Best Trade Solution

DC did not state any customer P.O. No.
Beneficiary presented documents showing Customer P.O.No. as "123456/0010" in one of the docments and the other document showed Customer P.O. No. "123456"
Is it a discrepancy?

i would not consider this as a discrepancy

I think it is not the discrepancy

shahriar wrote:i would not consider this as a discrepancy

Hi Shahriar

I agreed with you this should not be treated as discrepancy but the bank insisted this is a discrepancy. :!: :?:

I THINK IT IS NOT A DISCREPANCY

Dear Vivian001

the documents presented in nay complying presntation should be consistent, a incomplete po number or diffrent po number on two doacuments may be considered as conflicting and hence discripancy .UCP art 14d .

However, we may contest the same under 14f stating that it fulfils the function, if it does
reagrds N k kalra

It is not a discrepancy as LC not states any PO no.

Hi,

In my opinion, I agreed with Shruti's comments where it is a discrepancy. But in the issuing bank's position to refuse the docs based on this one and only discrepancy for the said presentation, i would said it defeat the purpose of using LC as payment instrument.

Regards

IT IS A DISPCY

DATA INCONSISTENT AMONG THE DOCS

SEE EVEN IF A N.D.C. IS THERE IN THE L/C WE WILL DISREGARD - BUT ANY INFORMATION RELATED TO THAT N.D.C. GIVEN IN ANY DOCS - IT SHOULD NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER DOCS



Thanks & Regards,

In my opinion,different Po numbers constitute discrepancy.Different Po numbers may relate to different lots of goods.

Dear All,
Hope fine,
In this particular case, i think, we ,as a examiner can consider the said proforma invoice no. as broad no.or head rather than stick it to discrepancy, To me its solely depends on case by case analysis.
.
However regarding proforma invoice no. , I think ICC official opinion R 339, Q-1 may provide some guideline//////
.
regards
nesar

Hi,

Article 14(d) says that "Data in a document ... NEED NOT BE IDENTICAL TO, but must not conflict with data... any other stipulated document..."

The main question is: Is "123456/0010" in conflict with "123456"?

In my opinion, this would fall in the "not identical but is not in conflict with" category and therefore the discrepancy is not valid.

However, if one document had stated "PO 1234" and another document had stated "PO 6789", that could be considered as a discrepancy.

Hope this helps.

In my opinion the document is discrepant.
You were right Judith about the article of UCP but the main concern is how one should make the diferrence between '/' and other marks (+, -, * or none). If you have on one document order 123456 and beneficiary quoted 12345 (i.e without 6) I am sure you will quote as a discrepancy. Well, is it really the slash '/' mark turning a discrepancy into a compliant order quoted? And who could judge that? What if beneficiary have two orders "123456/0010" and "123456/0011"(without your knowledge of course) and whilst the invoice shows "123456/0010" the packing list shows 123456 and beneficiary delivered in fact the goods under order 123456/0011 ?
And one more question: in the line with ISBP if the invoice shows model no. 12345/6 or 12345-6 and other documents show model no. 12345 only, would you quote it as a discrepancy?
Looking forward to hearing from you,
C

Art 14 d Data in a document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.

Conflict as i interprete would mean something like CARs vs Vegetables or 123456 vs 654321.

As credit did not indicate PO No., i would take it as complying.

Cheers

p/s : curious to know what "other document showed Customer P.O. No. "123456" "were

(Responding to Christian's mail)

Well, is it really the slash '/' mark turning a discrepancy into a compliant order quoted? And who could judge that?

Ok, so the above is why document checked hasn’t been automated yet - it’s not exact science and it may never be one. (Which is great cause we will all have jobs until the beneficiary decides they have had enough of random discrepancies and give up on LCs altogether?! )

The point is that you are quite right. There is a problem with UCP’s “must not conflict”. Different document checkers have their own view point of whether information is in conflict or not.

Is this a technical discrepancy? Yes. Would it hold up in court as grounds to refuse documents??? I don’t know but I don’t think so!

While it’s true that there’s no single method of treating “/” or “+” or “-” as separation from the main reference, I would still look at it on a case to case basis. In this case “-0010” looks like a tag-on and therefore this does not look like conflicting information.

This however, has to be judged on a case to case basis. In this case, the LC is silent and I would accept the “-0010” as additional information. However, if “123456-0010” was specified in the LC, I would turn around and quote it as a discrepancy.

What if beneficiary have two orders "123456/0010" and "123456/0011"(without your knowledge of course) and whilst the invoice shows "123456/0010" the packing list shows 123456 and beneficiary delivered in fact the goods under order 123456/0011 ?

What if the beneficiary showed as per PO no. 123456 in both invoice and packing list? And (without our knowledge) ships 123456/0011 when they were actually supposed to ship 123456/0010? We would never know! I guess if the LC is silent about the PO, we shouldn’t unnecessarily bother about it either.

And one more question: in the line with ISBP if the invoice shows model no. 12345/6 or 12345-6 and other documents show model no. 12345 only, would you quote it as a discrepancy?

Again, depends on a case to case basis. I’m tempted to say “yes” but let me ask you another question. The invoice states “Toyota model Corolla-2007” and the B/L states “Toyota model Corolla”. Is the information “in conflict”?

Well, Judith your last question is quite tricky but easily to be answered: Your Toyota has been described in general terms on B/L and there is no conflict. Although I made reference to a would be conflictual case, you are right about each case to be judged on a case by case basis. The other day I just came across with a rather old ICC opinion about a discrepancy between B/L and Invoice where invoice did not show the last number of the container. On that case it was considered by ICC that that was a typo error and nothing more.
When reading your message one more thought crossed my mind: What if "/" is to be interpreted as 'or'? In this case I see no discrepancy. Therefore, I must admit this is still in a grey area , consequently the intention of the document issuer seems ultimately not to produce a real conflict and we should stay away from digging into too much details beyond documents.
However, I am still reluctant in sending such documents to the issuing bank fully assured they will not quote such a discrepancy.
have a nice day,
Cristian

I agree completely. There are still many grey areas in document checking and I doubt if any publication can address all of it.

The best advice to the beneficiary for getting paid is to provided the bare minimum information as per the rules and strictly comply with all terms.

If an LC / UCP / ISBP does not require a piece of information, don’t include it!