Forgot your password?
Please enter your email & we will send your password to you:
My Account:
Copyright © International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). All rights reserved. ( Source of the document: ICC Digital Library )
2004 LC CASE SUMMARIES Civil Judgment (2002) Min Jing Zhong Zi No. 126; Fujian High People's Court [China] Abstracted by Jin Saibo of Zhong Lun Law Firm*
Topics: Discrepancies; Strict Compliance; Inconsistency
Type of Lawsuit: Negotiating Bank sued Issuer for wrongful dishonor.
Parties:
Plaintiff/Appellee/Negotiating Bank- Bank of East Asia Co., Ltd.
Defendant/Appellant/Issuer- Bank of China (Fujian Branch)
Applicant- Fujian Foreign Trade Center Transportation Dept.
Beneficiary- GILBERT Co., Ltd.
Underlying Transaction: Export contract of linen cloth.
LC: Commercial LC for US$960,000. Silent as to governing rules.
Decision: The Fujian High People's Court rejected Issuer's appeal and affirmed decision of Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court in favor of Negotiating Bank.
Rationale: Whether the bill of lading is consistent with the LC and other documents depends on examination of all contents of the bill of lading. According to the calculation formula attached to the weight memo, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that "575 PACKAGES" equals to "116,711 YARD".
Article
Factual Summary: Bank issued a commercial LC. A multimodal transportation or port-to-port bill of lading was issued to Beneficiary which issued a commercial invoice in an amount of US$933,688 for 116,711 yards of linen cloth. Beneficiary also prepared a "Memo/shipment sheet of the weight of linen cloth in containers" referring to 116,711 yards of linen cloth.
Negotiating Bank forwarded its payment request to Issuer which sent a telex noting alleged discrepancies concerning the quantity of the goods under the LC. Applicant refused to accept the documents. Negotiating Bank disputed the alleged discrepancies, but Issuer reaffirmed that Applicant refused to accept the documents due to the discrepancies.
Negotiating Bank then brought action against Issuer. The trial court entered judgment for Negotiating Bank. On appeal, affirmed.
Legal Analysis of Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court Decision:
1. Extraneous Documents; UCP500 Article 13: As there is no stipulation in the LC that a bill of lading with the quantity of the goods 116,711 yards shall be submitted, the bill of lading provided by Negotiating Bank met all terms and conditions of the LC. In accordance with UCP500 Article 13, documents not stipulated in the credit will not be examined by banks. If a credit contains conditions without stating the document(s) to be presented in compliance therewith, banks will deem such conditions as not stated and will disregard them.
2. Conversion of Measurements: Although different units are used in different documents when referring to the quantity of goods, there is also a conversion ratio stipulated in the shipment sheet. The documents are linked to one another and in compliance with international trade practice. The trial court ruled that the documents provided by Negotiating Bank complied with the terms and conditions of the credit. The trial court found that the goods were described as 116,711 yards in the bill of lading and commercial invoice while the stated quantity in the credit was 120,000 yards. The 2.74% difference satisfies the requirements of UCP500 Article 39.
Legal Analysis of Fujian High People's Court Decision:
1. UCP 500: Although the LC did not expressly provide that it was subject to UCP500, neither party objected to the application of UCP500 during the trial. Therefore, it can be concluded that both parties agreed to abide by UCP500.
2. Cause of Action: Negotiating Bank submitted evidence before the appellate court suggesting that it had made payment under the LC. The appellate court, therefore, rejected the challenge that Negotiating Bank was not a qualified plaintiff.
3. Strict Compliance: The appellate court noted that under UCP500 Article 13, banks must examine documents with reasonable care to ascertain whether or not they appear, on their face, to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit. 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. However, there is no specific standard for the examination of documents in UCP500. Strict compliance does not mean slavish conformity to the terms of the letter of credit. The appellate court noted that an LC is the means to make the payment rather than a means to refuse payment.
4. Consistency between Documents; Tolerance: LC stipulated that the quantity of goods was "120,000 yards". According to UCP500 Article 39(b), a tolerance of 5% more or 5% less will be permissible. The quantity of goods stipulated in the commercial invoice "116,711 yards" compared to "120,000 yards" stipulated in the LC was within this range. Therefore, it can be concluded that the commercial invoice is in compliance with the terms and conditions of LC.
[JS/csb]
* Jin Saibo's email address is jinsaibo@zhonglun.com.
COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE
The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.