Best Trade Solution

Dear all,

Consider a LC calls for a multimodal transport document issued to the order of issuing bank.
if a mutimodal transport document shows transport as road+air, which is as per LC, and also is straightly consigned to the issuing bank.
should i consider this a discrepancy as per ISBP 76 or should i consider this complying considering that its not a document of title as written in CDCS handbook

You have the reply in ISBP:
76. If a credit requires a multimodal transport document to show that the goods are consigned to a named party, e.g., "consigned to Bank X" (a "straight" consignment), rather than "to order" or "to order of Bank X", the multimodal transport document must not contain words such as "to order" or "to order of" that precede the name of that named party, whether typed or pre-printed. Likewise, if a credit requires the goods to be consigned "to order" or "to order of" a named party, the multimodal transport document must not show that the goods are consigned straight to the named party.
It does not make any reference whether or not last leg of carriage is other than sea
You have to bear in mind that CDCS handbook does not constitute a rule under documentary credits, is not a publication under reviewing the documents.
Just note that in case of dispute between banks you will have no strong point with CDCS

As per the question asked, you must treat the presentation complying.

.

Regards

Shameer,
Could you tell us on what basis you consider a document compliant which is in conflict with ISBP as sunny said?

cristiand969 wrote:Shameer,
Could you tell us on what basis you consider a document compliant which is in conflict with ISBP as sunny said?

It's not conflict. l/c requires to consigned straight to the issuing bank,

fionawang wrote:it's not conflict. l/c requires to consigned straight to the issuing bank,

berry wrote:Consider a LC calls for a multimodal transport document issued to the order of issuing bank.

Fionawang, may I advise you to read more carefully the topic?