Need your view on a certificate

[cristiand969]

Dear all,
Could you enlighten me how can I link the below discrepancy to UCP or ISBP (besides logical perspective of the inconsistency)
A certificate SGS has been presented showing the following:
Date of issue: 25.05.2009
Date of inspection: 26.05.2009.
and within the contents of document it is said: We have performed cheking of cargo.. bla bla....
.
Now, from the logical point of view it is clearly impossible to certify something that has happened in the future ???? (unless all the characters played in Back to the future movie ) i.e something like ' I certify that tomorrow I paid you the money back'
.
What would you link this with articles in UCP and ISBP?
tHANKS

[Judith]

Personally, I don’t think this is a discrepancy. I will just treat the date of issuance as 26-May. And as long as 26-May is before the date of presentation, it is acceptable.

Practically in many cases, the documents are prepared in advance. And if the inspection goes well, they sign the document. Although there’s nothing in UCP / ISBP, I would say this situation is like the one described in Para 15 of ISBP:
"A document indicating a date of preparation and a later date of signing is deemed to be issued on the date of signing."

So, I would treat the date of preparation as 25-May and “signing” as 26-May.
I’d appreciate other views on this.

[wongvv]

Hi !

Although there is no exact same case as yours, I find it may reference to a UCP500's case TA449.
I try to extract its conclusion for your references.

When a document is issued which contains information that became apparent at a date later than the date of its issuance, this may give rise to an enquiry from the negotiating or issuing bank to the presenter.

Whether could this "an enquiry" be in form of discrepancy or not ? No definite answer.

V.V.

[nesarul]

dear,
this is very interesting TOPIC at least to me.
pls find below my comments on your case.
assumption:
credit asked for pre shipment inspection certificate by SGS. AND 26 IS ON OR BEFORE THE SHIPMENT DATE.
MY LOGIC:
THE CERTIFICATE WHICH HAS BEEN PREPARED BEFORE INSPECTION TAKE PLACE CAN NEVER REFLECT THE ACTUAL INSPECTION DATA ON IT.
HERE I WILL [MAY BE I AM WRONG] GO WITH THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCY: [PROVIDED THAT THIS CERTIFICATE HAS NO OTHER DATE ON IT FACE]
" PRESHIPMENT INSPECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE INSPECTION TOOK PLACE. SUB ARTICLE 14(D) OF UCP 600 IS NOT COMPLIED.
.
WHAT OTHERS THINKING.
REGARDS
NESAR

[iLC]

i would certainly not consider it a discrepancy. there could be numerous reason behind this date mismatch. i would like to draw an analogy with the shipped on board bill of lading with a shipped on board notation where the issuance date is before the date of shipped on board notation. comments appreciated.

[cristiand969]

Thanks for your comment.
My judgement is much closer to nesarul's point of view as the BL follows other article and the issuance date prior or after onboard is regulated in ISBP.
One more thing: as per industry practice a carrier would never release a B/L if the vessel is not in the port already performing loading - which is to be completed that day or the next following days.
On the other hand this document , by its wording and contents already certified something that was already happened in the future?????!!!!!

[shahriar]

i am not sure where i read it; it may be at FAQ or ICC opinion; the beneficiary certificate has a issue date of say 01-10 and certifies that an event occurs on 02-10 and it was judged that there is no discrepancy.

[Judith]

I stand corrected

Here’s is a response received from a trade expert:

"It is not possible to certify a future dated event.
The details as provided constitute a conflict in the document.

So, unless, the signature on the certificate carries a date which is on or after the inspection date, the document is discrepant."

Hope this helps.

[shahriar]

and i stand wrong wrong continuously wrong