we opened an lc in which partial shipment was not allowed and lc was to import 4 cars. When beneficiary sent us documents they were of 3 cars and lc was a usance lc. what we did is that we put discrepancy that there was shortshipment whcih was accepted by the importer and the draft amounted for the value of 3 cars. ultimately we paid the value of 3 cars as per documents and reversed the our banke's liability. Later on documents arrived for the 4th car. What we can do in this situation. Lc conditions does not allow partial shipment. Please advise us we can not make payment of 4th car as lc liability has been reveresed.
To which Rules did you submit the credit: UCP 500?
Then it's a discrepancy: You can ask applicants for a waiver and pay or you can reject the docs.
If you submitted them to the UCP 600 and did expressly exclude art. 31 A: the same!
If it's a UCP600-credit and you forgot about Art. 31 A you have a contradiction. In my eyes the prohibition of partial shipments supersedes: - in my eyes!!
As far as I know there have not yet been any court decision in respect to the article. You should always explicitly exclude the art. 31 A under UCP600-credits where partial shipments are not allowed.
The next time please open up a new topic. It's easier to find your query and you might receive more comments.
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
Dear Neville Dcosta,
As you may know, an LC may be stipulated available by payment, available by negotiation, available by acceptance or available by deferred payment.
LC available by (sight) payment does not require sight drafts to be presented and normally the payment is to be effected at the counter of the issuing bank or at its nominated bank upon receipt of the complied documents. The beneficiary under LC available by payment normally may not obtain the payment in advance by negotiating (selling at a discount) the documents at his bank.
Different from LC available by payment, LC available by negotiation allows the beneficiary to receive the payment by negotiating the sight drafts and documents at a nominated negotiating bank which is normally located in his country. The negotiation may be effected on a with or without recourse basis. However, under a confirmed LC, the confirming bank must negotiate the documents on without recourse basis.
Acceptance LCs and deferred payment LCs are usance LCs. The difference is that the acceptance LC requires a time draft, whereas the deferred payemt LC does not.
Under acceptance LC, the beneficiary may receive the payment before the draft is due by discounting the accepted draft at its bank or discounting it on forfaiting markets (as the accepted draft is a financial instrument which can be transferable).
Under deferred payment LC, after his presentation of complied documents, the beneficiary receives a deferred payment undertaking incurred by the issuing bank or its nominated bank. Deferred payment undertaking is not largely accepted as a financial instrument, therefore, normally the beneficiary may not discount the deferred payment undertaking. However, in some cases, the beneficiary can use the deferred payment undertaking incurred by the issuing bank or nominated bank as a security for the advance given by his banks.
UCP 500 was silent on negotiating/discounting deferred payment uindertakings. The dispute between Banco Santander and Banque Paribas in connection with the discounting of a deferred payment undertaking led to the change in UCP. Under UCP 600 Art. 12 (b), the nominated bank is allowed to purchase (buying at a discount) its own deferred payment undertaking.
Hoping the matter has been clear.
Best regards,
Just one thing: you will get banks to offer you a without recourse financing on basis of D/P credits after docs were taken up. Irrespective of the Santander-Paribas case which led to some confusion, "without recourse" never meant "we don't even ask back the money, if you have presented fraudulent docs".
Without recourse financing always demands existing offers without any reserve and without any contestation. As a consequence they only cover political and del credere (credit) risks. Contractual inconsistences and disputes remain for the account of the beneficiary.
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
Hi, Frammi
I agree with you that the negotiating/discounting bank can ask the beneficiary to pay back money if the documents presented for negotiation turn out to be fraudulent.
However, I think this solution is only good when the negotiating/discounting bank is not a nominated bank under LC. In the event the negotiating/discounting bank is nominated as a negotiating bank under LC, it first shoud ask the issuing bank (instead of the beneficiary) for reimbursement if it can prove that before accepting to negotiate/discount the documents it had checked the documents with reasonable care and was not aware of any signs of fraud until it was informed by the issuing bank of the fraudulent documents.
UCP 600 Art. 12(b), which states that by nominating a bank to accept a draft or incur a deferred payment undertaking, an issuing bank authorises that nominated bank to prepay or purchase a draft accepted or a deferred payment undertaking incurred by that nominated bank", and Art. 38 which states that a bank assumes no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness, falsification or legal effect of any document..., enable the nominated bank which negotiates/discounts the documents without knowing the documents are fraudulent, to be entitled to the issuing bank's reimbursement.
Best regards
under the UCP 500.
Although ...... knowing that my client has committed a fraud which is a crime, I would try to get the money back from him in the first place, wouldn't you too?
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
Best regards
Frammi
Hi, Frammi
It's up to the case. What I mean is just theory based on UCP. In practice, your action may be better. Hoping the swindler is still there in order for your bank to get back the money in full.
Best regards,
Nguyen Huu Duc
I Thank you for the detials. It was very good peace of knowledge.
Regards,
Nevilledcosta
We have shipped some pipes from Indonesia to Kuwait, the ship owners have refused to include the LC number on the BL as they advise it increases their liability by doing so. Is there any way to sort this problem out - and avoid in future?
Mentioning LC no. on BL is not mandetary. It also depends on the LC condition. Only if LC mentions that LC no. to be mentioned on all documents, then it is mandetary.
Regards, Ajit
Recent comments
1 day 9 hours ago
1 day 9 hours ago
1 day 15 hours ago
1 day 18 hours ago
1 day 20 hours ago
1 day 21 hours ago
1 day 23 hours ago
2 days 1 hour ago
2 days 10 hours ago
2 days 13 hours ago