Am in agreement with opinion expressed by Kim, when referring to ICC position paper no. 4. Please also refer to query TA 540 from June 2003 where it is stated in the conclusion, that "in order for a bill of lading to comply with UCP500 Article 23 in all cases, the name of the carrier must appea...

In a LC which should be confirmed by the advising bank one of the documents which need to be presented requires presentation of a performance bond. In a separate message forming intergral part of the LC the text for the performance bond is provided. Text requires that the bank who issued the perform...

I agree with the comments made before and like to add that to my experience a transfer of a LC requesting insurance cover never works easily. That's why in most cases I did reject to transfer such LC's since they are not workable without going beyond the rules as per article 48. This would only work...

Do you doubt that Hamburg is a Seaport? I believe nobody really will. But when you look on the map you will sea that all ships need to use the River Elbe for a lot of miles/kilometers before they reach the harbour. Accordingly, I would consider Toronto and Chicago as (Sea)port as long as the vessels...

Would also say no in respect with article 21 UCP. But is it really such easy? Must we not request a minimum of data in order to identify who did issue what. How could a company be held responsible by the applicant in case the analyses was not correct. I know that in most cases LC's a silent in respe...

11c UCP is referring to pre-advises of LC's, according to which the issuing bank is bound to issue the credit in time. If 11c UCP is not applicable it sounds that the issuing bank does not have a valid application for the credit yet and will therefore not be held responsible to issue the respective ...

Thanks for your comments.

Laurence, we consider the clause in 47 as substitution option and checked the CP against UCP 25, but the lack of any reference to "liner terms" is creating the problem / the reason for our rejection under the Export LC.

Juergen

Laurence, thanks for your views. SWIFT requires under 46 (documents required) "Full set of clean - shipped on board- Bill of Lading ..." for which we would require Port-to-Port BL and UCP 23 is applicable Under 47 (Additional Conditions): "Charter Party Bills of Lading with Liner term...

The LC requires port-tp-port BL and has a special clause
"Charter Party as per liner terms...acceptable."
We received a Charter BL using the format of CONGEN Charter Party BL. Would this be sufficient for you to comply with the exception?