ISP - article

With the introduction of Uniform Rules for Documentary Guarantee or URDG 758, the rules for Documentary Guarantee seem to be popular again. It can be imagined from the increasing number of questions that have popped up in recent days. Documentary Guarantee Forum is an effort to develop a platform to discuss these questions.
Post Reply
L59099
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:53 pm
First Name: Len
Last Name: Nguyen
Organization: shb
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Vietnam

ISP - article

Post by L59099 »

Hi expert,
the format of SBDC (ISP 98 application) is reviewed and advised officially to the BEN 3 times by confirming bank.
In the forth case, confirming bank found out that there is an overlooked mistake about the article of ISP is 3.14 instead of 3.6 as stated in the format (3.6 should be of UCP) and asked the issuing bank send an amendment cable, kept holding the advice to the BEN till receiving the amendment cable
The issuing bank replied via MT799 with note for further cases only and also sent customer's acknowledgement for confirming bank via email for their consideration and flexibility this time, because it will be back and forth with customer to submit amendment form again as well as bear amendment fee
In this case, could the confirming bank be possible to advise the SBDC to the BEN and correct 3.6 --> 3.14 by themselves without amendment cable?
thank you for your advice
User avatar
picant
Posts: 1945
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm

Frankly I dont know....

Post by picant »

Hi Pal,
frankly I dont understand the problem. 3.14 ISP98 is concerning the closure of a bank.
Please explain,thanks
L59099
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:53 pm
First Name: Len
Last Name: Nguyen
Organization: shb
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Vietnam

Post by L59099 »

hi expert,
Of course, 3.14 isp 98 is obvious. My concern is only that the confirming bank can correct this mistake by themselves to advise SBDC to the BEN without waiting Mt707 (amendment cable) from the issuing bank?
trice001
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:41 pm
First Name: angel
Last Name: anave
Organization: trice web
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: canada

Re: ISP - article

Post by trice001 »

thanks
TaiOanlan
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:44 pm
First Name: Luke
Last Name: Yo
Organization: FI
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: TOK

Re: ISP - article

Post by TaiOanlan »

At L59099
A bit tough decision. My take is that it depends on Confirming bank. Generally speaking, it is Issuing bank`s duty to clarify unclear point via authenticated SWIFT message rather than via email......Most banks would not act based on email which is considered by most banks as high risk media.
Issuing bank can send correction cable rather than amendment cable. That way, amendment charge won`t occur.
Confirming bank should be acting based on Issuing bank`s instruction via ``authenticated SWIFT message``, not via email or phone call from other banks.
If the case is staling for too long, Confirming bank may choose to advise the SBLC amendment without extending their confirmation on the amendment.

Regards,
Post Reply