Is this a discrepancy ?

[haribargava]

Hi,
Review the following case,

LC states P.O.L : melbourne
P.O.D : Zhangiagang

Docs Required:
Insurance Certificate/Policy in 2 originals stating Claims to be payable at destination,covering ocean risk ...

BL states
P.O.L : melbourne
P.O.D : Zhangiagang
Final destination : Zhangiagang

Insurance Document states "Claim payable as above" above this quote (Agent name,address in shanghai )were shown
In a separate text it states " To comply with LC terms claims are payable in china .............."

Question is since Insurance documents states the claim is payable in china instead of Claims payable at destination,will this make the presentation discrepant?

Since the final destination (Zhangjiagang) is in china shouldn't we treat this as compliant Document ?

Your comments ?!

[picant]

Hi Pal,

Assuming that no ICC opinion has already settled this matter, I think that the reason to have eventual damages paid by the Insurance Company in the country of buyer reflects the fact that some countries do not allowed such transfer abroad and the claimant must ask an authorization to be refunded. So it is only a Country Risk that in your case is not applicable, being the two towns in the same country. Sorry, I am not native speaker and my english could be not so clear...

Other comments appreciated

Ciao

[jmitra]

I think the requirement of the LC is quite clear and the insurance document must show them. claim payable in china is a generic term and satisfies if the credit calls for "claim payable in importer's / applicant's country.

if i recall ICC verdicts on bill of lading correctly, if the bill of lading uses the term above in relation to carrier, there must be no more than one name above on the bill of lading. based on that logic, its hard to determine what the term 'above' referring here.

precisely, the document is discrepant