NDC

[NigelHolt]

I shall be most grateful for the assistance of all those who I have helped on DC-Pro in the past, as well as anyone else who kindly cares to comment.

A credit requires:

PACKING LIST AS PER PURCHASE ORDER NO 2011/2017.

Is 'AS PER PURCHASE ORDER NO 2011/2017' a NDC per 14(h)?

I look forward to reading your views and thank you in advance for providing them.

[DanielD]

Jeremy,

I do not know if it is a NDC or not
and I do not care but I will want on the packing list a notation that it has been issued according to the purchase order in question.
Daniel

[KimChristensen]

Dear Jeremy,

He he – good one.

Since the “AS PER PURCHASE ORDER NO 2011/2017” is stated together with the requirement for the Packing List (I guess under “documents required”) – I would read it as a requirement to be mentioned on the Packing List.

Best regards
Kim

[GlennRansier_olsABN]

Hi Jeremy,
I agree with the majority here. It is tied to a document so I would expect a reference on that a document.
Best Regards

[JudithAutié]

Hi Jeremy

Although I also agree with the majority, what really bothers me is why you would consider it as a NDC.

You certainly have something in the back of your mind, knowing you.

Best
Judith

[JimBarnes]

This is an NDC to be disregarded if interpreted as a condition that requires the issuer to compare the packing list presented under the LC against a purchase order. There is an interpretive question here, assuming that the PO is not a presented document, because the LC term is not clear whether it requires actual comparison with the PO. But I find that interpretation of a short form LC term unpersuasive and doubt that it would qualify as isbp.

I think the isbp interpretation is that the condition requires the issuer to look for a recital in the packing list, absent which, the packing list would not comply.

That said, I have a long history with the NDC rule as it appeared in UCP500, ISP98, the UCC, and arguably the UN LC convention reference to "documentary conditions". I tend to think I know the best way to analyze and answer most NDC questions, but often find that isbp under UCP credits has developed different answers. And UCP600's combining of NDC issues with no conflict rules has left me out in the cold.

Regards, Jim Barnes

[NigelHolt]

Thanks for expressing your views, which I have all read with interest.

Firstly, ”PACKING LIST AS PER PURCHASE ORDER NO 2011/2017” is quoted verbatim from a credit issued by an Indian bank we were asked to advise earlier in the week.

My initial reaction was that this was a NDC, i.e. a condition where the credit does not stipulate the document to indicate compliance with the condition, namely that the PL was 'AS PER PURCHASE ORDER NO 2011/2017'. However after further thought decided it was not but that the UCP should be drafted in such a way that it was (or should that be ‘were’? I am not too hot on the subjunctive as it is little used in English.) or otherwise make the position clear.

What made me pause for thought was that on re-reading 14(h) it seems to be drafted only to cover conditions that do not expressly relate to any document mentioned in the credit. For example, a condition in the ‘additional conditions’ simply stating:
‘Packaging must be suitable for exportation.’

In other words, 14(h) does not appear to be drafted to relate to a condition that clearly relates to a stipulated document, by reason of the drafting of the credit, as in my example above. (I would stress I am not advancing the Position Paper 3 ‘linkage’ argument in any shape or form.) Therefore, as the condition in question clearly relates to a stipulated document it cannot be treated as a NDC.

Also, another interesting argument advanced to me elsewhere is that this should be regarded as simply being the title of the document required. I have to admit I have not been able to come up with a convincing (to me) rebuttal so far to that and as it achieves the desired effect (see below) anyway, it hardly matters.

Overall, I think that the applicant must state the packing list 'AS PER PURCHASE ORDER NO 2011/2017' but that is as far as it goes, i.e. there is certainly not any question of a bank having to establish the PL is actually AS PER PURCHASE ORDER NO 2011/2017.

Lastly, I could well understand some (who have not contributed here) thinking this was self evident from the outset and perhaps it was. Nonetheless, I certainly had to give it some thought.
[edited 2/3/2012 12:21:40 PM]

[GlennRansier_olsABN]

In our business, sometimes you just need to hear a discussion to solidify a thought even if you start with strong views. I have always valued DC-PRO’s forum which allow these discussions. We have had LC's that place document requirements in the SWIFT field titled "additional conditions", etc. versus in the appropriate "documentary requirements" field. NDC logic is not always easily deduced. The usual ICC opinion response is to contact an issuer for clarity but at the same time there is no rule for an advising party to do so.

[asamaha]

Since the clause 'as per PO ...' is stated under the documentary requirements and attached to a specific document, I think it should be interpreted as being the data content of the required document and not an NDC.
Best regards
Antoine

[SladjanaSkakic]

In order to confirm compliance with the L/C requirements I would require
"AS PER PURCHASE ORDER NO 2011/2017" to be mentioned somewhere on the packing list.