Best Trade Solution

The DC subject to UCP 600 called for supply of fresh chickens and prohibited partial shipments. It specified port of loading "Any Indian port". Goods were shipped on the same vessel loading at different ports in India at different time periods under the same voyage number for the same destination. Different sets of bills of lading and related documents (certificates of inspection etc) were presented under the same DC. The issuing bank refused to pay due to following reasons:
1. Bills of lading show more than one port of loading whereas the DC calls for only one port of loading, namely "Any Indian Port" and not "Any Indian portS".
2. Three sets of bills of lading and inspection certificates are presented instead of one set intended in the DC.
3. Partial shipments made and this is not allowed in the DC.
Is the issuing bank correct in its refusal?

Under ucp600, no discrepancies claimed are valid!

Hi Pal.

no discrepancy. art 31 b quite clear
Ciao

Not a discrepancy. As per article 31b when a presenation consists of more than one set of BL's with different load ports but with same destination and same vessel under the same voyage will not be treated as a partial shipment

Well, to go into detail and answering to your pojnts ,, quoting from my mind as i don't have UCP at hand:
1. Article 2: words in plural include singular and viceversa
2. UCP 600 does not prohibits xx set of inspections certificates or B.L . In practice the inspection certificate may be issued for part of goods or for each item shipped
3. Art. 31 b is applicable
..
So many countries, so many customs but....What is wrong with these people from issuing bank .... ?

Definetly not discrepancy

1. Article 3, Where applicable, words in the singular include
the plural and in the plural include the singular.

2. One set is ambiguous, if you present more than one pages, for me it is not discrepancy
3. UCP article 31b

well.....so many issuing bank today really acts in bad faith......

Dear friend

no discrepancy , its a poor call from the issuing bank

regards

Not a discrpancy

Issuing bank refusal is not valid. the discrepancies raised are not valid. as the complete journey is carried on single vessel and same journey and same destination.

Dear all,

Below is Gary Collyer's interpretation on article 3 :

The application of singular includes the plural and plural includes the singular is confined to application of the text of the UCP. If you look at the opening line of article 3, it states "For the purpose of these rules". The inclusion of this interpretation avoids wording in the UCP being shown as "Credit(s)", "Draft(s)", "Document(s)" i.e., a word followed by '(s)', to cover the event where there may be more than one. In UCP 600, the words are shown as "Credit", "Draft", 'Document", etc. and rely on the interpretation in article 3 to allow extension to more than one.

not discrepancy, but bank will also check the vessel journey due to avoiding sanction (if any) for my viewpoint

just give ucp to issuing bank, its clearly not discrepant...