protest under collection

[ofei]

Dear all,
Usually a collection instruction will indicate whether the protest will be waived in case of dishonour. I am wondering whether you will accept protest if your bank is collecting bank. The reason why I ask such a question is because that Chinese's banks usually won't accept to make protest if they act as collecting bank.
Your comments are appreciated.

Regards

Ofei

[shahriar]

i can understand and i think as a banker i will do the same. first of all, the buyer is usually a client of the collecting bank. so protest would mean a dispute with the buyer. why to do that? the bank may have other business with the buyer and a protest may risk their investment. besides what are the benefits from the part of the collecting bank? moreover its the client who give the profit. :lol:

i also think it depends on the process of protest

regd

shahriar

[picant]

Hi Friend,

In Italy domestic collections, when dealing with bills of exchange or drafts, are submitted to protest in case of dishonor at maturity, if the principal won't it , must sign the bill with "senza spese" (no charges) stamp. In foreign collection, if you are not interested in protest, you will indicate in the remittance letter that protest is not required.
First of all, a bank required to ask for protestr, will claim immediately money to face protest charges, than is protest useful, it is necessary to take legal action against debtor abroad, I dont think so! You can try to recover your money via your lawyer with a simple bank statement that the bill has not been paid at maturity.
So italian exporters ask their bank not to protest:

Other comments appreciated

Ciao

[ofei]

Thanks for both of you.
Now I fully understand the reason why a bank is reluctant to make a protest. Customer is their God, hehe.
Anyway, if the holder of a bill of exchange is dishonoured, he retains the right of recourse. When he takes the right of recourse, he needs to provide notice of dishonour as well as a protest. Since the bank may not do so, then he needs to find another party doing so, notary public, for instance in China.
If so, why there is such a stipulation on the collection instruction? I do think it's unnecessary.

Regards

Ofei

[jmitra]

i think thats the reason why in near future banks will lose their importance in international trade. of course the practice collection instruction is not for nothing. ICC always expects banks to be impartial and honest. and i think its not correct that all banks will just do anything to retain their clients. personally if i see a client who is not paying debt with others, i wont be interested to carry on business with him. the same could have happen with me as well