quantity and amount were increased.
4. Our bank surely sent the refusal of 2nd amendment notice to the issuing bank. They sent me the copy today of that message.
Now since issuing bank had just only one chance to raise all discrepancies they have infact raised totally invalid and improper rejection notice. I want to answer them with a strong message that they are forced to make us the payment on 60 days after BL date. Can any one suggest or draft, how should my reply should look like?
Any feedback welcome.
Thanks
Muhammad Asim
Nature of actual discrepancy notice from Issuing bank...
Dear Armagedo
Adding on to my above message, please note that I just saw the issuing bank's discrepancy message again (also attached).
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5241/discrepanciesur8.jpg
As you can see, it does not state that they refuse the documents. Infact it says "We will obtain applicant's consent and would revert" and then after stating the discrepancies it says "Holding documents at your entire risk and responsibility"
My questions:
1. What does this mean "We will obtain applicant's consent and would revert"? On the face, it implies that they have just informed us about the discrepancies and would (ofcourse) obtain the applicant's consent and would revert..
2. Since they have not explicitly stated that they refuse the documents or whether the applicant would accept or not.....so does this mean that they can send another notice on the documents which can be a refusal notice or having other discrepancies?
3. Do you think that this notice from issuing bank is as per the terms of UCP 600, Article 16? I feel the bank has improperly communicated the discrepancy notice which are invalid and at the same time the message does not explicity refuse the documents (I have found a 80% matchable case study relating to this point. Please do read it here: http://www.bankersonline.com/lending/so_locrefusal.html
In the above link, the decsion was made in the seller's favour because the issuing bank did not refused the docs in time and just sent the notice (like we have recieved). So does this mean that if in my case issuing bank does not refuse the documents till 22nd Of November, they would have to honor the documents??? (I understand that even if they refuse document by November 22nd, we can still sue them for invalid discrepancies...
I am waiting for your kind replies...
Muhammad Asim
We will obtain applicant's consent and would revert
it is the applicant who is finally deciding to accept the discrepancy or not , if they accepts, bank will make the payment, since the opening bank noted the discrepancy in view that the amendment made by them is accepted by you , better to convince the opening bank through your bank that , the amendment was not approved by you , then the bank will delete the discrepancy and your problem will solve
Hi! Just look on the format
Hi!
Just look on the format of the SWIFT message You've received.
I'm sure it is MT734 - Advice of refusal.
So, it means that
1/ Issuing bank has refused presentation
2/ Descripancies found are as steted under Field 77J
3/ They're saying that they've chosen the right provided by Article 16(iii)(b)
That's all.
So from from formal side - everything is Ok.
But actally there is no discrepancies for the reasons I've stated earlier.
So Your bank should sent a SWIFT message indicating your disagreenment with descripancies found expalining as we did, and asking to execute issuing bank irrevocable undertaking - honour compliant presentation.
Do not just seat and wait what will be.
Start to fight and collect documents for the future court, send the official letter of protest directly to the issuing bank with copy to applicant, call to applicant and record Your conversation, call to the issuing bank and make the same. Start.
Discuss this issue with the lawyer.
But my friendly advise - no e-mails. Only faxes with correspondent fax reports, courier sendings with delivery reportsetc - everything in paper you will be able to use as evidences in court.
Among of other steps You may send (or you may advise issuing bank that in case of further refusal you'll will send) Your case and file a claim with ICC DOCDEX
http://www.iccwbo.org/court/docdex/id4493/index.html
It costs not a little - abt 5000USD, but...
Make as much correct steps as you can without delays.
Attack is the best defense!!!!!!!!!!!
Anytime and anywhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still not sure with what bank LC was available. ??????
What is stated in field 41A of original LC?
Hi Armagedo
Many thanks for your email and suggestions. I have sent the disagreenment notice to my bank and they said they totally agreed with me. They would be sending the SWIFT message to the issuing bank today. I have asked my bank to put up this case with the issuing bank and demand immediate honor of the documents and confirm us the maturity date of the payment to be December 27, 2008.
41 A is absent in original DC
41 D is present. It says "Available with any bank in Mauritius"
Our Bank HSBC is also in Mauritius
Here is the image link of the main content of the notice of refusal that I sent to my bank.
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8462/clip4ci5.jpg
I am pretty hopeful of success inshallah. I am not exchanging any emails with the customer now. The material has reached the destination port and I learnt from the destination agent that consignee is saying that this cargo is not his and agent is asking me to tell consignee that this cargo is his.
At my end, I am ready to sue the issuing bank if they didn't pay. I am in contact with my lawyer. The bank has been caught on the wrong foot. No they have no choice as they really blew away the golden chance to create a logical discrepancy. Let's pray for my success.
I thank all freinds who spent their time to help me in this case.
kind regards
Muhammad Asim
Hi! 41A or 41D are of the
Hi!
41A or 41D are of the same meaning.
Since availability was with any bank in Mauritius, it means that any bank in Mauritius is considered as place of presentation.
Since as per Article 6(d)(ii) "The place of the bank with which the credit is available is the place for presentation. The place for presentation under a credit available with any bank is that of any bank. A place for presentation other than that of the issuing bank is in addition to the place of issuing bank.".
It also means that in Your case as the date of presentation You should take a date of presentation to ANY bank in Mauritius, and so your bank as well, and this date is definitely less than Nov 18, 2008 (latest date for presentation).
This is just another thought to support You and You may change Your disagreement point 1 accordingly pointing out that date of presentation to be deemed as date of presentation to nominated bank.
Good luck and keep us posted for proceedings.
Armagedo the Great! Excellent work! Noone could have done better
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
Frammi, stop ;-)
Frammi, stop ;-)
Thanks Armagedo My bank has
Thanks Armagedo
My bank has sent the below SWIFT TO THE ISSUING BANK. Let's see what happens now. I am sure my Allah is with me and success would be ours inshallah. Asim
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9214/bankoh1.jpg
Breaking News - issuing Bank Confirmed Payment...
Dear Freinds
Dates are ordinary but human deeds make them extraordinary. November 25, 2008 was one such date, became special for us as we recieved the the confirmation from the issuing bank that docs are accepted and payment would be made on maturity date. (Alhamdulillah, all praises to Allah). Please note message below from the issuing bank:
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/4916/clip2va4.png
Once again, I thank all the friends on this forum who took some time out of thier routine to reply and give suggestions on the forum. I learned alot due to this case and very happy to have it solved. All the best to you guys..Thank you!!
kind regards
Muhammad Asim
Hi! Congratulations. It's
Hi!
Congratulations.
It's a so sweet word - "victory" ;-)
But I would really like to see such a case as one of the official ICC opinions.
Really.
I still have doubts with "partial shipment" issue.
IMHO, it was your luck with this point.
Any case, congratulations one more time.
Good luck
Vowwwwwwwww
Dear Asim,
Only one word - Vowwwwwwww ----
Congratulation!!!!!