Article

"[Place of expiry] does no one any good and causes trouble"

by Wang Shanlun

There is a long-running dispute on how to determine the place for presentation under different combinations of SWIFT/MT700 fields 31D & 41a. Following are UCP 600's rules relating to this issue.

UCP rules on place for presentation

Based on the UCP rules, the issue is easy to deal with: the presenter only has to present documents under a credit to the issuing bank, confirming bank or other nominated bank at their respective places by the expiry date and/or within the presentation period.

In other words, the place for presentation is the place of availability, that is, the place of the confirming bank or other nominated bank or the place of the issuing bank, in case the presenter chooses to make presentation directly to the issuing bank, or if the credit is available only with the issuing bank.

UCP 600 is silent on the place of expiry. Moreover, none of the UCP rules regarding the place for presentation or relative bank's undertakings has ever been limited to, or affected by, a credit's place of expiry.

SWIFT standards on place of expiry

Matters become confusing once the place of expiry appears in a credit. According to SWIFT standards, the definitions assigned to field 31D & 41a (both mandatory) are as follows:

Ideally, the place of expiry and the place of availability should match. How to match them? Here are some possible examples in fields 31D & 41a given by SWIFT (using as an example, an issuing bank in Italy and a beneficiary in China):

Mismatching of fields 31D & 41a

Apart from the above examples, there are many credits containing different combinations of fields 31D & 41a, for example as follows:

The question is whether this kind of credit is workable. If so, where is the presentation to be made?

My personal answer to these queries is quite simple. Under scenario 5, the credit is available with the issuing bank only. Expiry in China without the nominated bank is meaningless; the presentation must be made at the place of the issuing bank, that is, the documents must reach the issuing bank by the expiry date and/or within the presentation period. If the beneficiary intends to make presentation and obtain payment or financing at its own place, it must seek an amendment to make the credit available with a nominated bank in China or any bank.

Under scenarios 6-8, the credit expires in Italy and is available with a nominated bank in China or any bank. It would be better for the beneficiary or the nominated bank intending to act on its nomination to seek an amendment or clarification. With this credit structure, presentation still can be made to the nominated bank - UCP 600 sub-article 7(a) applies here - even if the credit has expired by the time the issuing bank received the documents from its nominated bank. It is for the issuing bank to bear the risk of ambiguity in its badly issued credit.

Because UCP 600 is silent concerning the place of expiry, there are many different ways to approach this question. Here readers may not agree with my views. The following approach appears to be the prevailing one.

Under scenario 5, some would claim that it's better to seek an amendment to make the credit available with a nominated bank at the beneficiary's place for presentation. However, under the credit structure above, presentation still can be made to any bank in China. Provided the documents are presented to any bank in China within the expiry date and/or presentation period, and they otherwise comply when they reach the counter of the issuing bank, the issuing bank must honour even if the credit has expired by the time the documents are received.

Under scenarios 6-8, it could be argued that it's better to change the place of expiry. Otherwise, since the credit expires at the issuing bank's place, the documents must reach the issuing bank within the expiry date and/or presentation period, even if the nominated bank is in China. In other words, delivering documents to the nominated bank within the expiry date and/or presentation period doesn't constitute a presentation in terms of UCP 600.

Other UCP articles

In addition, there has been considerable debate concerning the application of UCP 600 articles 7, 8, 12 and 35, etc. under these different scenarios.

Following the logic of the above prevailing guidance, it seems that a credit's place of expiry could modify, to a great extent, the UCP rules on presentation and availability. In that connection, some of the following questions arise:

1. If a credit expires in China (scenario 2-4), could this modify the UCP rules on the right to make a presentation directly to the issuing bank in Italy? Would it be necessary to insert in field 31D that the credit expires "in China and/or Italy"?

2. Many L/C practitioners are speaking in terms of "global presentation", but it would seem that global presentation is impossible under scenarios 4 or 8 due to the limitations placed on the place of expiry. In that case, would it be necessary to insert "any place" in 31D?

3. Under scenario 5, since the definition of presentation is modified, what steps can be taken by the beneficiary to make a presentation? Since there is no nominated bank in China, must the documents be delivered or presented to a local bank? Would it be all right to deliver them to a non-bank? To another company? Or even for the beneficiary to send them to the issuing bank?

4. Under scenarios 6-8, if there is a confirming bank in China, is the presentation completed once the complying documents are delivered to the counter of the confirming bank? Must the documents still reach the issuing bank (expiry place) by the expiry date and/or within the presentation period?

In short, how and to what extent does MT700/field 31D modify UCP 600?

The answers to some of these questions may be obvious, but they illustrate the problems caused by the SWIFT field set aside to designate the place of expiry.

Solution

Why not make the response to these questions simple? Since UCP 600 have made it clear that the place of issuing bank, confirming bank and the other nominated bank is the place of availability, then the place for presentation, why does the credit need a redundant item called "place of expiry" (according to the definition of SWIFT Standards, this also refers to the place of presentation only), which does no one any good and causes trouble?

My suggestion is that the SWIFT standards be changed by changing field 31D "date and place of expiry" to "date of expiry", thereby removing the confusion.

Wang Shanlun is an Associate Professor lecturing at Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, in China. He has had 15 years of experience in studying, practising and lecturing on letters of credit. His e-mail is wangshanlun@gmail.com

How to avoid conflict between the expiry place and availability of the L/C

by King-tak Fung

I have several comments to make concerning Wang Shanlun's very interesting article. The first concerns his discussion of scenarios 6-8, where he says that UCP 600 sub-article 7 (a) applies "even if the credit has expired by the time the issuing bank received the documents from its nominated bank. It is for the issuing bank to bear the risk of ambiguity in its badly issued credit."

In fact, the application of sub-article 7(a) is subject to the condition that the documents presented to the nominated bank constitute a complying presentation. Accordingly, the failure to present the documents to the issuing bank in Italy (i.e., the issuing bank) on time (before the L/C expiry) would bar the nominated bank from obtaining reimbursement from the issuing bank, since the presentation would be deemed to be non-complying.

In any case, reliance on the contra proferentem rule (that the ambiguity of a document is likely to be interpreted against the party who drafts the document) is not a recommended approach, as it is not watertight. In Crédit Agricole Indosuez v Banque Nationale de Paris [2001] 2 SLR 1 (Singapore)[1], the L/C issued by Crédit Agricole Indosuez ("CAI") stated "available against presentation of drafts at 180 days from the date of negotiation by deferred payment". BNP negotiated the presented documents. Fraud was subsequently established, and CAI argued that under UCP 500 a deferred payment L/C was not negotiable and therefore refused to reimburse BNP. BNP put forth the argument that since the L/C was ambiguous it was entitled to reimbursement so long as it gave reasonable consideration to the instructions and acted accordingly. BNP argued that its interpretation that the L/C was a negotiation credit was reasonable. The court rejected this assertion, finding that BNP as the confirming bank, and thus the agent of CAI, should have sought specific clarification from the issuing bank as to the question of negotiability because of the "patent ambiguity" of the L/C.

The court said: "The ambiguity in the L/C is so obvious as regards the question of negotiability that any reasonable banker-agent would have sought specific clarification from the issuing bank. Yet, what we see here was just undue haste. On the very same day CAI were informed by BNP that Amerorient had been advised of the L/C, BNP proceeded to negotiate it without further ado. BNP would have to bear their own losses."

It is therefore not advisable to rely solely on the contra proferentem rule. With modern communication facilities, it would not be unreasonable to expect a prudent banker to seek clarification from the issuing bank in respect of any patent ambiguity of an L/C, such as the inconsistency between the place of expiry and availability, before providing any financing against the presented documents.

At another point in his article, in discussing scenario 5, Wang Shanlun says: "Provided the documents are presented to any bank in China within the expiry date and/or presentation period, and they otherwise comply when they reach the counter of the issuing bank, the issuing bank must honour even if the credit has expired by the time the documents are received." I agree with his view. Technically, there is no conflict between the expiry place and availability of the L/C. The L/C requires presentation of documents to a bank in China before expiry in order to comply with the time and place of presentation requirements. As the L/C would be available with the issuing bank, no bank in China would be authorized to effect payment, so I fail to see on what ground the issuing bank can refuse such a presentation provided the documents comply with all other terms and conditions of the L/C.

Wang Shanlun raises several questions in his article. He first asks the following: "1. If a credit expires in China (scenarios 2-4), could this modify the UCP rules on the right to make a presentation directly to the issuing bank in Italy? Would it be necessary to insert in field 31D that the credit expires 'in China and/or Italy'"? I would point out that under UCP 600, a beneficiary can always make a presentation directly to the issuing bank without going through a nominated bank or presenting bank. It is well established that if a beneficiary decides to make a direct presentation to the issuing bank, the documents must reach the issuing bank on or before the expiry date. It is therefore not advisable to stipulate the place of expiry as "China and/or Italy", as it is not necessary.

Another question raised was whether it would be necessary to insert "any place" in SWIFT field 31D in scenarios 4 or 8. Here I would note that as the place of expiry is a mandatory field in SWIFT, so to achieve global presentation, insertion of "any place" or "any country" in field 31D is required until SWIFT eliminates the expiry place field or make it an optional field.

Notwithstanding the fact that the L/C does not provide for a nominated bank in China, it is common banking practice that a beneficiary will instruct a presenting bank to deliver the documents to the issuing bank on its behalf. As defined in article 2 of UCP 600, a presenter means a beneficiary, bank or other party that makes a presentation. It follows that any party, including a non-bank, can act as a presenter, i.e., as the collecting agent of the beneficiary. The beneficiary can, of course, present the documents directly to the issuing bank without appointing any collecting agent.

In his question no. 4, Wang Shanlun asks: "4. Under scenarios 6-8, if there is a confirming bank in China, is the presentation completed once the complying documents are delivered to the counter of the confirming bank? Must the documents still reach the issuing bank (expiry place) by the expiry date and/or within the presentation period?" I have two comments here:

1. If the L/C is available with a nominated bank in China which also confirms the L/C, it is a badly drafted L/C. This is because upon receipt of the documents in China, the confirming/nominated bank cannot ascertain whether the documents would reach the issuing bank before the expiry date. Accordingly, the confirming/nominated bank would not be in a position to honour such a presentation. It follows that the confirming bank should not have confirmed this L/C in the first place.

2. If the L/C is available with a nominated bank in China, but is also confirmed by another bank in China, the above analysis still applies, i.e., the confirming bank would not be in a position to honour the presentation and should not have confirmed the L/C in the first place.

Finally, at the end of his informative article, Wang Shanlun suggests that the SWIFT standards be changed by changing field 31D "date and place of expiry" to "date of expiry", thereby removing the confusion. With that suggestion, I am in full agreement.

King-Tak Fung is a Banking Partner of Eversheds Hong Kong, a member of the ICC Consulting Group on UCP 500 Revision and author of Leading Court Cases on Letters of Credit (www.iccbooks.com) and UCP 600 - Legal Analysis and Case Studies (www.peer.com.hk). His e-mail is ktfung@eversheds.com

1. King-tak Fung, Leading Court Cases on Letters of Credit, p.52.