Best Trade Solution

Dear Expert,

May I ask for your opinion of the following :

L/C called for
- full set clean on board ocean bill of lading consigned to order, blank endorsed.
- shipment from any European port to ICD Cat Lai port, Hochiminh City, Vietnam

LC
59: beneficiary
ADVANCED FIBER TECHNOLOGIES.

44E: any European port
44F: ICD Cat Lai port, Hochiminh City, Vietnam

Beneficiary submitted
a) 3/3 B/L indicating,
Place of receipt (pre-printed wording) : Kotka, Finland
Port of loading (pre-printed wording): Rotterdam
port of discharge (pre-printed wording): Cat Lai port, Hochiminh City, Vietnam
Place of delivery (pre-printed wording): Cat Lai port, Hochiminh City, Vietnam

b) Draft, invoice and other documents bearing letterhead and company chop
showing ADVANCED FIBER TECHNOLOGIES (AFT)

c) insurance policy showing assured name: ADVANCED FIBER TECHNOLOGIES

d) B/L showing shipper : ADVANCED FIBER TECHNOLOGIES

Is it vaild to cite the discrepancy –
1. B/L showing the port of discharge
Cat Lai port, Hochiminh City, Vietnam
instead of ICD Cat Lai port, Hochiminh City, Vietnam.

2. Draft, invoice and beneficiary’s cert., insurance policy endorsement,
B/L blank endorsement bearing letterhead and company chop
showing ADVANCED FIBER TECHNOLOGIES (AFT) instead of
ADVANCED FIBER TECHNOLOGIES

Is there any ICC comment on this issue?

I treat discrepancy no. 1 is valid but discrepancy no. 2 is not valid.
Thank you for your assistance.

Regards,
ucp800

i agree with your opinion. Inland Container Depot or ICD is an import part here and may infact indicate a entirely different port. so i would consider #1 as discrepancy.
#2 is of course not a discrepany. the (AFT) is simply an abbrevited form of the company name.

Agree with the views posted. Point 1 is a valid discrepancy and point 2 is not.

Yes, I also agree point 1 is a valid discrepancy because it will be mean a different place as L/C mentioned.
But point 2 is not a discrepancy. Same as shahriar's, (AFT) is simply only an abbrevited form.