Dear all,
I usually put a clause in my LCs
"one set of non negotiable set of documents is to be sent to the applicant by courier within 7 days of shipment. the courier receipt must be presented"
few days back i received a document in which the beneficiary scanned a standard DHL courier, changed the information on the screen, print it in gray scale and put an original stamp on it. will you consider this courier receipt as acceptable?
original or not
-
shahriar
- Posts: 923
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:03 am
- First Name: Shahriar
- Last Name: Masum
- Organization: Mutual Trust Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: Bangladesh
-
silver
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:26 pm
It's not an original
Dear Shahriah,
In my opinion, if the LC subject to ucp 500, the courier receipt can be considered as the original. (art 20, b "...bank will accept as an original docs produced or appearing to have been produced by REPROGRAPHIC. AUTOMATED OR COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM" and the courier receipt has been marked "original" (with fresh stamp)
But if LC subject to ucp600, the courier receipt is not an original because ucp 600 exclude above term.
Regards,
In my opinion, if the LC subject to ucp 500, the courier receipt can be considered as the original. (art 20, b "...bank will accept as an original docs produced or appearing to have been produced by REPROGRAPHIC. AUTOMATED OR COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM" and the courier receipt has been marked "original" (with fresh stamp)
But if LC subject to ucp600, the courier receipt is not an original because ucp 600 exclude above term.
Regards,
-
picant
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm
Rationale
Hi Pals,
we are discussing about a document that does not represent goods but only a proof that some documents have been remitted to applicant. In reality the fold you can submit is a "copy for sender" as written on the right side of the document. So, being a copy it could be a photocopy too, specially if marked "original". So, IMHO,it can not be considered discrepant. I dont know if there is an Opinion by ICC stating that I am wrong, in this case please let me know.
Thank you
Ciao
we are discussing about a document that does not represent goods but only a proof that some documents have been remitted to applicant. In reality the fold you can submit is a "copy for sender" as written on the right side of the document. So, being a copy it could be a photocopy too, specially if marked "original". So, IMHO,it can not be considered discrepant. I dont know if there is an Opinion by ICC stating that I am wrong, in this case please let me know.
Thank you
Ciao
-
berry
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:36 pm
appeared to be original
Dear all,
from the question it appears that a original document was tempered. that is the non negotiable documents were never sent to the applicant. while one can clearly understand this from a document, why do he has to accept it just for a original stamp?
i have one more question. if there was hand written signature / some other kind of stamp, should we consider that original too. as per article 3 i think yes
from the question it appears that a original document was tempered. that is the non negotiable documents were never sent to the applicant. while one can clearly understand this from a document, why do he has to accept it just for a original stamp?
i have one more question. if there was hand written signature / some other kind of stamp, should we consider that original too. as per article 3 i think yes
-
cristiand969
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
- First Name: Cristian
- Last Name: D.
- Organization: Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: RO
Discrepant
Dear Shahriar,
The document as described by you is not conform. From your special condition it should appear that an original courier receipt should have been presented. Furthermore your description conveys the fact that a copy of DHL was presented and beneficiary superimposed its stamp, signature, whatever means of authentication on that document. This is not an original document as the authentication should have been made by DHL and not the beneficiary (i.e the issuer of the document or a party authorized so by DHL). Hence the beneficiary signature has no value and document is presented in copy as opposite to an original as per credit requirements
Hope it helps you
have a nice day
Cristian
The document as described by you is not conform. From your special condition it should appear that an original courier receipt should have been presented. Furthermore your description conveys the fact that a copy of DHL was presented and beneficiary superimposed its stamp, signature, whatever means of authentication on that document. This is not an original document as the authentication should have been made by DHL and not the beneficiary (i.e the issuer of the document or a party authorized so by DHL). Hence the beneficiary signature has no value and document is presented in copy as opposite to an original as per credit requirements
Hope it helps you
have a nice day
Cristian
-
wongvv
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:50 am
original courier receipt
Hi !
According to the Appendix of ISBP 681 Correct Interpretation of sub-art 20(b) General Approach (C), it states " it is treated as original if it states that it is original, unless the statement appears not to apply to the document presented ". In the case, the "Original" stamp is put in the courier receipt, and it is applied to the courier receipt presented. Therefore, the courier receipt is treated as original.
So it is not a discrepancy.
V.V.
According to the Appendix of ISBP 681 Correct Interpretation of sub-art 20(b) General Approach (C), it states " it is treated as original if it states that it is original, unless the statement appears not to apply to the document presented ". In the case, the "Original" stamp is put in the courier receipt, and it is applied to the courier receipt presented. Therefore, the courier receipt is treated as original.
So it is not a discrepancy.
V.V.
-
dua
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:28 am
not discrepancy
dear!
in my opinion, this doc was absolutely conformity with L/c stipulated
in my opinion, this doc was absolutely conformity with L/c stipulated
-
Ozoda
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:50 pm
courier receipt - discrepant.
I agree with Cristian that the courier receipt is discrepant.
-
Judith
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:59 am
another aspect
I agree with Christian’s rationale but I think that this is still an interesting question: one that is not so much UCP but practical aspects.
If you were to quote a discrepancy, how would you word it? Perhaps, “Courier receipt does not appear to be original as it has not been completed by the issuer?” or something along those lines?
I presume that you received the documents under an LC issued by you. If yes, I wonder how you knew about what the beneficiary did?! (Are they also your clients?!)
The point is that banks are expected to examine for compliance “on the basis of documents alone”… Therefore, any extra knowledge that you might have because of your expertise in certain areas cannot be used because a document checker in another bank may not have a similar expertise. If you state that the document is a forgery, you may still be liable to a nominated bank who has acted in good faith but has not been able to spot the forgery.
If you were to quote a discrepancy, how would you word it? Perhaps, “Courier receipt does not appear to be original as it has not been completed by the issuer?” or something along those lines?
I presume that you received the documents under an LC issued by you. If yes, I wonder how you knew about what the beneficiary did?! (Are they also your clients?!)
The point is that banks are expected to examine for compliance “on the basis of documents alone”… Therefore, any extra knowledge that you might have because of your expertise in certain areas cannot be used because a document checker in another bank may not have a similar expertise. If you state that the document is a forgery, you may still be liable to a nominated bank who has acted in good faith but has not been able to spot the forgery.
-
cristiand969
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
- First Name: Cristian
- Last Name: D.
- Organization: Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: RO
Re: another aspect
Dear Judith,
if I were to quote the discrepancy I would quote " Courier receipt presented in copy ". There is pointless the quote on what basis I quoted so because UCP, ISBP and also "Determination of originality' have a lot of explanation including letterhead, original signature and so on...
Secondly you were right about no knoweledge of who completed it but once again this fact can at the most to rise suspicion but not a discrepancy. The fact that the courier receipt has been signed by the beneficiary without showing (for compliance) its capacity or doing so on behalf of courier, it does constitute a discrepancy.
So any extra knowledge may be good sometimes ( it can help you identifying a forged document even if you are restricted to go further, but can inform the applicant of your concern). In some situations it does help.
regards
C
if I were to quote the discrepancy I would quote " Courier receipt presented in copy ". There is pointless the quote on what basis I quoted so because UCP, ISBP and also "Determination of originality' have a lot of explanation including letterhead, original signature and so on...
Secondly you were right about no knoweledge of who completed it but once again this fact can at the most to rise suspicion but not a discrepancy. The fact that the courier receipt has been signed by the beneficiary without showing (for compliance) its capacity or doing so on behalf of courier, it does constitute a discrepancy.
So any extra knowledge may be good sometimes ( it can help you identifying a forged document even if you are restricted to go further, but can inform the applicant of your concern). In some situations it does help.
regards
C