single presentation -1 invoice with 2 BLs, different vessels

[Ella]

Hi, everybody,
and thanks again to all sharing with me their experience and giving me pieces of advice.

I need to urgently solve this problem:
I have two LCs now and I will have 2 BLs for each ( different dates, different vessels) and it's absolutely necessary to present documents for each LC in a single shot to the bank. The difference in time between the two vessels is a matter of days and ETA almost at the same time.
Now, I know I can have 1 invoice and several BLs (different vessels, different dates) provided partial shipments allowed, but what I need to know, in case you have had a similar situation or knowing more than I know, is if I can have like this:

-1 invoice
-2 BLs ( close dates, diff vessels, loading from the same place, almost the same ETA at destination)
-1 certificate of origin for the whole cargo loaded on the 2 vessels( as I said, it's a small difference between Bl's dates, actually 4 days)
-1 certificate of quality control for the whole cargo
-packing list for the whole cargo (with this I don't think to be a problem)
-declaration of conformity for the whole cargo ( with this I think no problems could be)

Or can I submit to the bank in the same presentation:
1 invoice
2 BLs
2 certificates of origin ( 1 for each partial cargo loaded - for each BL)
2 certificates of quality control ( 1 for each partial cargo loaded- for each BL)
packing list for the whole cargo
declaration of conformity for the whole cargo

Thanks in advance for any oppinion or advice, it is very important and very urgent to me.


BR,
Ella

[Negotiator]

Dear Ella,

With regard to your situation faced, I beleive it doesn't matter whatever you choose among two options, provided that every single document is able to represent both shipments made under relevant L/C.

I think that an old ICC Opinion (R255) gives you a clear answer, since the question was very similar to your case.

ISSUE 2
(Q)
A beneficiary of our credit shipped the goods on two different vessels under two seperate bills of lading with a gap of two/three days between each other, and presented a single set of documents combining both the goods and value into one dispatch of invoice, certificate of origin and packing list. The bills of lading presented, however, were two sets evidencing shipments on two different vessels. The credit allowed part shipments.
The foregoing presentment was rejected. In our opinion, two seperate sets of documents should have been made, since each shipment should have had its own independent identity and should have been considered on its own merits.
The UCP is not very clear on this controversy.

(A)
There is no preclusion within UCP which would require the beneficiary to present complete sets of documents per individual transport document.
The credit allowed partial shipments, and therefore shipment on two different vessels was permissable. Provided that the information contained in the documents (as a whole) met the terms of the credit, there is no justification for rejection. In these circumstances, the period for presentation of documents would commence from the date of the first bill of lading.

(Note : This opinion is contained in ICC PUB No. 632 but we cannot find it in DC-PRO site anymore. I wonder why. Is this opinion invalid now? UCP 600 is still silent about this kind of situation.)

I had once handled such a presentation from my customer as a nominated bank's position. I felt that presentation was no problem for me. Issuing bank did not mention anything about it either.
Nevertheless, I want to dissuade exporters from making such a presentation because, in some cases, creating a single document would be more difficult and complex work than making seperate documents for each shipment.

Thanks and regards.
Lee.

[iLC]

Dear Ella,

With regard to your situation faced, I believe it doesn't matter whatever you choose among two options, provided that every single document is able to represent both shipments made under relevant L/C.

i agree with the answer. dear lee, could u please post the entire opinion here?

[Ella]

Hi, Lee
and thank you so much for advice - what you are saying sounds very logical. I just wanted to do the docs this way to avoid complications, but I might get even more troubles making the documents like this and putting them in a single presentation. I will think how to solve with 2 presentations for each LC ( what I wanted to avoid, for example: in the LC description of goods it is written "equipments and spare parts according to the proforma inv no..dtd", if I put this for the second delivery,in that delivery I do not have the same, only accesories were delivered, as the factory missed to include them in the first delivery,for lack of space in the containers.)

As you deal with the banking stuff and you are really good with these things related LCs, may I dare to ask you something else in addition, please? If I'm asking the applicant to give an amendment ( to replace the name of a document with another and at that field - 46A he writes "add in the field 46A : "+1 original declaration of conformity" but he does not eliminate the old document he asked for or to say that this new replaces that one...It's not ok, is it? It's just like adding more troubles without taking out anything...Am I correct?

Thanks again, to you and to all giving me opinions and advices.

Best regards,
Ella

[Negotiator]

Dear Ella,

If so, how about getting an amendment which shows Goods Description as "Equipments, accessories and spare parts according to the proforma inv No... DTD ..." I/O previous?
Then goods descriptions may be written on all shipping documents for the second shipment like "Accessories according to the proforma inv No... DTD ..." (adding detailed descriptions, if necessary). I think it would correspond to the Goods Description in the credit because the credit permits partial shipment. (I guess that you may issue invoices seperately for each shipments either, if the credit does not state otherwise.)

I'm sorry but I cannot figure out what you are concerned from the following question :

As you deal with the banking stuff and you are really good with these things related LCs, may I dare to ask you something else in addition, please? If I'm asking the applicant to give an amendment ( to replace the name of a document with another and at that field - 46A he writes "add in the field 46A : "+1 original declaration of conformity" but he does not eliminate the old document he asked for or to say that this new replaces that one...It's not ok, is it? It's just like adding more troubles without taking out anything...Am I correct?

Would you please give us example in detail? That is, what documents the original credit required in field 46A, and how do you expect it to be changed after the amendment exactly?

Dear iLC, ICC official opinion R255 contains three issues which are completely different each other. The quoted texts above are the full texts for the issue in question. (i.e, ISSUE 2)

Many thanks and regards.
Lee

[Ella]

Dear Lee,

The applicant asked like this in the original LC:
- 01 original certificate of quality control delivered and signed by a qualified authority of the exporting country
- certificate of conformity ( original + copy)

The certificate of quality control it is named like this:
"Certificate of quality control" and on the next row : "Certificate of conformity".
So I explained him that he asked as distinct documents the same document and if the declaration of conformity from the producer is what he actually needs, to replace "-certificate of conformity (original+ copy)" with "declaration of conformity", He gave the amendment adding "the declaration of conformity" but not specifying that this one is replacing " certificate of conformity" or that that one is eliminated. If you add something without replacing actually...This is what i meant. In a moment i was thinking to put him twice the certificate of quality, as it is named also "certificate of conformity". Can I get out of this circle like this? it's a trick, but what can I do...

Thank you very much for all your help.

Best regards,
Ella

[mia vervacke]

You can find the answer in art 41 and 42 of ISBP:

Art. 41: Documents may be titled as called for in the credit, bear a similar title or be untitled. For example, a credit requirement
for a 'packing list'' may also be satisfied by a document containing packing details whether titled 'packing note', 'packing and weight list',
etc., or an untitled document. THE CONTENT OF A DOCUMENT MUST APPEAR TO FULFIL THE FUNCTION OF THE REQUIRED DOCUMENT.

Art. 42: Documents listed in a credit should be presented as separate documents. If a credit requires a packing list and a weight list,
such requirement will be satisfied by presentation of two separate documents, OR BY PRESENTATION OF TWO ORIGINAL COPIES OF A
COMBINED PACKING AND WEIGHT LIST, PROVIDED SUCH DOCUMENT STATES BOTH PACKING AND WEIGHT DETAILS.

The Certificate of quality control is actually a combined document. You should present 2 originals and 1 copy of the certificate of quality control. In fact
if the content of the certificate of quality fulfills the required for a declaration of conformity, you can even present 1 more original of the certificate of quality control.

Mia

[Negotiator]

Dear Ella,

I think Mia gave you correct explanation. I belive it would be a good advice for you.
One more thing I feel ambiguous is, the credit does not stipluate anything about the contents, data and issuer of "certificate of conformity" or "declaration of conformity". Then such documents may be issued according to UCP 600 sub-article 14.f.

f. If a credit requires presentation of a document other than a transport document, insurance document or commercial invoice, without stipulating by whom the document is to be issued or its data content, banks will accept the document as presented if its content appears to fulfil the function of the required document and otherwise complies with sub-article 14 (d).
d. Data in a document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.

What I want to say in conclusion is, just feel free and get out of the circle. Based on given informations, I do not feel the necessity to relate "certificate of conformity" or "declaration of conformity" to "certificate of quality control" in question at all.

Thanks and regards.
Lee

[mia vervacke]

Hallo negotiator,

I noticed that the ICC Opinion R255 is back on DC-PRO.

Do you know what happened?