Dear all
As per isbp, correction and alteration on documents that are issued by the beneficiary need not to be authenticated. If a document that has been issued by a second beneficiary which has a correction and first beneficiary has substituted his invoice, does that correction require an authentication?
Authentication of documents issued by beneficiary of transfe
-
berry
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:36 pm
-
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
Different views
Dear Berry,
There are two scenarios based on your message as I could not identify to which document refers.
1. The second beneficiary invoice presents a correction. Obviously no need for authenticating as this invoice will be substituted.
2. Other document produced by second beneficiary (i.e certificate, packing list, etc) presents a correction. My best guess it that correction should be authenticated because in the next following scenario (1st benef vs issuing bank), the documents of second beneficiary (once the 1st beneficiary substituted invoice) will become third party documents and should bear authentication of issuer or of a party authorized by issuer. Although the notion "first beneficiary" and "second beneficiary" may to some extent be understood as BENEFICIARY I would say that only in case when first beneficiary fail to substitute the invoice, the obligation of issuing bank is automatically diverted toward 2nd beneficiary by virtue of art 38i and 18a.i, and the latter would become THE BENEFICIARY in view of the issuing bank.
So, given the fact that all the above is just a personal interpretation the issuing bank may well have another different one.
However, there is a solution in your case.
Quote: Whilst the UCP 600 does not use word "ONLY" in the context of substitution of documents the intent is that a transferring bank should only be expected to allow the invoice and draft substituted. At the end of the day the decision on allowing substitution of other documents remain with the transferring bank. Unquote, Extract form a Gary Collyer training . So better instruct beneficiary to substitute his own document (in case he can do that, i.e there is no certification that 1st benef could not give)
Brgds
Cristian
There are two scenarios based on your message as I could not identify to which document refers.
1. The second beneficiary invoice presents a correction. Obviously no need for authenticating as this invoice will be substituted.
2. Other document produced by second beneficiary (i.e certificate, packing list, etc) presents a correction. My best guess it that correction should be authenticated because in the next following scenario (1st benef vs issuing bank), the documents of second beneficiary (once the 1st beneficiary substituted invoice) will become third party documents and should bear authentication of issuer or of a party authorized by issuer. Although the notion "first beneficiary" and "second beneficiary" may to some extent be understood as BENEFICIARY I would say that only in case when first beneficiary fail to substitute the invoice, the obligation of issuing bank is automatically diverted toward 2nd beneficiary by virtue of art 38i and 18a.i, and the latter would become THE BENEFICIARY in view of the issuing bank.
So, given the fact that all the above is just a personal interpretation the issuing bank may well have another different one.
However, there is a solution in your case.
Quote: Whilst the UCP 600 does not use word "ONLY" in the context of substitution of documents the intent is that a transferring bank should only be expected to allow the invoice and draft substituted. At the end of the day the decision on allowing substitution of other documents remain with the transferring bank. Unquote, Extract form a Gary Collyer training . So better instruct beneficiary to substitute his own document (in case he can do that, i.e there is no certification that 1st benef could not give)
Brgds
Cristian
-
iLC
- Posts: 504
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:33 pm
another view
interesting... in my opinion, (as of the second case) there is no need to authenticate any correction or alteration on documents issued by the second beneficiary. the purpose of an authentication is to ensure that the only the issuer or authorized person has made the changes. in case of transfered letter of credit, a document issued by beneficiary has the chance to be altered or corrected at two places -
1. by the second beneficary
2. at the counter of transferring bank
if the second beneficiary has altered a document issued by him and the second beneficiary's bank is authorized to honor or negotiate, i dont think at that point we can demand for an authentication of those alteration.
in case of 2, there is no reason that the transferring bank will handover the second beneficiary's document to the first beneficiary. so there is no chance of alteration there.
and just for argument, even if the documents are released to the first beneficiary, i will not consider the first beneficiary unauthorized one to make the corrections because first beneficiary has the right to substitute the entire document.
1. by the second beneficary
2. at the counter of transferring bank
if the second beneficiary has altered a document issued by him and the second beneficiary's bank is authorized to honor or negotiate, i dont think at that point we can demand for an authentication of those alteration.
in case of 2, there is no reason that the transferring bank will handover the second beneficiary's document to the first beneficiary. so there is no chance of alteration there.
and just for argument, even if the documents are released to the first beneficiary, i will not consider the first beneficiary unauthorized one to make the corrections because first beneficiary has the right to substitute the entire document.