Best Trade Solution

Dear All,

Please let me know your valuable comments for below mentioned L/C case. Month name in date is turkish language. 26 ARALIK 2018 is it discrepancy or not ?

47A L/C TERMS
+DOCUMENTS ISSUED BEFORE THIS DOCUMENTARY CREDIT PROHIBITED
+ALL DOCUMENTS MUST BE MADE IN ENGLISH AND OR FRENCH

ADVICE OF DISCREPANCY OF ISSUING BANK
77J: Discrepancies
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN: DOCUMENT IS NOT DATED IN
FRENCH OR ENGLISH THUS WE CANNOT CONFIRM IT HAS
BEEN ISSUED AFTER LC ISSUANCE AS PER FIELD 47
TERMS

Hi,

In my opinion, Unfortunately yes, it is discrepancy. As per L/C terms issuing bank must determine the issue date of documents and all information requested in the L/C must be in English and/or french.
But, I am in the opinion that issuing bank should waive discrepancy after confirming the issuing date of the document.

The issue must be approached in different ways but in the end ..with same result. In my opinion: It is not a discrepancy
1. ISBP Approach : please be guided by paragraph A21 e : Any stamps may be in other languages than the credit notwithstanding requirement for English and french. The date appears to be shown by way of stamp.
2. Commons sense approach: with the widespread of digital technology everyone can google and have proper information such as ARALIK meaning DECEMBER. I don't know a word in turkish but some words could become notorius with the help with internet. That includes wikipedia as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_months
It was a duty of the issuing bank to include prohibition of other elements such as stamps or other data in other language.
On the other hand you may want to check whether or not this Origin certificate include any reference to the commercial invoice .If there is, and the invoice is presumably dated after the L/C issuance (as there is no discrepancy with the date on invoice), it implies that the certificate of origin is issued at least on the same date of invoice, otherwise the invoice number is unknown before its issuance date.
Other common sense approach is the context in which issuance of documents prior to issuance LC date is prohibited .Originally this clause was inserted when there is a maturity date for payment and such maturity date may occur before the issuance date preventing issuing bank to comply with their undertaking . Certificate of origin merely certify the origin of the goods and as long as it relates to invoiced goods there is no harm.
The discrepancy is therefore a 'forced' one !
Hope ity helps!

Dear cristiand,

I agree with your common sense approach. If I were document checker, I would probably oppose to reject the document just for this reason.

On the other hand, paragraph A21a may lead to different opinions. The information requested in the L/C must be in the language stipulated in the credit. In this L/C, we must determine the date of the document to decide whether it complies with the item (+DOCUMENTS ISSUED BEFORE THIS DOCUMENTARY CREDIT PROHIBITED). The date (month) is not in English or French. Moreover, according to paragraph A21d, banks not obliged to examine the data in other languages. If we look from this perspective, it may be a discrepancy.

Therefore, we must decide whether we must consider date as under "stamp" rule or "a required data".

Regards

Dear Navi,
Is the date shown by means of a stamp or by otherwise stated?
On the other hand, the L/C does not impose CO to be dated. If such date had not been not present, would you still have considered the document discrepant because the absence of issuance date makes issuing bank unable to to check if the document was issued before L/C issuance? The issuing bank must not extend its interpretation but to prove in case of discrepancy that such date of issuance is prior to L/C issuing date. Therefore I consider in this context an additional data and not required data. However, it must not be in conflict with L/C terms. The conflict must be proved and not to evidence issuing bank inability to check . If you want a payment mechanism to be transformed in a non-payment mechanism, such discrepancy may be a solution

Refer to the best explanation given by kim in LC views

Dear Experts,

need your assistance to understand the below.

ISBP paragraph: A 21 Language

A21(C). when a credit allows two or more acceptable languages, a confirming bank......... languages.

Though LC states multiple languages allowed, confirming bank restricted the languages to two(English an French) If the presentation has language other than these two and additionally Turkish, does it give the confirming bank rights to raise discrepancy? won't it be reviewed with article A21(d)

Thanks & Regards
Dinesh Kumar

Dear Experts,

Need your opinion.

i have found answer for my earlier post, presentation of documents in a languages other than the confirmation understanding should not be looked into discrepancy aspect. If LC allows multiple languages, issuing bank undermines the compliance of the documents. confirming bank may simply revoke it is confirmation undertaking.

However, i need the clarification in the same ISBP paragraph which appears to be contradicting when it comes to documents with additional languages. one paragraph states banks are require to examine all the acceptable languages and other paragraph states do not.

c(ii). when a credit allows a document to contain data in two or more acceptable languages.....a condition of engagement in the credit, it is required to examine the data in all of the acceptable languages appearing in the document..

d. Banks do not examine data that have been inserted in a language that is additional to that required or allowed in the credit.