PRESENTATION PERIOD

AAtiyeh · Post by **AAtiyeh** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:00 am

By inserting"Documents to be presented within L/C validity " in field 48 of MT700,does the issuing bank allow presentation after 21 days stated in 14C of UCP 600 ?

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:00 am

To be on the safe side, I would ask the issuing bank. These days it is preferable to prevent the problems rather than to speculate or to try to solve them.
Best regards
Daniel

DLLoyd1_ · Post by **DLLoyd1_** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:00 am

In my opinion this clause does not change the 21 days presentation period. It simply means that if shipment takes place less than 21 days from expiry that docs must be presented before expiry..... which would be the case even if the clause was not there.
Rgds

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:00 am

it would appear to me that this statement overrides UCP Article 14 since it quotes "presented". If the LC does not require presentation of an original transport document then this aspect of Article 14 did not apply in any case.

Shahed · Post by **Shahed** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:00 am

Sub Article 14 C establishes the defaulted period for presentation following the date of shipment. This default period is set at 21 calendar days where the credit is silent to the period required

Shahed
Toronto

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:00 am

Hi Shahad,
The question is whether or not the LC statement overrides the Article 14, 21 day default. UCP article 1 allows that the terms and conditions of a LC can override the default positions are provided in UCP. I believe that the specific statement accomplished this.

MarcoMACRINA · Post by **MarcoMACRINA** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:00 am

The statement ''to be presented within l/c validity'' is in itself a non-sence since documents presented outside l/c validity are not acceptable anyhow. I think that the issuing bank must be more pricise on it's terms. I always require clarification.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:00 am

Jesper,

I agree with you because it is what I wrote in the first place.
Regards

Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:00 am

In case of interest I saw on Monday a credit for USD20m issued by an Indian bank with exactly this. What posseses people to put nonsense like this in credits?

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:00 am

Such times we live through

Daniel