Best Trade Solution

Hello All,

There is a requirement from one of the banks , that they should be able to send MT 744 as an issuing bank or confirming bank if there is an incoming MT742 sent by the negotiating bank. Their argument is that there are negotiating banks can send MT742 when they act as both reimbursing bank as well as issuing bank, in that case they process their incoming MT742 as Claim under LC.Hence if that claim is invalid they should be able to send MT744. Can anyone advise if this actually meets the SWIFT 2018 standards and it is a valid business scenario?

MT 744 Notice of Non-Conforming Reimbursement Claim

MT 744 Scope
This message is sent by the reimbursing bank to the bank claiming reimbursement.

It is used to notify the Receiver that the Sender considers the claim, on the face of it, as not to be in accordance with the instruction in the Reimbursement Authorisation for the reason(s) as stated in this message. The Sender also provides the Receiver with details regarding the disposal of the claim.

Regards
D

Hi Pal,

frankly I dont understand your query!
MT744 has been introduced to avoid MT799 exchanged between banks in case of reimbursement-
I think that a specific message may be managed better by an Automatic System.
In field 73R specific codes illustrated the reason of refutal and 73S three codes indicate the disposal
of reimbursement claim.
Many banks have Automatic System that are able to place Swift Messages directly to the involved department.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao

Hello Picant

Thanks for your response, the scenario that i have the query on is the case where the issuing bank or confirming bank acts as reimbursing bank, hence they may not actually have any original RA(MT740) but will honor the claim in the place of a reimbursing bank. this is where the payment instruction to the bank states" if the documents are credit compliant you can claim value 3 value days, and there may or may not be a tag 53 in 700 as the issuing bank is the reimbursing bank.

The same holds good for the confirming bank where the negotiating bank is different from confirming bank and the negotiating bank claims on confirming bank though there may nor may not be in tag 53 in 700 but the payment instruction is for the negotiating bank to claim from confirming bank.

Please let me now of you need further details on this.

thanks
Regards
D

Hi Pal,

I think that MT744 will follow MT740 and MT742.
If the credit indicates that a nominated bank may claim reimbursement from confirming bank or issuing bank, these banks will not receive a claim by MT742, so if the claim is not correct, MT799 will resolve the
matter.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao