Parties

Initiator: Bank D, Country J

Respondent: Bank J, Country K

Background

Bank D, Branch in Country J (Initiator) is the presenter of documents for USD 97,857.76 under a documentary credit issued by Bank J (Respondent). The documentary credit was transmitted via SWIFT MT700 and subject to UCP 600 (issued 23.09.2008 and includes the wording "UCP LATEST VERSION" in SWIFT field 40E). The presentation was refused by the Respondent.

The Respondent has not replied to the request. The Experts have not requested any supplemental documents.

Summary of representations

23.09.2008

Respondent issued a documentary credit for USD 97,656.13 (more/less (%) 03/03).

The advising bank was the Initiator, and the credit was available with "Any Bank by Negotiation".

14.10.2008

The beneficiary presented the documents to the Initiator. The forwarding schedule from Initiator to Respondent was dated the same day.

24.10.2008

Respondent refused the documents stating the following discrepancies:

1. On insurance policy under UCP 600 article 14 vessel name is different with other documents (B/L and invoice).

2. Our bank name between shipping document (including draft) and L/C is different.

3. On L/C under UCP 600 article 20, original bill of loading must be signed in the form described but on this B/L it can be issued by carrier or agent, so we cannot identify who is qualified issuer of this B/L.

27.10.2008

Initiator responded to Respondent indicating that it did not agree to the stated discrepancies.

04.11.2008

Respondent sent a SWIFT MT799 message to Initiator maintaining the discrepancies.

The discrepancies quoted

Discrepancy No. 1

On insurance policy under UCP 600 article 14 vessel name is different from other documents (B/L and invoice).

Facts

The name of the vessel is stated as follows in the following documents:

- Bill of lading (Ocean vessel field): "Vessel A 819W"
- Bill of lading (On board field): "Vessel A V.819W"
- Invoice: "Vessel A 819W"
- Insurance policy: "Vessel A"

Initiator argument:

"The insurance [policy] clearly states the vessel name as Vessel A, which exactly matches with the same on bill of lading".

Initiator further refers to UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d): "Data in a document... need not be identical to, but must not conflict with ... any other stipulated document or the credit."

Respondent argument:

"Vessel name on insurance policy is "Vessel A" but on B/L stating the vessel name as "Vessel A 819W" and also on board notation vessel name is "Vessel A V.819W".

Discrepancy No. 2:

Our bank name between shipping documents (including draft) and L/C is different.

Facts

The name of the bank (Respondent) is stated as follows in the following documents:

Documentary credit (Field 42D): Bank J, The S, Country K

Draft: Bank J, City S, Country K

Invoice: Bank J, City S, Country K

Initiator argument

"Kindly note that the documents evidence the bank name as Bank J, City S, Country K, which is exactly as per L/C terms"

Respondent argument:

"Field 42D stating that our bank name is "Bank J Ltd, The S" is totally different with shipping docs (Invoice, draft) bank name "Bank J, City S"

(Note the statement from the Respondent that the name of the bank includes "LTD" is not correct. It is stated as mentioned above.)

Discrepancy No. 3

On L/C under UCP 600 article 20, original bill of loading must be signed in the form described, but on this B/L it can be issued by carrier or agent, so we cannot identify who is qualified issuer of this B/L.

Facts

On the bill of lading there are three statements regarding carrier and/or agent:

- In the top right corner (with logo): "Company S Merchant Marine Co.,Ltd As Carrier"

- In the bill of lading body: "Issued and signed by
Company S X Co., Ltd
As agent for the carrier
Company S Merchant Marine Co., Ltd
As Carrier"

- In the signing field (bottom right):
"Company S X Co., Ltd
as agent for
Company S Merchant Marine Co., Ltd
[Signature]

----------------

As Carrier"

Initiator argument

B/L is signed by Company S X Co., Ltd as agent for Company S Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.

Note that Company S Merchant Marine Co., Ltd is indicated as carrier at the top right side just under the B/L number"

Respondent argument

"Our party can't be sure this B/L was issued and signed by Company S X Co., Ltd as agent for Company S Merchant Marine Co., Ltd or by carrier. Word on the upper side of manual signature of B/L indicating it was issued and signed by agent but on the bottom side it also indicating it was issued and signed by as carrier. We can't identify who is qualified issuer and signor has right to alter this document."

Issue to be decided

Does the presentation made by Initiator constitute a complying presentation?

Analysis

Discrepancy No. 1:

The name of the vessel carrying the goods is Vessel A. The addition "V.819W" or "819W" is a clear indication of the voyage number for that particular vessel.

It is the opinion of the experts that this does not raise any confusion as to on which vessel the goods have been shipped on board.

The reference to UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d) (as mentioned by Initiator) is correct. The addition of the voyage number does not make the data conflicting.

This is not a valid discrepancy.

Discrepancy No. 2:

It is the opinion of the experts that there is no conflict between the naming of the bank in the documentary credit and the documents. This is primarily of importance in relation to the drawee part in the draft. The draft is clearly drawn in accordance with the documentary credit.

This is not a valid discrepancy.

Discrepancy No. 3:

The signing of the bill of lading is regulated by UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a) (i), which reads:

"A bill of lading, however named, must appear to:

indicate the name of the carrier and be signed by:

the carrier or a named agent for or on behalf of the carrier, or

the master or a named agent for or on behalf of the master.

Any signature by the carrier, master or agent must be identified as that of the carrier, master or agent.

Any signature by an agent must indicate whether the agent has signed for or on behalf of the carrier or for or on behalf of the master."

The bill of lading clearly indicates the name of the carrier, since "Company S Merchant Marine Co., Ltd" is indicated as carrier at the top right of the document together with its logo.

In the opinion of the Experts, the intention in relation to the signing of the bill of lading is clear ‒ especially when read in context with the header mentioned above, i.e. "[Signed by] Company S X Co., Ltd as agent for Company S Merchant Marine Co., Ltd [who is acting] As Carrier" (Brackets added).

The experts conclude that the signing is in accordance with UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a) (i).

This is not a valid discrepancy.

Decision

Based on the above analysis, the decision of the Experts is that a complying presentation has been made and Respondent is obligated to honour accordingly.

This is a unanimous decision.