Photocopy of original BL

[ANH TUYETL]

I am looking forward to receiving opinions on the following case:
L/C required in Field 46A: "Photocopy of original bill of lading made out to order of applicant, marked ''freight payable in Hongkong'', must specify the name of loading port and discharging port''
.
We presented photocopy of original BL satisfying the above conditions of LC. However, Issuing bank refused the docs, raising the discrepancy ''photocopy of original BL not showing name of carrier''.
.
We strongly disagree with the IB and reply that the discrepancy is invalid for the reason that photocopy of original BL is copy BL, and therefore, under ISBP para 20: Copies of transport documents are not transport documents for the purpose of UCP600 articles 19-25 and sub-article 14(c). If The IB wants photocopy of original BL to show carrier's name, it must must explicitly state that detail
.
Until now, Issuing bank have not replied to us. Pls let me have your opinions on this issue.
.
Thanks and regards
Tuyet (Ms)

[edited 10/29/2010 7:36:35 AM]

[asamaha]

Since carrier's name must appear on the original BL, therefore, its photocopy must reflect this detail without need to ask for it in the LC.
Regards
Antoine

[ANH TUYETL]

Photocopy of original BL is not ''original BL'', hence, it will not be checked under UCP600, art.20. As a result, it is not necessary to bear such requirements as showing carrier's name, port of loading, etc, except when the credit expressly states so.
.
Furthermore, in case original B/L bear carrier's name, but then the carrier's name is deleted for some reasons (for example) and the corrected BL is photocopied. Apparently, we can not check that photocopy BL against art 20 to find out carrier's name.
.
In conclusion, I do think that ''photocopy of original BL'' is never considered ''original BL'', therefore, it can not be checked against art.20. Pls give your comments whether my thought is in accordance with UCP and int'l banking practice.

[edited 11/1/2010 1:21:45 AM]
[edited 11/1/2010 3:34:25 AM]

[NigelHolt]

Ms. Tuyet, you are 100% correct and -given the clear wording of ISBP681 para 20- it is a disgrace that the IB has raised this discrepancy.
[edited 11/2/2010 6:46:34 PM]