Under 16 c (iii)(a), the documents are held at the disposal of the presenter and their instructions are awaited. Under this clause the documents cannot be released to applicant, if it is accepted by applicant. However under article (b) , documents can be released to applicant, without referring back to the presenter, if no further instructions are received from the presenter, before acceptance and release . In my view the issuing bank has combined both articles- a & b.
regards
Article 16(c) (iii)
Article 16(c) (iii)
I would highlight the fact that under 16(c)(iii)(b), by virtue of its terms, the documents ARE held ‘at the risk and disposal’ (to quote the words from the refusal in question) of the presenter until such time as the issuing bank either (1) receives a waiver from the applicant and agrees to accept it or (2) receives further instructions from the presenter prior to agreeing to accept a waiver.
It appears to me quite clear that the issuing bank is simply saying that it is “HOLDING THE DOCUMENTS AT OUR COUNTER” until such time, if any, that the “THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS YOUR DISCPREPANT DOCUMENTS” in which case “WE WILL RELEASE THEM WITHOUT FURTHER REFER[ence] TO YOU UNLESS WE RECEIVE YOUR CONTRARY INSTRUCTIONS BEFOREHAND”.
This seems to me to be in line with 16(c)(iii)(b) and therefore I cannot see any obvious contradiction between the first and second paragraphs of the refusal notice quoted. However, I am quite willing to recognise that I could be wrong.
P.S. I do struggle to understand why any bank would not simply use the exact language found in 16(c)(iii) so as to avoid this sort of problem.
[edited 7/5/2011 12:06:15 PM]
It appears to me quite clear that the issuing bank is simply saying that it is “HOLDING THE DOCUMENTS AT OUR COUNTER” until such time, if any, that the “THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS YOUR DISCPREPANT DOCUMENTS” in which case “WE WILL RELEASE THEM WITHOUT FURTHER REFER[ence] TO YOU UNLESS WE RECEIVE YOUR CONTRARY INSTRUCTIONS BEFOREHAND”.
This seems to me to be in line with 16(c)(iii)(b) and therefore I cannot see any obvious contradiction between the first and second paragraphs of the refusal notice quoted. However, I am quite willing to recognise that I could be wrong.
P.S. I do struggle to understand why any bank would not simply use the exact language found in 16(c)(iii) so as to avoid this sort of problem.
[edited 7/5/2011 12:06:15 PM]
Article 16(c) (iii)
Folks,
Don’t you think when giving “discrepant documents, waiver & notice” under 16 (c) (iii) (b), this corresponding article automatically covers sub-art (a) as well? And if so, then I may support JSMITH version to use the exact language found in the articles, so to avoid confusions.
Please be guided.
Thanks,
Sohail
Don’t you think when giving “discrepant documents, waiver & notice” under 16 (c) (iii) (b), this corresponding article automatically covers sub-art (a) as well? And if so, then I may support JSMITH version to use the exact language found in the articles, so to avoid confusions.
Please be guided.
Thanks,
Sohail