The case

The Initiator has presented one set of documents to the Respondent under each of the three letters of credit issued by the Respondent. The Respondent has refused to accept all three sets of documents claiming that they were discrepant.

L/C no. 1

The Respondent's advice of refusal it claimed that: "Invoice showing different merchandise description from stated in L/C". (In its answer the Respondent mentions a second reason for rejecting the documents. However, as this second reason does not appear in the copy of the advice of refusal dated dd/mm/yy presented under this case, the experts have ignored the reference to such second reason.)

The merchandise description (field 45A) in the credit is:

1) 1,176 PCS OF DIGITAL PRODUCTS COMPRISING VGA CHIP 08/0487/08 AT USD35.00/PC

2) 2,160 PCS OF DIGITAL PRODUCTS COMPRISING K9K1GO8UM-YCBO (Company S) AT USD27.50/PC AS PER CONTRACT NO. ABC1234

The merchandise description in the invoice presented is: DIGITAL ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS COMPRISING AS PER CONTRACT NO. ABC1234 VGA CHIP 08/0487/08 (Company P) 1,176 PCS AT USD35/PC 08/0497/09 K9K1GO8UM-YCBO (Company S) 2,160PCS AT USD27.5/PC 0578-97.

In its answer, the Respondent explains that it is focusing on the extra words: ELECTRONIC and Company P not mentioned in the credit but included in the description in the invoice.

Decision on L/C no. 1

According to UCP sub-Article 37(c), the description of the goods in the commercial invoice must "correspond with" the description in the credit. According to official ICC Opinions, there is no requirement for a mirror image. That is further confirmed by paragraph 62 of the ISBP, ICC publication 645.

In the view of the experts, it is not standard banking practice to reject invoices on the ground that some extra information, as in the present case, has been added to the merchandise description as stated in the credits. This view is in line with ICC Opinion R.456 (May 2000).

Therefore, the group of expert's decision is that the documents are not discrepant.

L/C no. 2

In the Respondent's advice of refusal it claimed that:

1. DESCRIPTION OF MERCHANDISE ON INVOICE NOT SAME AS ON L/C

2. AWB SHOWING INVOICE NO. NOT FOUND ON INVOICE.

The merchandise description (field 45A) in the credit is:

4,600 PCS OF DIGITAL PRODUCTS COMPRISING K9K1G08U M-YCBO (Company S) AT USD27.50/PC, AS PER CONTRACT NO. ABC1234.

The merchandise description in the invoice presented is: DIGITAL ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS COMPRISING AS PER CONTRACT NO. ABC1234 K9K1GO8UM-YCBO (Company S) 4,600PCS AT USD27.5/PC 0578-97.

With regard to reason no. 1 for rejecting the documents, the Respondent explains in its answer that its reason is the same as that mentioned under case no. 1.

Reason no. 2, as explained in the answer, for rejecting the documents is that an invoice number [INV NO.123456], not shown on the invoice presented (which does not show any invoice number), is stated on the AWB in a field headed "Nature and Quantity of Goods" (which field also shows a general description of the merchandise shipped according to the invoice presented under the credit).

Decision on L/C no. 2

With regard to reason no. 1 for rejecting the documents, the group of experts makes the same comments and reaches the same decision as under L/C no. 1.

With regard to reason no. 2, the experts are of the opinion that the fact that an invoice number is stated on the AWB, despite the fact that the invoice, forming part of the same set of documents as the AWB, does not show any invoice number, is not a discrepancy. First, there is no requirement in the credit for invoices to be numbered; second, UCP sub-Article 13(a), which states in part "Documents which appear on their face to be inconsistent with one another will be considered as not appearing on their face to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit" does not apply in this case since the invoice number only appears in one document.

L/C no. 3

The Respondent's advice of refusal claimed that: DESCRIPTION OF MERCHANDISE DIFFERENT FROM L/C STIPULATED.

(In its answer the Respondent mentions a second reason for rejecting the documents. However, as this second reason does not appear in the copy of the advice of refusal dated dd/mm/yy presented under this case, the experts have ignored the reference to such second reason.)

The merchandise description (field 45A) in the credit is: 5,076 PCS OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS COMPRISING K9K1G08UM-YCBO (Company S) AT USD27.50/PC AS PER CONTRACT NO. XYZ4567.

The merchandise description in the invoice presented is: BILLINGUAL ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS COMPRISING AS PER CONTRACT NO. XYZ4567 K9K1GO8UM-YCBO (Company S) 5,076PCS AT USD 27.5/PC 0578-97.

In its Answer, the Respondent explains that it is focusing on the extra word: BILLINGUAL [sic], not mentioned in the credit but included in the description in the invoice.

Decision on L/C no. 3

With regard to the reason for rejecting the documents, the group of experts makes the same comments and reaches the same decision as under L/C no. 1.