hello to all.
It may be of relevance to mention that because of direct pay standby, (not being a default standby), the ISP98 has retained a rule relating to Issuer approaching the applicant for a waiver of discrepancy(ies).

The issuing bank is also "wrong" in calling for a full set of AWB. It appears that some beneficiaries understand UCP better than banks do.
[edited 11/23/00 5:42:31 PM]

Please also see ICC Position Paper No. 4 .

I do not see any circumstances under which the beneficiary should accept a revocable credit. If I am correct then the next UCP revision should consider dropping revocable credits.

[edited 11/23/00 5:18:25 PM: deleting name since it is already shown on the lefthand side]

I think yes, as far as other terms and conditions are not violated. (i.e. drawings, partial shipment, specific dc conditions forbidding such a discount). There is a query in which the banking commission did not see any reason for not accepting an invoice showing a deduction for advance payment (Pls....

I understand that Applicant is a party to the credit under ISP unlike the case under UCP. It has been argued that it was a wise move to exclude applicant from the parties to the credit . (leaving the relationship b/t issuing bank and applicant to local law). What is the reason for the difference b/t...

Do you think it is correct to specify in a documentary credit, whether transhipment is allowed (or not) when the credit calls for a charter party bill of lading? I think that transhipment is not applicable in this case. Howeverr allowing / not allowing transhipment is in practice by many issuing ban...

Should the docdex rules be amended to cover ISP98 disputes?

The sub-article limits the period for presentation of documents after shipment (if such period of time is not limited by documentary credit)

Why doesn't the sub-article waive this requirement if shipment is to be covered by a non negotiable transport document?