{ "data": [ { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 201", "Description": "Can a standby letter of credit subject to UCP 500 also be the subject of a DOCDEX case? Is a copy of a CMR compliant if any discrepancy therein cannot be ascertained from the terms and conditions of the standby and the documents alone? Is a copy of a compensation invoice concerning costs of return of goods compliant if it appears to be signed by the beneficiary?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Articles 1, 2 and 13; sub-Article 13(b); Articles 21 and 4", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 202", "Description": "A certificate of origin authenticated in another country, said to not be as per L/C terms; shipment port in a bill of lading not mentioning clause \"Black Sea\", said to not be as per L/C terms; appearance of the name of the actually shipped commodity in the certificate instead of \"wheat\"", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Articles 21 and Article 23", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 203", "Description": "Whether there was an inconsistency between the commercial invoices, packing lists and bills of lading under the documentary credits in question", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Article 21, sub-Articles 37(c) and 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 204", "Description": "Where a CMR mentioned two different companies for consignment; claimed discrepancies in a packing list and an invoice; stamp of carrier missing; claim of shipping schedule not respected; weight list with no description of the goods", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 13(a); Articles 21, 28 and 41; sub-Article 37(c)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 205", "Description": "Typographical errors in a credit; missed weight on packing list; notify details on AWB that are different from L/C terms", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Articles 13(a) and 37(a); Article 21", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 206", "Description": "Whether an invoice showing a DC quantity of goods was discrepant when the L/C indicated under field 45A of the SWIFT MT 700 a different quantity; whether a certificate of origin produced by the manufacturer showing one invoice number was consistent with the beneficiary's invoice which showed number(s) in a different form", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 13(a); Article 21; sub-Article 5(b); Article 12", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 207", "Description": "Whether the certificate of origin and the shipping company certificate had to show the production and expiry date; whether all documents should have shown the L/C number; whether there was an inconsistency in the dates on the shipping certificate and the B/L.", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-Articles 5(b) and 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 208", "Description": "Whether an amended Incoterm in an invoice was a discrepancy", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Articles 37(c) and 13(c)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 209", "Description": "Must the issuing bank pay when one of the documents, an inspection certificate, is not presented to it?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Articles 2, 9 and 4", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 210", "Description": "Implications of failing to hold documents at the disposal of the beneficiary or to send them back; indication of intention to deal with non-complying documents; effect of instruction from the issuing bank authorizing acceptance of discrepancies", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Articles 14(e), 9(a) and (b)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 211", "Description": "Whether an issuing bank is required to accept the combination in one document of individual independent documents stipulated in the letter of credit; whether by having taken up previously a set of documents with a specific discrepancy, an issuing bank is prejudiced to take up a further presentation of documents with the same specific discrepancy under the same credit.", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 13(a), Articles 2, 20 and 38", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 212", "Description": "Where a letter of credit contained a clause permitting the issuing bank to deduct certain amounts from payments under the letter of credit", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 3(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 213", "Description": "Whether the provisional weight and moisture certificate and provisional certificate of assay was required to show the issuing date; the right to treat each set of documents independently; impact of goods being cleared by the applicant; status of ICC publication no. 535", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Articles 21, 13 and 4", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 214", "Description": "Documents that did not state the master list; description of goods that did not match description in the invoices, packing lists and master lists; different correction stamps on the bill of lading", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 400 Article 3", "Rules": "UCP 400", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 215", "Description": "Invoice and packing list not showing \"original\"; cargo receipt not showing place of delivery; company chop in the cargo receipt showing deletion without authentication; cargo receipt showing alteration without bearing an initial on the correction chop; draft and invoice showing issuing bank's name different from L/C; beneficiary's telephone number in invoice different from L/C; question of whether seven banking days was reasonable", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Articles 13(b), 14(d)(i), 20(b)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 216", "Description": "Where a master's receipt was properly rejected for a discrepancy when signed \"for the master\"", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 13(a); Article 23", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 217", "Description": "Issuing bank's refusal to accept documents timely received; issuing bank's statement that it did not receive a timely authenticated reimbursement claim", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Articles 9(a) and 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 218", "Description": "Bill of Lading not indicating on board date; telefax not showing exact quantity, invoice amount; shipping company agent's certificate not showing any reference to the shipment; whether documents have fraudulent representation based on the facts as supported by the documentary evidence", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Articles 23(a) and 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 220", "Description": "Whether the issuing bank had an obligation to take up documents and to pay subject to UCP 500 despite the fact that the negotiating bank used a cover letter also to be used for collection, stating the credit number of the issuing bank; that documents were negotiated; that the negotiation was marked on the reverse of the L/C", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Articles 13(a), 9(a), 14(b), 14(d)(i), 14(f), 19(a) and 19(c)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 221", "Description": "Whether a misspelling in a bill of lading constituted a discrepancy; whether allegations of forgery and fraud in an \"Experts Report\", which were not mentioned in the Respondent's rejection notice, were relevant", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Article 13, sub-Article 13(a), Articles 15 and 14, sub-Article 14(e)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 222", "Description": "Whether the applicant is within his rights to claim repayment of an amount which the 1st Respondent has debited his account in cover of a payment it has made to the 2nd Respondent against a set of documents presented under the credit and which contain discrepancies", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 14(d)(iii), Article 14 and Article 4", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 223", "Description": "Several alleged discrepancies concerning a railway bill and a commercial invoice", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 28(a)(iii)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 224", "Description": "Apparent contradictory punctuation on an invoice; a certificate of inspection with an inconsistent attached log list; a quantity of a stated commodity - based on a total of partial shipments - that was claimed to be outside of tolerance levels", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 13(a); Article 21", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 225", "Description": "Whether an air waybill, on its face, complied with the terms and conditions of the credit", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 226", "Description": "Whether a difference in the draft between the amount in figures and the amount in letters was a discrepancy; whether a manual signature on the certificate of origin different from the manual signature appearing on other documents produced by the beneficiary justified the rejection of the certificate of origin", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Article 21; sub-Article 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 227", "Description": "Invoices not marked \"commercial invoice\" as per L/C terms; unit of quantity omitted in packing lists; alterations on the certificate of fumigation less authentication; payment of a subsequent drawing under the same L/C; returning the sight drafts to the Initiator separately after the return of other documents presented", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Article 37; ISBP paragraphs 59 and 9", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 228", "Description": "Invoices said to show different merchandise from the L/C; invoice number not shown on invoice; extra word in the L/C that did not appear in the invoice", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 37(c)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 229", "Description": "Several claimed discrepancies by the Respondent regarding commercial invoices, packing lists, beneficiary's certificates and bills of lading; impact of an alleged forgery of a B/L; refusal of an FCR and a certificate of origin; alleged forgery of a certificate of origin", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 37(c); Articles 42, 14, 15, 19; sub-Articles 10(d), 9(d)(iii); Article 21; sub-Articles 13(a) and 20(b)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 230", "Description": "Whether the issuing bank had a right to refuse documents because (i) there was a claim the air way bill was forged, and (ii) because there was an inconsistency in the document as to whether a company was the carrier or an agent of the carrier", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 9(a); Article 15; sub-Articles 13(a); 14(b)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 231", "Description": "Documents showing different goods description from L/C; inspection certificate not dated prior to shipment date; AWB showing invoice number not found on commercial invoice; invoice showing different description of merchandise from L/C stipulated; certificate of inspection not dated prior to shipment date as L/C requires; whether re-presentation of the documents is to be considered a new and independent presentation", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 37(c); ISBP paragraphs 195 and 24", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 232", "Description": "Whether an air waybill (AWB) was corrected by a person without authority to correct; whether it is relevant if an AWB is forged; whether a valid notice of a discrepancy was received by the seventh banking day", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Articles 14, 30, 27, 9 and 15; sub-Article 13(a); ISBP paragraphs 164, 165 and 9", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 233", "Description": "Packing list presented by a party other than the beneficiary; \"certificate of quality\" as the required certificate; whether banks should investigate the means of delivery on a B/L", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Articles 21 and 23", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 234", "Description": "Whether the omission of the letter G in the description of goods on the air waybill constituted a valid discrepancy enabling the Respondent to refuse payment", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Article 4; sub-Article 14(b); ISBP paragraph 28", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 235", "Description": "Was it justified for the issuing bank to refuse payment when two copies of the certificate of quality, quantity/weight called for in the credit were not presented?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 20(c)(ii); Articles 2 and 9; ISBP paragraph 33 b)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 236", "Description": "Whether the DOCDEX procedure can be used to determine (a) if an issuing bank should be held liable towards the Initiator, acting as beneficiary, for instructing the Second Respondent, acting as negotiating bank, to cease negotiation as a result of a court attachment order; and (b) whether a negotiating bank should be held liable towards the Initiator, acting as beneficiary, for having suspended negotiation in compliance with the instructions sent by the First Respondent", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 ICC DOCDEX Rules, Publication no. 811", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 237", "Description": "Where a presentation was correct on the basis of the terms of the L/C, but where the L/C did not expressly require under the \"main particulars\" of the contract a specific product description", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Article 37(c), Articles 13 and 15; ISBP paragraphs 62, 28, 29 and 30", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 238", "Description": "Whether the issuing bank had a right to refuse documents for the following reasons: (1) overdrawn; (2) early shipment prior to L/C issue date; (3) receiver on LOI differs from L/C terms (applicant i/o Respondent); and (4) Fraud by dual issuance of LOI", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Articles 23, 43, 21 and 15; sub-Articles 9(a) and 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 239", "Description": "Whether two amendments issued to a standby letter of credit indicated that the credit was still in force", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Sub-Articles 9(d)(iii) and 9(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 240", "Description": "Whether differences between the shipping marks as appearing on the documentary credit and the shipping marks appearing on the documents presented under the credit warranted rejection of the documents", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-Article 13 (a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 241", "Description": "Claimed discrepancies concerning name of goods omitted on packing list; whether unit name of goods on packing list differed from airway bill; whether gross weight on the airway bill differed from packing list; if title of packing list differed from that instructed in credit", "RelatedArticles": "ISBP 645 paragraphs 24, 27 and 43; UCP 500 sub-Article 37(c), Articles 21 and 4", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 242", "Description": "Whether the presented documents complied with the terms and conditions of the respective four letters of credit; whether the Respondent failed to comply with UCP 500 Articles 13 and 14; and whether a \"special negotiation clause\" had any consequence for the Respondent's obligation to reimburse the Initiator", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-Articles 25(a)(ii), 25(a), 25(a)(i) and 14(d)(ii); Articles 4, 13, 14 and 3", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 243", "Description": "Did the drawing overdraw the L/C? Did the bank refuse the first presentation within the timeframe permitted under UCP 500? Was the bank precluded from claiming re-presentations were discrepant due to its failure to advise the negotiating bank of its refusal?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 article 21, sub-articles 13(b), 14(d)(i) and 14(e); ISBP 645 paragraph 62", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 244", "Description": "Was the credit overdrawn? Was the fact that the B/L had no on board date a discrepancy? Did the Respondent examine and take a decision on the documents within a reasonable time?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-article 25(a)(iv), articles 13, 14, 2, 3 and 4; ISBP 645 paragraph 2", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 245", "Description": "Whether there was early presentation; whether the price was based on the bill of lading quantity (B/L not presented); where the receiver on the LOI differed from the L/C terms; was there fraud by the dual issuance of an LOI?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 articles 21 and 15; sub-articles 9(a) and 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 246", "Description": "Did the presentation of two separate sets of shipping documents, where the goods were shipped in two containers loaded on the same vessel and same journey, conform with the terms of the documentary credit?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-article 40(b), article 21", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 247", "Description": "Whether there were discrepancies involving (1) the B/L showing delivery at any port in China; (2) use of the word \"Contract\" instead of \"Agreement\"; (3) B/L not indicating it was subject to a charter party; (4) B/L not on headed paper; (5) misspelling of the term \"solvent\"", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 article 25 and sub-article 25(a)(i)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 248", "Description": "Whether the presented documents complied with the terms and conditions of the respective letters of credit; whether the Respondent/issuing bank failed to comply with articles 13 and 14 re \"reasonable time\"; an automatic price fluctuation clause in field 47A", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 articles 13, 14 and 20; sub-articles 13(b), 13(c), and 14(d)(ii); URR 525 article 8", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 249", "Description": "Whether the presented documents failed to comply with the terms expressly stipulated in the L/C, which required that for certain documents it was prohibited to have any typing error", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-articles 9(d)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv); article 48; ISBP 645 paragraph 28", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 250", "Description": "Whether a presentation of four invoices instead of six invoices, as required by the credit, was a discrepancy; where the vessel's name in the certificate of origin differed from the B/L", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-article 20 (c) (ii); ISBP 645 paragraph 71; DOCDEX Decision no. 235", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 251", "Description": "Was the Respondent within its rights to dispute discrepancies over two months after having, in the first instance, instructed the issuing bank to seek approval of the applicant for a waiver? Was the Respondent correct in debiting the Initiator's account for reimbursement despite the fact that the documents were rejected by the issuing bank with due notice of refusal and expressly withdrawing its reimbursement authority?", "RelatedArticles": "ISBP 645 paragraph 62; UCP 500 article 9", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 252", "Description": "Whether a beneficiary who decides to refuse to accept an amendment must inform the advising bank of its decision; whether a nominated bank, which is informed by a beneficiary of its decision to reject an amendment, must pass on that information to the issuing bank; where there were differences in the denomination of the port of loading; whether a certificate was correctly presented; whether a certificate that arrived later than the rest of the documents constituted a discrepancy", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 Article 14", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 253", "Description": "Whether the Respondent was precluded from claiming that the initial presentation of documents was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit; whether a substitute document in its appropriate field indicated that it was a \"T2\" document; whether a further advice of refusal following a first one allowed the Respondent to allege additional discrepancies; whether a substitute insurance certificate issued to bearer, countersigned by a third party different from the drawee and not endorsed was incomplete", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 article 14, sub-articles 14 (e), 14 (d) (ii) and 14 (a); ISBP 645 paragraphs 194, 195 and 29", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 254", "Description": "Whether there was an improper refusal notice of the inspection certificate; whether an inspection certificate was as called for under the documentary credit and was consistent with the other presented documents; whether the Respondent had authority to dispose of the documents without having received the Initiator's prior instructions", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-articles 14 (d) (i) and (ii), 14 (b) and (e); articles 4 and 21", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 255", "Description": "Removing a reimbursement instruction; 11 discrepancies concerning original B/Ls, certificates, LOIs and bills of exchange; questions on preclusion, negotiation and fraud", "RelatedArticles": "URR 525 article 8; UCP 500 articles 13, 14 and 21; UCP 500 sub-articles 9(d)(i), 9(d)(iii), 10(d), 13(a), 14(a) and article 43; ISBP paragraph 43 and DOCDEX Decision 243", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 256", "Description": "Was there a valid irrevocable L/C transaction where one Respondent sent discrepant documents to another Respondent, who then substituted documents and sent the substituted documents to a third Respondent?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 articles 14 and 48; URC 522 article 7", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 257", "Description": "Some 20 claims and sub-claims by the Initiator concerning, among others, whether the words \"in trust\" are permitted under the UCP; whether there was a delayed payment by the First Respondent; whether a DOCDEX panel can review the amount of a claim for damages; whether UCP 500 article 15 can be invoked to render a text superfluous if it was required by the credit; and whether sub-article 14(c) applies to advising banks", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 article 15, sub-articles 14(c) and 14(d)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 259", "Description": "Date on a draft; on board date on a B/L; invoice number in commercial invoice v. number on the B/L; \"clean on board\" on a B/L; description of goods and beneficiary's address", "RelatedArticles": "ISBP 645, paragraphs 28 and 92; UCP 500 article 32 and sub-article 14(d)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 260", "Description": "In which circumstances is the date for a draft required? May a draft be endorsed in any manner? Did the address on the invoice conflict with the L/C?", "RelatedArticles": "ISBP paragraph 13, UCP 500 sub-articles 9(a)(iv) and 14(d)(ii)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 261", "Description": "The validity of the discrepancies in rejecting a reimbursement claim by the confirming bank; the cessation, if any, of the confirming bank's duty to negotiate the documents without recourse; the validity of the rejection notices by the issuing bank; the impact of the negotiation by the confirming bank five days after transmitting the documents to the issuing bank on the reimbursement claim", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 articles 21 and 15; sub-articles 20(a), 14(d)(i) and 10(d); ISBP 645 paragraph 10", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 262", "Description": "Whether the description in the invoice, the certificate of quantity and the certificate of quality corresponded with that in the credit; whether an abbreviation in the invoice is generally recognized in international standard banking practice; whether a holiday or non-holiday date created a discrepancy", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500, sub-articles 37(c), 14(e), 14(d) and 14(d)(ii)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 263", "Description": "Whether language in a shipping pre-advice was vague and unclear when it stated that the shipping pre-advice had to contain a confirmation/evidence \"showing that it has been delivered seven days before cargo receipt date to [applicant], via [Respondent] as L/C opening bank\"; whether the fact that the Initiator opposed a discrepancy raised by the Respondent two months after the documents' rejection message detracts from the Initiator's right to have a lawful claim", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 articles 21 and 12; sub-articles 13(c) and 5(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 264", "Description": "A series of questions concerning a standby L/C concerning, among others, (i) whether a standby is only appropriate in a default situation; (ii) whether an issuing bank can \"recall\" an amendment; (iii) whether the issuing bank has an independent undertaking to reimburse the nominated and confirming bank; (iv) whether the confirming bank has its own and independent undertaking to pay the beneficiary upon a compliant presentation", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-articles 9(d)(ii) and 10(d)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 265", "Description": "Where the container number details differ in some respects from the number on the B/L; where the beneficiary's stamp showed an address different from that on the L/C in the commercial invoice, packing list and B/L endorsement", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-articles 13(a) and articles 21 and 13; ISBP 645 paragraph 28", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 266", "Description": "Was the absence of the reference to the contract number in the invoice a valid reason to reject the demands for payment? Was the difference between the description of the goods on the invoices and their description in the guarantees a valid reason to reject the demands for payment? Was the place of taking over the goods as indicated in the CMRs a discrepancy? Was the absence of the signature of the carrier on two CMRs a valid discrepancy? Was the difference between the truck number shown on one invoice and the one on the corresponding CMR a valid discrepancy?", "RelatedArticles": "URDG 458 articles 7 and 9; sub-article 20(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 267", "Description": "Whether a bill of lading is unclean due to additional information stated in it; whether there was an inconsistency between the additional information stated in the bill of lading and the temperature requirement stated in the health certificate; whether the Positive Release dated prior to the production date stated therein would render the Positive Release a discrepant document; whether the different \"production date\" and \"best before date\" stated in the Positive Release and the \"production date\" and \"end of use date\" stated in the Certificate of Actual Test Results created an inconsistency under sub-article 13(a)", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 article 32; sub-articles 13(b), 13(a) and 32(a); ISBP 645 paragraph 28", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 268", "Description": "Several questions concerning drawings under two letters of credit, among them: could the Initiator refuse a drawing due to L/C overdrawn and over-shipment? Was the vessel name on the B/L inconsistent with invoice and packing list? Did the L/C issue date on the invoice and packing list differ? Was the goods description not according to UCP 500 sub-article 37(c)? Was the Initiator in breach of its duty in not recognizing an apparent fraud?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-article 37(c)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 270", "Description": "Did the Bill Processing Unit of the advising bank have an obligation to examine the documents, to determine a discrepancy and subsequently seek a waiver from the applicant bank or the applicant? Was a Respondent correct in refusing the documents due to the discrepancy that the attachment of the AZO certificate was not signed?", "RelatedArticles": "ISBP 681 paragraph 27", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 271", "Description": "Where the certificate of direct consignment showed two different names; whether the quantity of goods on two certificates of direct consignment were consistent; whether a notice of refusal was sent within a reasonable time; whether the issuing bank, by issuing a shipping guarantee, was liable for payment under the credit regardless of any discrepancy found on the documents presented", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 articles 14 and 7; sub-article 13(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 272", "Description": "After a transferred credit expired, were presentations after the expiry date timely? Was a non-nominated bank entitled to reimbursement absent authorization to negotiate the credit? Was the bank obligated to reimburse the Respondent if the first and second presentations were discrepant? Were the terms of the transferred credit only effective vis ' vis the second beneficiary?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 article 48; sub-articles 48(h) and 44(a)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 273", "Description": "Was Bank B authorized to be the transferring bank? Did an MT799 serve as a notice of refusal under sub-article 14(d)? Did the name on the invoice correspond with that in the credit? Was an IATA airport code sufficient to name the destination? Did language inserted in field 47A exempt a party from providing a notice of refusal as per sub-article 14(d)(i)?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-articles 14(d), 14(b)(i), 48(a), 7(a) and 27(a)(i); article 14", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 274", "Description": "Whether a transferring bank that has not confirmed the credit and whose location is not the place of payment is liable for its handling when it transfers a credit without amending the percentage of the insurance to provide for the amount of cover in relation to the value of the invoice of the first beneficiary; whether a claimed acceptance of an amendment made after the presentation of documents can influence the acceptance or refusal of documents", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 article 48; sub-articles 48(c) and 48(h)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 275", "Description": "Whether a Respondent failed to accurately transfer the subject L/C regarding the name of the issuer thereby depriving the Initiator of making an informed decision as to whether or not to accept the transferred L/C; did the two Respondents mislead the Initiator by failing to indicate their limited roles in the transferred L/C? Did a Respondent mis-advise the transfer regarding issuing bank, field 52D, and availability, field 41B? Should the Respondents have known that an entity was not a bank and so advised the Initiator?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 article 16; sub-articles 48(a) and 48(c)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 276", "Description": "Did the Respondent fail to comply with the applicable provisions of UCP 600 sub-articles 14(b), 16 (b) and 16(d) concerning a reasonable time to refuse documents? Was the Respondent precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation as per sub-article 16(f)?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14(b), 16(b), 16(d), 16(f) and 4(a)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 277", "Description": "Whether the documents complied with the terms and conditions of the credit; whether the issuing bank was precluded from dishonour due to failure to give notice in accordance with UCP 600; whether the Initiator, having alleged to have negotiated the documents, was entitled to reimbursement on a straight credit restricted to the issuing bank; whether the allegation of fraud was sufficient to permit the issuing bank to dishonour", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14(b), 16(b), 16(c), 16(d), 16(f); article 34; ISBP 681", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 278", "Description": "Did the fact that the Respondent delivered the documents to the applicant make it liable to pay an amount in excess of the documentary credit value? Was an instruction regarding delivery of the documents to the applicant clear and precise? Where the drawing under the credit was in excess of the amount permitted by the credit, did the Respondent handle the discrepant documents correctly?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14(d)(ii), 14(e) and 13(b); article 14", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 280", "Description": "Whether the \"Analysis and conclusion\" of Banking Commission Opinion TA 657 was effective in the light of the full knowledge of all the details of this dispute; whether the refusal by the Respondent to honour three drawings on the grounds of (1) late presentation and (2) invoice evidencing \"payment out of this documentary credit\" was a valid refusal", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (a) and (c), 16 (a) and (c)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 281", "Description": "Was the date to be used to calculate the price the actual \"B/L date\" for each presented set of bills of lading? By calling for shipment from \"any port\", did the credit effectively opens the possibility that more than one B/L could be presented - showing different B/L dates? Did the goods description in the invoice correspond with the goods description mentioned in the credit?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 31 (b); articles 3 and 16", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 282", "Description": "Was the FCR presented under the credit discrepant? Did the beneficiary require the issuing bank's authorization to submit revised documents following a discrepant presentation? Was the issuing bank entitled to claim a refund, with interest, of reimbursement made to the respondent when its refusal notice did not accord with the requirements stated under UCP 600 sub-articles 16 (c) (i) and 16 (c) (iii)?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 article 16; sub-articles 14 (b), 16 (c) (i), 16 (c) (iii), 16 (f) and 7 (b)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 283", "Description": "Whether by accepting the collections received, the Respondent (collecting bank) had agreed to perform the collection in accordance with URC 522 and the conditions stated in the collection instructions when the Respondent argued that payment related to the goods covered by the collection was paid direct to the Principal by advance payment according to earlier accepted usage between the contract parties", "RelatedArticles": "URC 522 sub-articles 1 (c), 1 (a) and 4 (a) (i)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 284", "Description": "Did the signature on the B/L fail to comply with the applicable provisions of sub-article 22 (a) of UCP 600 and paragraph 118 of ISBP 681?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 22 (a) and (a) (i); ISBP 681 paragraph 118", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 285", "Description": "Whether alleged discrepancies noting commercial invoices are not based on theoretical weight basis; packing lists: theoretical weight in total missing; beneficiary's certificate: mentioning insurance policy or certificate I/O one of them only; and Mill's test certificate: values of tensile missing were valid", "RelatedArticles": "Miscellaneous", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 286", "Description": "Whether the materials were as per the L/C description; whether the insurance certificate had expired; whether the bill was negotiated after the expiry of the L/C", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 16 (c) (iii), 14 (e) and 18 (c); ISBP paragraphs 58 and 59", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 287", "Description": "Whether on the insurance policy under UCP 600 article 14 the vessel name was different from other documents (B/L and invoice); whether the bank name between the shipping documents (including draft) and the L/C was different; whether the bank could identify who was the qualified issuer of the B/L", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (d) and 20 (a) (i)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 288", "Description": "Whether a bill of lading issued to the order of a party can only be endorsed by the party stated in the \"consignee\" field of the bill of lading; when an issuing bank issued a credit with an irregularity that required an endorsement that could only be made by the issuing bank, did the issuing bank have an obligation to withdraw its refusal and to pay immediately the credit amount and demurrage?", "RelatedArticles": "Miscellaneous", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 290", "Description": "Whether the error in the commercial invoice, packing list and certificate of quality - which constituted a reversal of the order of the route of shipment covered by the L/C - could be accepted as a typing error and whether these documents complied with the applicable provisions of sub-article 14 (d) of UCP 600 and paragraph 25 of ISBP 681 (2007 Revision)?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (d) and 14 (a); ISBP 681 paragraph 25", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 291", "Description": "Does a negotiating bank assume any duty to keep track of all warehouse warrant numbers presented under different credits and at different times in order to ensure that no warehouse warrant has ever been presented to it under any other credit? Would a negotiating bank's unawareness of the original warehouse warrants, which have been presented to it under different credits at different times, constitute bad faith or notice of fraud in the relevant credit negotiation? Provided the presented documents constitute a complying presentation and have been duly accepted by the issuing bank, is the negotiating bank entitled to be reimbursed by the issuing bank pursuant to sub-article 7 (c) of UCP 600, even though the relevant warehouse warrants may have been previously presented under other credits that the negotiating bank was not aware of?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 7 (c) and 15 (a); article 1", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 292", "Description": "Was there a conflict between the goods description in the L/C and the description in the B/L?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 14 (e); ISBP 681 paragraphs 108 and 58", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 293", "Description": "Where drafts were drawn in duplicate and there was no correction made on the First of Exchange, whether authentication on the Second of Exchange, which had a correction, was necessary; whether the authentication of the correction was valid and, if so, was it necessary to have the beneficiary's name to be stated along with the signature of the person who made the authenticated correction.", "RelatedArticles": "ISBP 681 paragraphs 9 and 55", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 296", "Description": "Did the presentation made by the Initiator, with respect to the alleged discrepancies as stated in the issuing bank's notice of refusal, and as intended to be clarified in subsequent correspondence, constitute a complying presentation? Did the issuing bank's notice of refusal represent a valid notice?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 article 16; sub-articles 16 (c), 16 (c) (ii), 16 (c) (iii), 16 (f), 17 (c), 17 (d), 14 (e), 14 (f), 14 (d); ISBP 681 paragraphs 184 and 41", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 297", "Description": "Where the issuing bank raised a number of issues concerning the nominated bank's capacity to act and applied for an injunction based on the fact that the same warehouse warrants presented by the beneficiary were also presented for drawings under letters of credit issued by other banks, was the issuing bank, in the absence of such an injunction, obligated to pay the nominated bank the drawing amounts plus applicable interest from the maturity dates to the date of its payments?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 articles 2, 14 and 16; sub-article 7 (c)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 298", "Description": "Was the Initiator bank a nominated bank under the credit? Would the Initiator's second confirming bank status prejudice its right of reimbursement from the Respondent? Was the Initiator in breach of the terms of the credit by advising the Respondent bank eight months after expiry of the credit, but prior to the maturity date that complying documents were presented and advising the maturity date for payment? If a bank requires a specific action or condition (including, within limitation, any time limit) to be complied with in a specific timeframe, must it expressly say so in the credit?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 article 8; sub-articles 8 (c), 12 (b) and 14 (f)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 299", "Description": "If a beneficiary instructs a confirming bank to send documents \"as presented\", \"under approval basis\", \"without checking documents\", etc., do these statements mean documents should be sent to the issuing bank without being examined? Since the confirming bank did not send a notice of refusal to the presenter within the time limit of five banking days is it entitled to refuse payment of the L/C to the beneficiary? Was the Respondent obligated to negotiate and pay the Initiator for a presentation of discrepant documents?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 articles 14, 16 and 2; sub-articles 14 (a) and 14 (d)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 300", "Description": "Whether the on board notation was evidenced separately on the bill of lading and whether this was authenticated under the stamp and signature of the issuer; whether the SWIFT MT799 sent by the Respondent was a new discrepancy raised by the Respondent's second (or third) notice, and was therefore in violation of UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c); whether the first refusal notice was valid when the Respondent did not state one of the four options regarding the disposal of documents as required by UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c)", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c); ISBP 681 paragraph 39", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 301", "Description": "Since the wording of the claim did not specify the requested amount and did not state that the main debtor had not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, was the demand under the guarantee compliant? Was the refusal of the claim within a certain number of days in accordance with the requirements of URDG?", "RelatedArticles": "URDG 458 articles 20 and 10", "Rules": "URDG 458", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 302", "Description": "Whether actions taken by the confirming bank and/or issuing bank, if the presenting bank had notice or not, are outside its control and whether the advising/presenting bank is responsible for such actions; whether the confirming bank can be held responsible for any actions taken by the issuing bank, irrespective of the fact that the confirming bank may or may not have notice of such actions", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-articles 14 (d) and 14 (e)", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 303", "Description": "Where B/L contained an indication that it was subject to a charter party whereas the credit called for \"Full set of clean on board ocean bills of lading\"; were the requirements of UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c) (ii) met?; did the specific wording \"We refuse to honour\" or similar, need to be stated on an MT734 in order to satisfy UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c) (i)?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 16 (c) (i) and (ii) and sub-article 20 (a) (vi)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 304", "Description": "When the L/C did not prescribe that the terms of delivery be mentioned on the CMR, was the lack of such terms a discrepancy?; did the issuance date on the CMR, which did not coincide with other data in the document, create a discrepancy?; whether copies of transport documents need to include a signature or authentication of alterations or corrections; does a requirement for a document to be issued in a specific language prohibit other languages or dual languages being used?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 14 (e); ISBP 681 paragraph 167", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 305", "Description": "Under the wording in the L/C, in which the applicant had full control of the timing of payment for the invoice value for two out of three instalments amounting to 60% of the LC amount, was the issuing bank required to pay the confirmation fees of the confirming bank based on the full credit amount?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 Miscellanous", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 306", "Description": "Whether the presenting bank was liable to pay the amount of the presented four sets of documents when it neither paid nor advised non-payment of the documents; whether there was evidence the presenting bank sent a message indicating it could not handle a collection and, if not, whether it was bound by URC 522 as a whole; whether there was an amendment in the instructions to deliver documents against partial payment; whether by not returning the documents under collections A and B, and by releasing documents under collections C and D without having received full payment for each of the four collections, the presenting bank was in breach of URC 522 and is responsible for payment", "RelatedArticles": "URC 522 sub-articles 1 (c), 10 (a) and 19 (b). article 19", "Rules": "UCP 522", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 308", "Description": "If it were proved there was fraud in a first beneficiary's invoice, which had nothing to do with the Initiator, was the Initiator (second beneficiary) entitled to be paid for its drawing under the transferred L/C? Is it up to a court to state whether the injunction addressed to a bank is to be considered as extended to another member of the same banking group? Did the issuing bank's obligation under the master L/C remain toward the first beneficiary? If there was a failure of the first beneficiary to substitute or to correct discrepant substituted documents, and the transferring bank decided to use the documents of a second beneficiary, would the undertaking of the issuing bank then extend to that second beneficiary?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 38 (i), (b) and (j), 4 (a), 12 (a), 10 (c), 14 (b) and 16 (f)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 309", "Description": "Whether or not the failure of the Initiator or advising bank to advise the Respondent of an amendment prior to the presentation of documents affected the Respondent's obligations as a confirming bank when the beneficiary had not accepted the amendment; whether article 10 of UCP 600 requires that an amendment must be advised to the confirming bank by the beneficiary or the advising bank prior to the presentation of documents; whether the re-presentation of documents amounted to an acceptance by the Initiator of all the discrepancies stated in the First Refusal Notice", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 article 10; sub-articles 10 (a) and 10 (d)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 310", "Description": "Was it a discrepancy that the invoice showed \"17\" in the \"quantity\" column while the \"Description of Goods\" column set forth the order numbers and serial numbers for sixteen items? Was it a discrepancy that the Loading Form included the order and serial number of the goods, but the invoice did not? Was the fact that neither the beneficiary nor the Initiator had raised any objections or comments regarding stated discrepancies a sign of agreement with the discrepancies and did this constitute a preclusion from refuting the discrepancies at a later date?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 article 18; sub-articles 14 (d) and 18 (d)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 311", "Description": "Did the certificate of origin constitute a \"complying presentation\"?; Should additional data made on the back side of the certificate of origin have been authenticated by the issuer? Did the insertion of \"freight prepaid\" in a field labelled \"freight payable at\" constitute any conflict with or cause any doubt concerning the payment of freight?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (d), 16 (a), (b), (c) (iii) (b) and (e); articles 7 and 8; ISBP paragraphs 27 and 9", "Rules": "UCP 600, ISBP", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 312", "Description": "Where a carrier used an agent other than one that is normally used, and where this agent signed as an agent of the carrier and the documents were compliant, was the Initiator required to check with the company as to the agent's qualifications? When the L/C stated \"Forwarders bill of lading not acceptable\", did the Initiator have to check the status of the signing company to determine whether it was, or was not, a forwarder?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 20 (a) (i), 14 (a), 15 (a) and 14 (l); article 2", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 314", "Description": "Whether an issuing bank presented with a decision from a court freezing the amount payable under a credit at the issuing bank can ignore such freezing order if the issuing bank's obligation has been established due to a complying presentation being made and regardless of whether the issuing bank has previously accepted its obligation to pay", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 articles 4, 5 and 7", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 315", "Description": "Where promissory notes are purportedly issued by the First Respondent and governed by the law of Country S, and each note refers to UCP 222, are DOCDEX Experts able to render a decision as to whether the Initiator can claim payment under the notes using documentary credit rules or the laws of Country S? Is the concept and the instrument in a promissory note conceptually and mechanically different from those in a documentary credit?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 222 General Provisions and Definitions", "Rules": "UCP 222", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 316", "Description": "Whether issuing or confirming banks that did not issue a notice of refusal within five banking days were precluded from claiming that the presentation did not constitute a complying presentation; whether the DOCDEX Panel of Experts is empowered under the DOCDEX Rules to decide on issues that relate, not to the UCP alone, but to the applicable law such as fraud or exchange regulations", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 articles 16, 4, 5, 14 and 15; sub-articles 16 (f) and (d) and 38 (h)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 317", "Description": "Whether issuing or confirming banks that did not issue a notice of refusal within five banking days were precluded from claiming that the presentation did not constitute a complying presentation; whether the DOCDEX Panel of Experts is empowered under the DOCDEX Rules to decide on issues that relate, not to the UCP alone, but to the applicable law such as fraud or exchange regulations", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 articles 16, 4, 5, 14 and 15; sub-articles 16 (f) and (d) and 38 (h)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 318", "Description": "Where there was a complying presentation, could the Respondent look behind the documents presented to the underlying contract as a basis for refusing payment; was the credit requirement that the SAT Certificate be completed before final payment carried out, and if not, did this constitute a discrepancy?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 4 (a), 14 (a) (d) and (h), 7 (a)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 319", "Description": "Where, on a copy of an unpaid commercial invoice, there was a difference between the loading date and the B/L date, was this a discrepancy? Where the credit did not require a transport document, did the transport articles of UCP 600 apply?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 321", "Description": "Was the issuing bank liable to honour the drawings made under the L/C when it had accepted all of the presented documents? Was the reimbursing bank liable to pay after it had been instructed by the issuing bank to stop all payments under the L/Cs until further notice and when it had not issued any reimbursement undertaking?", "RelatedArticles": "URR 725 sub-article 8 (a) and article 4", "Rules": "URR 725", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 322", "Description": "When a standby letter of credit was issued under UCP 600 and required the presentation of an unpaid commercial invoice and copies of one or more CMRs, was a bank required to examine such documents according to UCP 600 articles 18 or 24? Were assertions that the name of the carrier(s) on CMRs were not stated or incomplete or lacked a country name valid discrepancies? Did silence by the Initiator (as beneficiary under the credit) or the presenting bank constitute an agreement or acceptance of the discrepancies asserted by the Respondent?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 articles 18 and 24; sub-articles 14 (d) and (f); and ISBP 681 paragraph 20", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 323", "Description": "Did Respondent 1 fail to indicate to the Initiator the discrepancies in the documents, within the stipulated period under article 14 and did it also fail to issue a notice of refusal as stipulated under sub-article 16 (c)? Did Respondent 2 fail to indicate to the Initiator the discrepancies in the documents within the stipulated period under article 14 and also did it fail to issue a notice of refusal as stipulated under sub-article 16 (c)?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 article 14; sub-articles 16 (c) and (d), 12 (c)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 325", "Description": "Whether, according to UCP 600 article 18, it was necessary to include \"to applicant\" on the commercial invoice", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 article 18; sub-article 18 (a) (ii) and 38 (g)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 326", "Description": "When the collections remained unpaid and the Respondent never returned the original documents, did the Respondent act in accordance with the provisions of URC 522? Was the Respondent bound to pay the outstanding amount? Was the matter of illegality of the goods relevant to the case?", "RelatedArticles": "URC 522 sub-articles 2 (d) (i), 4 (a) (i), 19 (b) and 1 (c)", "Rules": "URC 522", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of Query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 327 ", "Description": "Whether the issuing bank had complied with UCP 600 article 16? Whether the issuing bank had acted within the terms of the credit? Whether claims under two associated counter-guarantees were justified?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (a), 14 (b), 16 (c), 16 (f) and articles 14 and 16; UCP 600 sub-article 4 (a); URDG 758 sub-articles 15 (c), 15 (b), 15 (a) and 5 (b)", "Rules": "UCP 600, ISBP 745", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 328 ", "Description": "Given a court order, was it justified for an issuing bank to withhold documents and not return them to the negotiating bank? Was the issuing bank obligated to pay the negotiating bank?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 500 sub-article 14 (e) ", "Rules": "UCP 500", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 329 ", "Description": "Was a missing credit number and date sufficient justification to refuse documents? Could a mistyping be considered as a discrepancy? ", "RelatedArticles": "ISBP 681 paragraph 25; UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d)", "Rules": "ISBP 681", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 330 ", "Description": "Whether discrepancies were invalid once they presented no obstacle to successful performance by the beneficiary? Whether, in any event, the discrepancies were valid?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 articles 4 and 5 and sub-articles 14 (a) and (d); UCP 600 sub-article 18 (b) and (c) and ISBP 745 paragraph C12 (b); ISBP 745 paragraph A6, UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (f) and (d); UCP 600 article 19 and sub-article 14 (d)", "Rules": "UCP 600, ISBP 745", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 331 ", "Description": "Whether a certificate of origin showing FOB value and an invoice showing CIF value for the same amount were conflicting?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d) ", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 332 ", "Description": "Whether a beneficiary could revoke its consent to the cancellation of a documentary credit? Whether an advising bank could demand payment from the issuing bank following the cancellation and removal of a documentary credit from its records?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 10 (a) ", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 333 ", "Description": "Whether a collecting/presenting bank had the right not to pay, nor return original documents, based on the argument that the collecting/presenting bank had filed a police report.", "RelatedArticles": "URC 522 sub-articles 2 (a) (ii), 1 (c), 5 (a), 16 (a), 26 (c) (iii) and 1 (a), articles 26 and 6", "Rules": "URC 522", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 334 ", "Description": "Whether a claim lodged by the beneficiary was in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the guarantee and met the requirements of URDG? Did the issuing bank reject the demand in due time?", "RelatedArticles": "URDG 758 articles 5 and 6, sub-articles 15 (a), 19 (a), 20 (a), 24 (d) and 24 (f)", "Rules": "URDG 758", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 335 ", "Description": "Whether an issuing bank was precluded from claiming that the documents did not constitute a complying presentation in accordance with UCP 600 sub-article 16 (f)?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (a), 14 (b), 16 (c) (i), 16 (c) (iii) and 16 (f)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 336 ", "Description": "Whether it was correct for an issuing bank to refuse a claim under a demand guarantee issued subject to URDG 758 on the basis that the demand was not presented within the time for presentation as provided by the guarantee?", "RelatedArticles": "URDG 758 sub-articles 14 (a) and 25 (b) (i), article 2", "Rules": "URDG 758", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 337 ", "Description": "Was it correct for an issuing bank to refuse revised drafts and insurance certificates on the basis that an amendment under the credit had stated that all documents must comply on first presentation?", "RelatedArticles": "ISBP 745 paragraph C8 and UCP 600 article 1", "Rules": "ISBP 745, UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 338 ", "Description": "Was there a requirement for the Initiator to present a copy of beneficiary's claim? Was the alleged discrepancy made by the Respondent a valid discrepancy? Could the Respondent raise further discrepancies at a future date in respect of the copy of the beneficiary's claim? Could the counter-guarantor withhold payment from or reimbursement to the Initiator pending receipt of presentation documents under the local guarantee of the Initiator? What was the governing law of the local guarantee, which was issued by the Initiator subject to URDG 758 as, requested and authorised by the Respondent?", "RelatedArticles": "URDG 758 sub-article 15 (b) and article 22; URDG 758 sub-article 20 (b); URDG sub-articles 24 (d), 24 (h) and 5 (b); URDG articles 34 and 35", "Rules": "URDG 758", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 339 ", "Description": "Whether or not the presenting bank was obligated to pay a collection in view of the fact that the documents had been released to the drawee, and the drawee had obtained delivery of the goods using the bill of lading?", "RelatedArticles": "URC 522 articles 4, 1 and 2", "Rules": "URC 522", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 340 ", "Description": "This decision was withdrawn.", "RelatedArticles": "", "Rules": "", "TypeofCaption": "Synopsis of decision", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 341 ", "Description": "Was the Respondent precluded from claiming that the documents did not constitute a complying presentation, since they had not quoted a valid discrepancy and provided a single notice of refusal in accordance with UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (b) and 16 (c)? Did the inspection certificate comply?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (b), 14 (d), 14 (f) and16 (c), ISBP 745 paragraph A39", "Rules": "UCP 600, ISBP 745", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 342 ", "Description": "Was a statement by the beneficiary that a postal delay was caused by a missing postal code a valid excuse for insisting that the guarantor was still obligated to pay?", "RelatedArticles": "URDG sub-articles 14 (a) and 28 (a), article 28", "Rules": "URDG", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 343 ", "Description": "Had the Respondent failed to honour a valid claim? Given the court order, was it justified for the Respondent to delay payment? Did the Respondent allow an unreasonably long time enabling the applicant to obtain a court order? Was the Respondent obligated to pay?", "RelatedArticles": "URDG 458 sub-article 20 (b), articles 10 and 20; sub-articles 10 (a), 10 (b) and 2 (b)", "Rules": "URDG 458", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 344 ", "Description": "Identical to DOCDEX Decision No. 343: Had the Respondent failed to honour a valid claim? Given the court order, was it justified for the Respondent to delay payment? Did the Respondent allow an unreasonably long time enabling the applicant to obtain a court order? Was the Respondent obligated to pay?", "RelatedArticles": "URDG 458 sub-article 20 (b), articles 10 and 20; sub-articles 10 (a), 10 (b) and 2 (b)", "Rules": "URDG 458", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 345 ", "Description": "A collection instruction given by a remitting bank to a collecting bank stated that documents were to be delivered against payment. The documents were released to the drawee without payment being obtained. Did the collecting bank breach URC and the collection instructions?", "RelatedArticles": "URC 522 sub-articles 1 (a), 1 (b), 1 (c) and 4 (a) (i); URC 522 sub-article 4 (a) (iii); URC 522 sub-article 1 (c) and article 9", "Rules": "URC 522", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 346 ", "Description": "An issuing bank refused documents presented under a standby credit on the basis of two discrepancies: expiry of the credit and required supporting documents not being presented. Did the wording of the credit make this a valid refusal?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 articles 6 and 1", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 347 ", "Description": "Whether the advices of refusal sent from the Respondent to the presenting bank and from the presenting bank to the Claimant were in compliance with UCP 600? Whether the Issuing Bank was justified to refuse the presentation the words 'steel grade' not being shown on the packing list? Whether the Issuing Bank had given a single notice to the Claimant in accordance with of UCP 600?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (b) and 16 (d); UCP 600 sub-article 14 (a); UCP 600 sub-articles 16 (c) and 16 (c) (iii) ", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 348 ", "Description": "Whether the Collecting Bank had been responsible in following the instructions of various collection orders in accordance with URC 522? ", "RelatedArticles": "URC 522 sub-article 1 (c), article 4 and sub-article 26 (c).", "Rules": "URC 522", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 349 ", "Description": "An issuing bank refused documents presented under a standby credit on the basis that the LOI omitted 'plus or minus 10%' in second paragraph. Whether or not this was valid? Whether the refusal notice was valid? ", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d); UCP 600 article 16, sub-articles 16 (c) and 16 (f)", "Rules": "UCP 600", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 350 ", "Description": "Whether the Respondent breached the provisions of URC 522 and was precluded from claiming non-receipt of documents? Whether the Respondent was liable for payment by not returning the documents?", "RelatedArticles": "URC 522 sub-articles 4 (b) (vi), 12 (a), 1 (a), 1 (b), 1 (c), 2 (a) and 26 (c) (iii) and article 6", "Rules": "URC 522", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" }, { "DecisionNo": "DOCDEX Decision No. 351 ", "Description": "Whether additional wording in an invoice caused a discrepancy? Whether such additional wording created a conflict of data?", "RelatedArticles": "UCP 600 sub-article 14 (a), sub-article 18 (c), sub-article 14 (d), ISBP 745 paragraphs A23 and C5", "Rules": "UCP 600; ISBP 745", "TypeofCaption": "Overview of query", "Link": "
" } ] }