SHIPMENT SCHEDULE

[EMILYTRAN]

HI
May we ask you another case as follows
Field 43B - Partial shipment: allowed
Field 44D - shipment period:
+ First shipment: Not later than 06 JAN 2010 for 340MTS
+ Second shipment: Not later than 06 FEB 2010 for 200MTS.

Document have been presented at our counter on 11 JAN 2010 including 03 sets of documents as follows:
+ 80MTS shipment date: 20 DEC 2009
+ 100MTS shipment date: 27 DEC 2009
+ 120MTS shipment date: 24 DEC 2009
Total: 300MTS

On 25 JAN 2010 We received another set of documents with details as follows:

+ 40MTS shipment date: 07 JAN 2010

We guess that this shipment is intended for the balance of the first shipment period (40MT), however the shipment date is later than the period (06 JAN 2010) and falled on the second shipment period.

Please give us your kind idea as to whether we may raise any discrepancy.

Thanks and Regards
ThuyPTB

[DanielD]

Something I do not understand,
First shipment is for 340 MTS, but actually there has been four shipments. Should each lot be shipped complete or not?
Daniel

[asamaha]

I understand that more than one shipment can be made under each period provided the total quantity of shipments to be effected under first period (i.e. on or before 6 jan 2010) is not less than 323 Mt and no more than 357 mt, in order for the credit to remain available for the second installment. Any excess quantity shipped during this first period shall be regarded as being effected under the second period which shipments should not exceed in total 210 Mt.
Regards
Antoine

[HudaMudabber]

With Reference to article 32 from UCP600 concerning instalment Drawings or shipments which state that
" if a drawing or shipment by instalments within given periods is stipulated in the credit and any instalement is not drawn or shipped within the period allowed for that instalment, the credit is ceases to be available for that and and any subsequent instalment."


I consider this case as a discrepancy noting that last shipment effected on January 7th, 2010 and the first shipment balance is not fully shipped on schedule as per L/C terms.

Discrepency : L/C CEASED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS SHIPMENT AND ANY SUBSEQUENT SHIPMENTS.


Regards,
Mahmoud A.Tawalbeh

[edited 1/28/2010 1:21:48 PM: Forgetting The Name.]
[edited 1/28/2010 1:22:37 PM]

[DanielD]

Not sure.
If what Antoine understands is the right version. A set of documents for 40 tons may still be presented showing a date of shipment on or before January 6th. (with a problem with respect to the 21 days). Therefore the shipment for 40 tons on January 7th. would be part of the shipment for 200 tons.
A bit far fetched of course.
Daniel

[EMILYTRAN]

HI Daniel,

Well-noted, however how and when we are able to decide the shipment schedule is broken and the LC's avalability will cease for subsequent shipments. I think it is not easy.

Regards,
ThuyPTB

[asamaha]

The credit ceases to be available for the 2nd portion of 200 mt when a presentation for a shipment effected after 6Jan2010 is made whereas the presentation/s made under 1st portion of 340 mt cover less than the min qty of 323 mt.
Antoine
Regards

[EMILYTRAN]

Asamaha, as Daniel has mentioned, we can not say it is discrepant because there still can be another set of docs for the first shipment being presented. Please review and make clear.
Regards,

[asamaha]

It is discrepant as long as the remaining set for the first shipment is not presented in time.
Rgds
Antoine

[DanielD]

Antoine,

I think it is what the BC would decide but it is not by far satisfactory and it is unfair.
2 remarks
1. In the above case if 540 MTS had been shipped on or before Jan. 6th it would have been correct, there are 1 or 2 opinions about that. So, in order to have real instalments, it would have been necessary to specify 340 MTS between ... and Jan. 6th and 200 MTS between Jan 7th and Feb.6th
2. Art. 32 (and the previous ones) were and are unfortunate. Poor exporter may make a perfect presentation and been told:" yes perfect but you did not load this and that on time so off with you". The content of art 32 should not be in a rule but in a specific condition of the DC. Anyway if I were an exporter I would have art. 32 excluded.
Daniel