I appreciate the above responses. I think that in order to avoid blaming the nominated bank for the consequences, the issuing bank should include the operational controls required from the nominated bank, in the instrument as additional conditions. . Moreover the issuing bank should know that the fi...

I fully agree with Mr. Pavel. I also understand that Mr. Vincent Maulella (Retired from J. P. Morgan Chase) has written on the subject in one of "Documentary Credit World" issues. Why should there be a time limit for presentation of documents when transport documents like CPBL, AWB, TCN, N...

Aside from that, some bankers think that if they send the Notice by SWIFT (template, I think MT 734), it is not required to state that documents are rejected. I dont agree with them. Irrespective of the means of communication, the message should indicate rejection.
[edited 8/30/01 1:28:28 PM]

I would like to thank Mr. Shehab for the tricky query and Mr. Lee for the interesting analysis. I believe in such cases one should look into the intention behind the articles in order to get the correct answer (i.e.) why would the period for presentation of documets be extended by virtue of sub arti...

Scenario: A transferable credit is issued by bank (IB) and Transferred and Confirmed by Bank (TCB) without informing the IB that a transfer has been made. The second beneficiary submits conforming documents to the TCB, by that time the first beneficiary got paid (the whole value of the credit) by th...

The topic is very interesting. I agree with Mr. Jeremy (and the ICC unpublished opinion - referred to by Brasbasah and Jeremy). I would like to make a questionnaire to investigate if beneficiries would like to see this condition? If they do, it is fine. Any beneficiary who finds it (deceiting, unjus...