L/C issuing date and anaysis report

[edilee]

1.is it a discrepancy that L/C issuing date is wrong on invoice where as it is true on the other docs.
2. if L/C stipulates analysis report showing accordance with goods description must it be exactly same with the goods description or it is not a necessity as per artc. 14 d

[LCstudent]

dear edilee !
pt. 1 - yes, this is imho a discrepancy - a doc.credit can not be issued in one doc on this day, in the others on that day
pt. 2 - yes, please repeat in all docs the same description as in field 45A. please always consider to avoid any reason for rejection through opening bank, although UCP 600 2007 Rev. incorporates some room for a wider handling/interpretation. On the other side I do not know if the issuing bank knew what she did writing such condition. Sometimes i feel that they accept each condition the applicant instructs in his application form sheet without proving if such a condition is necessary. if 45A shows any unit and total prices and a delivery condition and other details such things are simply NOT ok for a cert/analysis, but this is my view, How about others ?
rgds LCStudent

[loankim]

Hi,
1. in my opinion discrepancies related to Lc number and LC issuing date as you meantioned shouldnt be reasons to refuse. As far as i remember, we have an ICC opinon which doesnt treat incorrect LC no. as a discrepancy to refuse.
2. i think it still depends on the way that description of goods shown , for instance " moisture 1% maximum" , " moisture from 0.5%-1% " or " moisture 1%" . Case by case, we'll accept the analysis report shows figure is in the exactly same with description or within the allowed limit.
Generally, an analysis report issued by bene's laboratory or independent party and includes more details of goods than showing a simple statement as " the analysis result is accordance with goods description ". However, what if the bene. bases on reports from above parties to issue a analysis report includes that simple statement once the credit is silent on the issuer.
.
I dont think i find out the reason to refuse that document even though i also think about " funfill the function " in analysis aspect with more particular details

Other comments appreciated

rgds,

[abrar]

1. IMHO, there is no doubt that as per doctrine of sub-art. 14 d, there is an apparent inconsistency, but as to whether raising the discrepancy flies in the face of the spirit of an LC being an instument to facilitate payment, rather than an instrument to obstruct payment is a moot point, and is likely to depend on a multitude of factors: the value of the presentation, an assessment of the risk of the issuing bank observing the same discrepancy, the intrinsic value of the underlying goods, etc.

There may have been an official opinion on this issue, but if we look at 470/TA.722, the opposite view is expressed. Here, the issue revolved around a contract number (although not required under the LC to be stated) being stated incorrectly on one document. ICC opinion was that by inserting extraneous data, an implicit invitation was being made to examine such data under sub-art 14d.

2. "if L/C stipulates analysis report showing accordance with goods description must it be exactly same with the goods description or it is not a necessity as per artc. 14 d"? As it reads, it is not clear what the analysis report is to evidence, nor by whom it is to be issued. Nor is it clear, how the goods are described in the LC. If the intention is that the goods be analysed under threshold criteria, one would expect a detailed analysis of each component of the goods. So, even if the certificate described the goods only by general terms, but provided a detailed analysis, if it could be established without doubt at face value, that the certificate contained an analysis of the goods as referred to in the LC, and no other, I should think that the document would be acceptable.