Refusing discrepancies or refusing MT734

[LNGUYEN1234]

+We, negotiating bank, received MT734 from issuing bank in India with the content as follows:
WE HEREBY INFORM YOU THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE HAVING OVER WRITING AND FLUID MARKING IN DATES.
2. NO CORRECTIONS ARE AUTHORISED BY PUTTING FULL SIGNATURES.
3. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE NOT FULLY AUTHORISED BY SIGNATORIES.
Our LC did not call for any condition of signatures.
In our presented set of documents, only documents issued by the Beneficiary (Invoice, P/L, quantity cert, quality cert…) contain correction stamps with initial signatures (correcting shipment date to same onboard date on B/L).
+ The above MT734 was not within 05 banking days (over 20 days from the receipt date of documents).
Should we refuse the discrepancies or refuse MT734?
Thanks for your kind comments.
Phuong Lan

[AndyHunt]

As you clearly appreciate the issuing bank is precluded from refusing the documents as per sub-article 16f UCP600. Therefore to all intents and purposes the documents comply with the credit terms and the issuing bank simply needs to be reminded of their responsibilities and asked to honour the drawing.

I note that you are not asking for our views as to the validity or otherwise of the discrepancies raised but it is surely prudent to contest any of the discrepancies that you do not agree with to avoid future disputes with that bank, especially if this is a partial drawing (unknown) or if there are likely to be similar credits raised in future that you may be asked to handle.

Andy

[LNGUYEN1234]

Thank Andy,
Our case has become complicated when we were not prudent enough to contest the above mention discrepancies. We have just refused MT734 as per sub-article 16f UCP600 because we think although there is any valid discrepancy in MT734, the issuing bank must be responsible for their payment.
The issuing bank made an argument against the presented date of the documents (ignoring Proof Of Delivery of DHL receipt) and returned documents to us.
On 2 Cover Letters of 2 sets of documents, we found some strange details:
1/ The 1st cover letter: one received stamp was black painted, one stamp was dated 31Jan2014 (DHL tracking date 17Jan2014)
1/ The 2nd cover letter: yellow payment instruction of Wells Fargo was missing (not as original status).
What can we do for further dispute?
Thanks for your kind comments.

Phuong Lan

[LNGUYEN1234]

We are waiting for your expert comments.
Should we now send a message to refuse the discrepancies?

Phuong Lan

[CarmelBorg]

I find it irregular for the issuing bank to state that the applicant has refused the documents, unless of course it was a follow up of an earlier refusal wherein the issuing bank refused the documents, which does not seem to be the case. The applicant is not a party to the credit and the issuing bank should refuse the documents in its own name. This is a clear indication that the issuing bank is not up to standard.
Best regards
Carmel