Dear Stephan, I do not see any problems in the wording “draft” (in singular) and it should not pose a problem to your partial drawings to the credit. The applicability of words in the singular to include the plural and vice versa is already covered under Sub-Article 3 of the UCP600. If a draft is to...

I seek the learned views of the DC-Pro forumers on the following point/our practice:- Article 2 (UCP600) refers to “Negotiation” as being “the purchase by the nominated bank of drafts (drawn on a bank other than the nominated bank) and/or documents under a complying presentation, by advancing or agr...

Dear Raymond, Under Rule 4.07 (ii) of the ISP98:- Unless a standby specifies the status of a person who must sign, no indication of status is necessary. Based on this rule and that the SBLC calls for the default statement signed by the “authorised signor” of the beneficiary, I would think that the s...

Shahed, Your LC calls port to port shipment to Japanese Port(s). It seems that you have receive a B/L showing the port of discharge as Nagasaki, Japan with a place of final destination as Imari,Japan. Since Imari is also a Japanese port , the presentation of an invoice showing CFR Imari, Japan would...

Dear Gerhard,
Since the applicant did not call for the different L/C number in the shipping marks in their LC terms, it would not be a discrepancy. Further, it is not necessary to indicate the L/C number in the shipping marks of your documents.
Regards,
Robert

Dear Shahed,

I would assume that the LC calls for a port to port bill of lading.
Since the L/C stipulated shipment is from any European port, the discrepancy as quoted by the issuing bank is, in my opinion, not valid. Please refer to Art.20 iii for your rebuttal.

Best Regards,

Robert