Language and examination of a document under UCP article 14

The forum is dedicated to all who deals with LCs. Please share your experiences, problems and opinions with us. You are requested to be confined to LC related issues only. Let us together discover the beauty of Letter of Credit. Thank and regards – admin; besttradesolution.com
Post Reply
User avatar
berry
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:36 pm

Language and examination of a document under UCP article 14

Post by berry » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:18 pm

as per ISBP
23. Under international standard banking practice, it is expected that documents issued by the beneficiary will be in the language of the credit.
at the same time UCP article 14 says
a. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank must examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the documents alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation.
now if a credit calls for a presentation of a analysis certificate from a govt office with a predefined content and the certificate presented is in a language which the document examiner can not understand, will there be any discrepancy?

Navi
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:17 pm
First Name: Olcay
Last Name: Özcan
Organization: Bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Turkey

Discrepancy...

Post by Navi » Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:16 pm

Dear Berry,
.
In my opinion, I should raise discrepancy for the example you have given. To avoid this, beneficiary should request an amendment and maybe exclude that document.

REgards

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

My view

Post by cristiand969 » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:13 pm

Usually, issuing banks issue credits by specifying that all docs should be in english and/or xxxx language which enable both issuing bank and a nominated bank to check the presentation as per art.2 of UCP 600.
The word 'expected' in ISBP is not to be construed as ' a must' merely just an expectation.
A nominated bank and/or a confirming bank must make clear in its advice of l/c that it will not honor/negotiate docs in other language than the credit.
The fact that a nominated bank is not able to check document does not automatically mean the document is discrepant.

bb_gnc
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:17 am
First Name: Badrinath
Last Name: Srinivasan
Organization: TCS Eserve
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4

My views

Post by bb_gnc » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:27 am

Hi All,

Im happy to share with u all that I have passed out in CDCS 2009.

Im regular visitor of Trade solutions and all your views in forum has helped me a lot in preparing for the examination. Thanks a lot to U 'all' and Best Trade solutions.

And my views for the query is...I wud like to go with cristiand969 opinion. Docs presented under a LC is expected to be in the language of the credit and it not a 'must' to be in the same language. Only the credit terms will overrule UCP in this case. It is required to add a spl clause to restrict the presentation of docs in the language of the credit.

Post Reply