Art 14 (j)

[JohnLim]

Dear All

I would like to seek your opinion on a case as follows.

In the LC, B/L clause stated '..notify applicant with full address.'

B/L presented with notifying party box indicating applicant name and address in full.

But the issuing bank pointed out as a discrepancy : notify party in B/L not indicate tel/fax number. The issuing bank argued that since field 50 in LC indicated tel/fax no, the notify party box must also include tel/fax no as per field 50.

Please give me all your opinions.

thanks and regards
Yat


[edited 8/23/2010 2:27:17 PM]

[NigelHolt]

The discrepancy is not at all valid as irrespective of the field in which they appeared on the MT700 message the tel & fax number do not constitute part of the beneficiary's 'address'.
[edited 8/24/2010 8:44:34 AM]

[THI THUY MYT_]

Dear JSmith,
.
In our case, L/C only require that "B/L consigned to order ...and notify applicant". B/L presented with notify party: only name of applicant (without address and contact details which are stated on the field 50 of L/C).
.
Is this B/L discrepancy or not?
Tks and Regards,
AK.

[NigelHolt]

Firstly, going back to Yat’s query, I do not see 14(j) is directly relevant to determining the compliance of the presentation, as it was an express requirement of the credit that the BL was marked ‘notify applicant with full address’. To me, it is a simple matter of the fact that the word ‘address’ -in this context- can only mean postal address. Nonetheless, I do accept that 14(j) does offer interpretative support.

Secondly, turning to AK’s query, I do not regard this as a discrepancy as ‘the party on whose request the credit is issued’ has been stated.

[edited 8/24/2010 10:48:31 AM]

[JohnLim]

Dear JSmith

1st of all, thank you for your prompt reply.

2ndly, i agree that art.14(j) is not relevant to this query but so far, issuing bank has relied on this specific art to grind out unbelievable arguments to support their case which i failed to understand.

Regards
Yat

[NigelHolt]

But the last sentence of 14(j) makes clear that:
1. the 'address' and 'contact details' are two different things and:
2. it is not mandatory, under UCP 600, for either the adddress or contact details of the applicant to appear as consignee or notify party.

Thus, by relying on 14(j) the issuing bank is 'shooting itself in the foot'.

[DanielD]

Jeremy,

I would not like to be a bore but
14(j) states:"contact details stated AS PART of B's and the A's address". Therefore it seems that 14r(j) somehow reckons that phone and fax number may be regarded as part of the address.
In my opinion it could be so in the case at issue.
Daniel

[NigelHolt]

Daniel,

I could understand how someone who read this sentence in isolation could possibly arrive at such a judgement. However, to me it is plain –when taken in the context of the whole sub-Article and the meaning of the word ‘address’ when used in the context of a company’s address- that this sentence is saying that just because contact details are included with (and therefore seemingly as ‘part of’) an address this does not in fact make them part of the address and in fact they are not.

Regards, Jeremy

[DanielD]

Jeremy,
It might be so but I do not think I would take the risk to accept the B/L without the fax and phone in the notify. These days, some banks use every excuse in the book to reject the documents and there more and more "interpretative" reasons to reject them.
Daniel

[NigelHolt]

Daniel,

I certainly understand the common problem in 'export' documentary credit operations of knowing what is right but also knowing that the issuing bank probably does not.

Regards, Jeremy