ISP - article

[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

[picant]

Hi Pal,
frankly I dont understand the problem. 3.14 ISP98 is concerning the closure of a bank.
Please explain,thanks

[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]

thanks

[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,