Parties

Initiator: Company N (acting on behalf of its subsidiary), Country J

Respondent: Company Bank P, Country I

Issues

Whether the issuing bank (Respondent) was entitled to refuse 6 sets of documents on the following grounds:

1) The documents did not state the Master List No. 123/DD September 1992 (3 sets);

2) The description of the goods in the invoices, packing list and master list No. 123/ DD September 1992 did not match (all sets);

3) The correction stamps on the bill of lading were different (2 sets).

Documentation

  • Letter from Company N (the Initiator) of 24 June 1999 to ICC International Centre for Expertise, Paris, requesting a DOCDEX Decision;

  • Letter from the Initiator to ICC of 24 June 1999 informing ICC that a copy of the request and all documentation was sent to the Respondent;

  • The Initiator's Summary of the Dispute;

  • Copy of Initiator's letter to the Respondent informing the latter of the request for a DOCDEX Decision;

  • Copy of the Documentary Credit no. 456 advising letters from Bank K, and letter of transfer, including amendments;

  • Copies of presented documents;

  • Copies of telecommunication between the parties arguing about refusal; UCP 400;

  • The DOCDEX Rules;

  • The Respondent was silent with regard to a request for a DOCDEX Decision.

Analysis

1. Documents did not state the master list no. 123/DD September 1992

From the "Mother Credit" it seems difficult to recognize how many different items there were to be delivered, and to which item which of the two "M/L Nos." referred.

The transferring Bank (Bank K) did not in the goods description make any reference to a "M/L No" in the transfer. Bank P, Country I (the issuing bank) had the opportunity to require the reference to one or both master lists to be included in the goods description at the partial transfer, which it did not.

Nevertheless the second beneficiary did state "M/L nos." in the invoices as a reference,

2. Description of the goods in the invoices, packing list and Master List No. 123/DD September 1992 did not match

A claimed discrepancy in the goods description between the documents presented and a "master list" must be considered irrelevant as the master list is not a document required under the credit. The goods description in the invoice and packing list cannot be seen to be "not matching".

3. Correction stamps on the bill of lading were different

The correction stamps "appear on their face" to be identical or as close as one could expect. They further seem to be placed by the agent of the carrier, who issued the bill of lading.

Decision

1. The transfer did not require that the goods description should include "master list no. 123/DD September 1992."

2. There cannot be seen to be an inherent inconsistency between the documents presented as to the goods description. The credit did not require the presentation of a "master list".

3. The correction stamps in each individual bill of lading seem to originate from the shipping agent issuing the bill of lading.

The Experts have not examined the underlying contract between the commercial parties, but solely analyzed the documentary credit, the documents presented, and UCP 400. According to Article 3 of UCP 400, the documentary credit is a separate transaction from the underlying contracts, even if any reference whatsoever thereto is included in the credit.

Documents presented are conforming and the issuing bank had no reason for refusal.