UCP 600 20 a (ii) tells us that the bill of lading must ‘….indicate Shipment from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the credit. "due to increasing instability in the Port Harcourt/Onne area of Nigeria, the carrier hereby reserves all rights to discharge and final delivery o...

...but what if the 'second mailing' does not arrive until 10 days later .. and the additional documents create conflict ?

Shahed

You dont need an expert view or an ICC opinion on this one.

'Irregular consignee' what next?

The BL is in compliance.

Vin
[edited 11/24/2007 10:21:23 AM]

‘place of receipt/port of loading’ The UCP 600 rules no longer has the rule or requirement:: ‘If the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading’ So it would appear to anyone using the new LC’s rules in any capacity that this UCP 500 rule or req...

Dear Bogdan

Your post is not 'identical' but does not 'conflict' with my post of 13 September above.

I think this will give some comfort to comment from Svetlana above.

And yes, best to use correct message type as supported by Paul.

Vin
[edited 9/19/2007 10:07:46 AM]

Dear Svetlana I don’t think my comments were meant to be an ‘accusation’ but let me try to add further clarity and some background. I made reference to UCP 600 in that paragraph as I had just copied and pasted definitions from UCP 600 in preceding paragraphs But as you ask a direct question you dese...

Thanks Paul. SWIFT cannot support this practice and I don’t support it either - but it happens. Using SWIFT message types for the reason they were created is the right thing to do. Clearly when a bank issues an amendment the correct message type should be used and it makes sense for SWIFT to support...

Thanks Jeremy, Jason and Bogdan for your valuable input on a feedback I often encounter on new definition of ‘Negotiation’ My question which followed on from Doriana’s . question is based on feedback I have received for experienced trade bankers in many different countries, and I take feedback from ...

I think the real question is whether the MT799 message can be considered as binding on the issuing bank as an amendment to credit as originally issued. I do not consider the use of a label ‘amendment’ as paramount but of course it adds clarity. If the MT799 clearly references the LC issued and if th...

This is an interesting and very practical query. Having visited some 30 countries in context of UCP 600 in the past six months or so, most bankers appear to have a basically uniform understanding of part of the definition of NEGOTIATION in context what a nominated negotiating bank does when it actua...