We need your comments about the case a/f. F46A of L/C required:
1. C/O issued by competent authority in 1 copy.
2. Ben's cert confirming that 1 original C/O, 2 original Inv, 2 original P/L have been sent to the applicant by DHL within 7 days after shipment date.
The ben presented 01 original C/O and ben's cert certify as LC required to the issuing bank.
But the IB found discrepancy: 01 original C/O presented I/O 1 copy (original C/O should be sent to applicant's address by DHL as per F46A).
As per ISBP C/O must be presented at least 1 original to IB and ben's cert have comply with L/C required. So according to us the discrepancy is invalid.
Prensented C/O
Prensented C/O
Certificates of origin are not necessarily issued in just one original, based on the criteria for an original document set out in UCP600. (ISBP681 para 28 may be relevant here too.) Therefore, it is quite possible to have a certificate of origin in more than one original. As a result, it is not impossible to have one original certificate of origin forwarded to the applicant and one original certificate of origin presented under the credit. Therefore, for the beneficiary to (A) say that they have forwarded an original certificate of origin to the applicant and (B) present an original certificate of origin under the credit is not, as a result, necessarily contradictory.
Should the issuing bank argue that by “C/O issued by competent authority in 1 copy” they meant the document had to be a ‘copy’ rather than an ‘original’:
1. sub-Article 17(d) and
2. ISBP681 para 30, especially (a),
may be pointed out to them
Lastly, I do not understand the basis for your statement that “As per ISBP C/O must [automatically] be presented at least 1 original to IB” as I can see nothing in ISBP to justify it. Certainly, in the specific circumstances of this credit, I would have regard presentation of a ‘copy’ certificate of origin as being compliant.
[edited 1/14/2011 9:39:20 AM]
Should the issuing bank argue that by “C/O issued by competent authority in 1 copy” they meant the document had to be a ‘copy’ rather than an ‘original’:
1. sub-Article 17(d) and
2. ISBP681 para 30, especially (a),
may be pointed out to them
Lastly, I do not understand the basis for your statement that “As per ISBP C/O must [automatically] be presented at least 1 original to IB” as I can see nothing in ISBP to justify it. Certainly, in the specific circumstances of this credit, I would have regard presentation of a ‘copy’ certificate of origin as being compliant.
[edited 1/14/2011 9:39:20 AM]
Prensented C/O
Hello;
According to para 30 (a) of ISBP, "C/O issued by competent authority in 1 copy" will be understood to be a requirement for a presentation of an original C/O.
On the other hand, there is no international practice that allows a C/O to be issued in 1 original only.
Based on the above facts the discrepancy raised by the issuing bank is invalid.
Regards.
According to para 30 (a) of ISBP, "C/O issued by competent authority in 1 copy" will be understood to be a requirement for a presentation of an original C/O.
On the other hand, there is no international practice that allows a C/O to be issued in 1 original only.
Based on the above facts the discrepancy raised by the issuing bank is invalid.
Regards.
-
GlennRansier_
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Prensented C/O
Not a discrepancy. I'd refer the issuer to ISPB paragragh 31 - Where an original would not be accepted in lieu of a copy, the credit must prohibit an original, e.g., "photocopy of invoice - original document not acceptable in lieu of photocopy", or the like.
Prensented C/O
Absolutely agree with you Glenn...