Best Trade Solution

Extract from an LC:
44C: Latest Date of shipment
090614

45A : Description of goods and/or services :
Shipment in Apr-09
45 MT of XYZ material

Shipment in May-09
45 MT of XYZ material

The beneficiary presented documents that showed that two shipments had been made, both in May-09, each covering a shipment of 45 MT of XYZ Material.

Are the documents discrepant?

IMHO - Yes.
Now it is turn to decide whether any payment against is possible.
But no payment possible:
1/ If there is one presentation - no payment because of presentation is non-compliant.
2/ If there is two presentations - no payment as well because of UCP 600 Article 32

Good luck

Hi

There is a conflict in the L/C itself.

On one hand, it states in

field 44C: Latest Date of shipment as
090614

.

On the other hand, it states in

field 45A : Description of goods and/or services :
Shipment in Apr-09
45 MT of XYZ material
Shipment in May-09
45 MT of XYZ material

Although someone may say the L/C beneficiary benefits by the L/C's doubt, I think the discrepancy - late shipment for the first lot of goods- is still valid.

V.V.

Shipment schedule not followed. I would treat latest shipment date amended by shipment schedule since gives details of how shipment is to be made .
A clarification at the time of LC advising however should have been sought from issuing bank.

i encountered a similar situation earlier. i would not consider the LC as ambiguous. unusual though. say that the latest shipment date is 30-01-2009, presentation period is 15 days while the expiry is 21-01-2009. is this LC ambiguous? i guess not. my theory is, whenever there on rules in a letter of credit that overlaps each other, one must be within the most conservative circle. the presentation is discrepant therefore.

Nowadays,more and more LCS have been issued unusually.In this case,shipment schedule appears in field 45A,not in confilct with field 44C.It is effctive,so the presentation constitute a discrepancy.

Thank you all for your comments.

The case has been closed and the drawing paid. The issuing bank admitted that they issued an LC containing ambiguous terms which led to the confusion and chose to honour the drawing.