Credit has given the full address & country of bene. Docs presented e.g.invoices only listed the bene's address but omitted the country
Is it a discrepancy?
Beneficiary's address omitting country
-
yenfongmoo
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:22 pm
-
PGauntlett
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
Beneficiary's address omitting country
We have London near Toronto as well.
If you look at the map, you would find many places with identical names. So without naming the country, it is difficult to ascertain whether the "right" place is named.
For example we have Vancouver in Canada as well as in USA, and these two Vancouvers are quite near, all at the west side of North America.
To name more examples, we have Alexandria in Egypt and USA, Albany in Australia and USA, Baltimore in Ireland and USA, Barcelona in Spain and Venezuela, Bath in England, Netherlands and USA, Beaufort in North and South Carolina USA, Belfast in Ireland and USA, Boston in USA and England, Brighton in England and Trinidad, Bristol in England and USA, Brooklyn in USA and Canada, Chatham in England, Alaska, Canada, and Massachusetts, Chester in England, Canada and USA, Dartmouth in England and Canada, Darwin in Australia and Falkland Islands, Georgetown in USA, Canada, St. Vincent, St. Helena, Malaysia and Guyana, Gloucester in England, Massachusetts and New Jersey, Hamilton in Bermuda and Canada, Hastings in England and Australia, Kingston in Canada, USA, Australia and Jamaica, Lagos in Nigeria, Greece and Portugal, Liverpool in Engalnd and Canada, Manchester in England and USA, Newcastle in England, Ireland, Canada and Australia, Newport in England, Ireland, Rhode Island, Oregon, Dyfed and Gwent, Perth in Austalia and Scotland, Plymouth in England, USA, Montserrat and Tobago, Portland in England, Australia, New Zealand, Oregon and Maine, Portsmouth in England, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Virginia and Dominica, Richmond in California and Virginia, San Jose in Costa Rica, Guatemala and Philippines, San Juan in Puerto Rico, Equatorial Guinea and Peru, Santa Cruz in USA, Luzon Island and Marinduque Island, Santiago in Chile and Cape Verde Islands, Scarborough in England and Trinidad, Sydney in Australia and Canada, Toledo in USA and Philippines, Victoria in Australia, British Columbia, Cameroon, Guinea, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Prince Edward Island, Windsor in Nova Scotia and Ontario, Canada, so on and so forth.
If you were not bored to death with these names of popular sea ports, I would have added more to this list.
I am from www.tolee.com
[edited 6/13/01 10:42:39 PM]
If you look at the map, you would find many places with identical names. So without naming the country, it is difficult to ascertain whether the "right" place is named.
For example we have Vancouver in Canada as well as in USA, and these two Vancouvers are quite near, all at the west side of North America.
To name more examples, we have Alexandria in Egypt and USA, Albany in Australia and USA, Baltimore in Ireland and USA, Barcelona in Spain and Venezuela, Bath in England, Netherlands and USA, Beaufort in North and South Carolina USA, Belfast in Ireland and USA, Boston in USA and England, Brighton in England and Trinidad, Bristol in England and USA, Brooklyn in USA and Canada, Chatham in England, Alaska, Canada, and Massachusetts, Chester in England, Canada and USA, Dartmouth in England and Canada, Darwin in Australia and Falkland Islands, Georgetown in USA, Canada, St. Vincent, St. Helena, Malaysia and Guyana, Gloucester in England, Massachusetts and New Jersey, Hamilton in Bermuda and Canada, Hastings in England and Australia, Kingston in Canada, USA, Australia and Jamaica, Lagos in Nigeria, Greece and Portugal, Liverpool in Engalnd and Canada, Manchester in England and USA, Newcastle in England, Ireland, Canada and Australia, Newport in England, Ireland, Rhode Island, Oregon, Dyfed and Gwent, Perth in Austalia and Scotland, Plymouth in England, USA, Montserrat and Tobago, Portland in England, Australia, New Zealand, Oregon and Maine, Portsmouth in England, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Virginia and Dominica, Richmond in California and Virginia, San Jose in Costa Rica, Guatemala and Philippines, San Juan in Puerto Rico, Equatorial Guinea and Peru, Santa Cruz in USA, Luzon Island and Marinduque Island, Santiago in Chile and Cape Verde Islands, Scarborough in England and Trinidad, Sydney in Australia and Canada, Toledo in USA and Philippines, Victoria in Australia, British Columbia, Cameroon, Guinea, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Prince Edward Island, Windsor in Nova Scotia and Ontario, Canada, so on and so forth.
If you were not bored to death with these names of popular sea ports, I would have added more to this list.
I am from www.tolee.com
[edited 6/13/01 10:42:39 PM]
-
PGauntlett
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
Beneficiary's address omitting country
I'm not sure whether T.O.Lee is agrreing or disagreeing but, just to reiterate, there should be no way that a bank could reject docs on the basis of the invoice omitting name of country.
Beneficiary's address omitting country
To answer the query from Mr. Gauntlett, the document examiner has to use simple common sense in determination of discrepancies.
We would like to give some examples here to illustrate what we mean.
An LC covers a purchase of crude oil for shipment by charter party BL from London, England to New York, USA. The beneficiary's address in the invoice has omitted "England". The charter party BL shows only port of loading as "London" (omitting "England") and the chartered vessel is a ULCC (Ultra Large Crude Carrier) named "Hercules ULCC No. 1". Simple common sense tells us that it is not possible for a ULCC to navigate to or from the other "London" in Canada, which is a small town near Toronto along a small inland waterway connected to Lake St. Clair between Lake Erie and Lake Huron. Hence the "London" on the charter party BL must be the "London" in England. In this case the omission of "England" in the charter party and/or the invoice should not be deemed as a discrepancy.
Let us take another example. This time an LC covers furniture from London, Canada to New York, USA, asking for a truck waybill for delivery by cross country container road haulage. The beneficiary's address in the invoice has omitted "Canada". The truck waybill shows only "London" (omitting "Canada") providing other transport details such as container No. and seal No. Simple common sense tells us that it is not possible that the goods are coming from the other "London" in England by road haulage. Hence omission of "Canada" in the truck waybill and/or the invoice should not be deemed as a discrepancy.
In the above two examples, the document examiner should not raise doubts that the delivery is fraudulent because a fraudster should not be so stupid to leave such an obvious "footprint" in the documents. From our experience in dealing with real fraudulent transport documents, the "footprints" are more subtle and not easy to identify, unless the document examiner has in-depth knowledge on that particular trade, and also familiarised with transport and insurance practices, further aided by common sense.
Let us look at a third example. An LC covers fibre optics products from London, Canada to New York, USA, asking for air waybill. The beneficiary's address in the invoice has omitted "Canada". The air waybill shows only "London" (omitting "Canada"). Simple common sense tells us that it is possible to airfreight this hi tech product from Lodnon, England as well as from London, Canada. In this case the document examiner cannot ascertain from the face of the air waybill whether the airport of departure is the "London" in Canada or the "London" in England. If the other accompanying documents cannot provide any clue to indicate that the "London" should be in Canada, then the omission of "Canada" in the air waybill and/or the invoice should be deemed as a discrepancy.
If the name of the place/sea port/airport has no identical name in other countries, then omission of the name of the country should not be deemed as a discrepancy.
Hence, referring to the query from Mr. Yenfong Woo of Malaysia, we have to see the real documents before we can give a definite answer. It all depends.
Determination of discrepancies is a very professional task and it needs knowledge and experience in a wide range of industries in order to do a good job. Shall we say that determination of discrepancies is an art by itself.
We are from www.tolee.com
[edited 2/2/02 6:40:08 PM]
We would like to give some examples here to illustrate what we mean.
An LC covers a purchase of crude oil for shipment by charter party BL from London, England to New York, USA. The beneficiary's address in the invoice has omitted "England". The charter party BL shows only port of loading as "London" (omitting "England") and the chartered vessel is a ULCC (Ultra Large Crude Carrier) named "Hercules ULCC No. 1". Simple common sense tells us that it is not possible for a ULCC to navigate to or from the other "London" in Canada, which is a small town near Toronto along a small inland waterway connected to Lake St. Clair between Lake Erie and Lake Huron. Hence the "London" on the charter party BL must be the "London" in England. In this case the omission of "England" in the charter party and/or the invoice should not be deemed as a discrepancy.
Let us take another example. This time an LC covers furniture from London, Canada to New York, USA, asking for a truck waybill for delivery by cross country container road haulage. The beneficiary's address in the invoice has omitted "Canada". The truck waybill shows only "London" (omitting "Canada") providing other transport details such as container No. and seal No. Simple common sense tells us that it is not possible that the goods are coming from the other "London" in England by road haulage. Hence omission of "Canada" in the truck waybill and/or the invoice should not be deemed as a discrepancy.
In the above two examples, the document examiner should not raise doubts that the delivery is fraudulent because a fraudster should not be so stupid to leave such an obvious "footprint" in the documents. From our experience in dealing with real fraudulent transport documents, the "footprints" are more subtle and not easy to identify, unless the document examiner has in-depth knowledge on that particular trade, and also familiarised with transport and insurance practices, further aided by common sense.
Let us look at a third example. An LC covers fibre optics products from London, Canada to New York, USA, asking for air waybill. The beneficiary's address in the invoice has omitted "Canada". The air waybill shows only "London" (omitting "Canada"). Simple common sense tells us that it is possible to airfreight this hi tech product from Lodnon, England as well as from London, Canada. In this case the document examiner cannot ascertain from the face of the air waybill whether the airport of departure is the "London" in Canada or the "London" in England. If the other accompanying documents cannot provide any clue to indicate that the "London" should be in Canada, then the omission of "Canada" in the air waybill and/or the invoice should be deemed as a discrepancy.
If the name of the place/sea port/airport has no identical name in other countries, then omission of the name of the country should not be deemed as a discrepancy.
Hence, referring to the query from Mr. Yenfong Woo of Malaysia, we have to see the real documents before we can give a definite answer. It all depends.
Determination of discrepancies is a very professional task and it needs knowledge and experience in a wide range of industries in order to do a good job. Shall we say that determination of discrepancies is an art by itself.
We are from www.tolee.com
[edited 2/2/02 6:40:08 PM]