Discrepancies - Letter Of Indemnity Under Para 1 Omits To Evidence Terminal As Per Lc Field 46a

[faharauf]

Dear Expert,

I would like to ask regarding a discrepancy pointed out by the Issuing Bank which the Advising Bank has rejected. Below is the explanation:

What the LC said:
IN THE EVENT THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS ARE UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTS, PAYMENT WILL BE MADE AGAINST DOCUMENT NO.1 SELLER'S COMMERCIAL INVOICE AND LETTER OF INDEMNITY ISSUED BY SELLER. LETTER OF INDEMNITY FORMAT AS BELOW:
QUOTE
WE REFER TO A CARGO OF ..................METRIC TONS OF .................. LOADED ONTO ............... AT THE
................TERMINAL, ..................... ON ...................., 20......(''THE CARGO'').
(.....the remaining LOI format continued)

What was mentioned in the Letter of indemnity was:
WE REFER TO A CARGO OF XXX METRIC TONS OF XXX LOADED ONTO M/T ‘xxx’ AT PULAU SEBAROK, SINGAPORE ON xx OF XXX, 2016 (''THE CARGO'')

Discrepancy pointed out by Issuing bank is:
LETTER OF INDEMNITY UNDER PARA 1 OMITS TO EVIDENCE TERMINAL AS PER LC FIELD 46A.

Relpy from Advising Bank:
Letter of Indemnity shown PULAU SEBAROK,SINGAPORE, 'PULAU SEBAROK' is a termnial in Singapore. no need to be further evidenced.

Please advise who is correct in this situation. Thank you very much.

[picant]

Hi Pal,

banks are not(always) aware if XXX is a terminal or not, so the LOI was incorrect.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao