Best Trade Solution

Dear Sir,
Pls provide some light on the following analysis:

According to ISBP Paragraph 183:
“The certificate of origin must appear to relate to the invoiced goods”

According to sub article 14(e)
“In documents other than the commercial invoice, the description of the goods, services or performance, if stated,[emphasis added] may be in general terms not conflicting with their description o in the credit.”

From the above sub article, we can say that description of the goods is not mandatory to mention on shipping documents other than commercial invoice.

Moreover, according to sub article 14(h)

“If a credit contains a condition without stipulating the document to indicate compliance with the condition, banks will deem such condition as not stated and will disregard it”

Since according to introductory note of UCP 600, the position paper is no longer valid and I think the term “linkage with other documents for satisfies the condition” does no longer exist.

My query”

If the country of origin didn’t mention the description of the goods, how come paragraph 183 [mentioned line] will be satisfied?
Thanks
nesarul

dear nesar,

its too late now. my initial observation is;

if you dont ask for a certificate, there is no question to review it.

if you ask for a certificate without stipulating the content, then article 14f applies

f. If 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 documents presented if its content appears to fulfill the function of the required document and otherwise complies with sub article 14 (d).

i dont think a COO complies if it only says

----------------------
.
.abc Origin
.
.
.---------------------

will try to revert on the issue soon

regds

shahriar

dear nesar,

ISBP says,

The certificate of origin must appear to relate to the invoiced goods. The goods description in the certificate of origin may be shown in general terms not in conflict with that stated in the credit or by any other reference indicating a relation to the goods in a required document.

to me ISBP has used the words relation two times to indicate the goods. i think a relation can be achieved without the description of goods. that means its not mandatory in ISBP either.

i would consider it conflicting if it was mandatory. remember my post on UNCTAD?

i will appreciate your comments

regds

shahriar