Being the Issuing Bank we have received a set of documents reported in order. The DC calls for presentation of Commercial Invoice (to be issued by the Beneficiary)in one original. However documents we've got appeared to be an invoice plus two carbon copies issued on blue and red paper, each of the above
bearing neither original stamp of the issuing party, nor original signature by hand. The invoice seems to be produced by a computerised system.
Formally, we are to reject the documents with reference to Sub-Articles 20(b) and (c) (ii) UCP500 since the word "Original" missing.
On the other hand Official ICC Banking Commission Opinions (see R216 from the 95-96 Queries) reads:
QUOTE
An original document may be originally handwritten or originally typed document. A document produced in this manner does not need to be marked as original.
Conclusion
Only original documents which are produced by reprographic, automated or computerised systems or as carbon copies need to be marked as "Original".
UNQUOTE
Please give your valued opinion should we reject the document as non-original and what does ORIGINALLY TYPED DOCUMENT mean.
Thank you in advance,
Sergey Fedotov, Russia
________________________________________
Dear T.O.Lee,
The puprose of my posting was not to discuss matters concerning copies. According to the L/C terms one Original Invoice is required. As per UCP Article 13 "Documents not stipulated in the Credit will not be examined by banks. If they receive such documents, they shall return them to the presenter or pass them on without responsibility".
As concerned to how my Invoice was issued -
we take a peprinted invoice form comprising three attached self-copied sheets - white, blue and red and place it together (one below another) into the dot matrix printer. Then we print invoice text on the first one, others completed automatically through the first one. No carbon paper needed.
Now the question is: which of the documents is ORIGINALLY TYPED?
The most urgent topic -
could the above invoice (NOT duly signed, NOT stamped, NOT bearing "original" mark") be taken up as original or not.
With best regards,
Sergey Fedotov, Russia
[edited 8/15/02 7:47:38 AM: Post Reply button doesn't function]
Does an original document need to bear a mark "Original"?
-
SergeyFedotov
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:18 pm
Does an original document need to bear a mark "Original"?
Dear SergeyFedotov
Please clarify what do you mean by "carbon" copies of an (original) invoice made by a "computerized" system.
We understand that when we use a computer to make copies we don’t not need to use "carbon paper" (for duplication purpose). We use carbon paper only with manual or electric typewriters, such as the famous “Underwood” mechanical typewriter that I used in my childhood (my age may be exposed but I don’t mind this). I still keep my IBM electric typewriter to fill up forms. This is more convenient than with a computer.
T. O.
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/14/02 5:56:58 PM]
Please clarify what do you mean by "carbon" copies of an (original) invoice made by a "computerized" system.
We understand that when we use a computer to make copies we don’t not need to use "carbon paper" (for duplication purpose). We use carbon paper only with manual or electric typewriters, such as the famous “Underwood” mechanical typewriter that I used in my childhood (my age may be exposed but I don’t mind this). I still keep my IBM electric typewriter to fill up forms. This is more convenient than with a computer.
T. O.
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/14/02 5:56:58 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Does an original document need to bear a mark "Original"?
Sergey,
welcome to the discussion forum.
When a document such as you describe is issued, the stationery used is usually identifiable as emanating from the company issuing it only. In this case, it may be identifiable as original, as the top copy of a set of documents printed on a dot matrix printer is clearly identifiable (ironically because of the poor print quality) as original, not only because of the difference compared to the two other copies, but also because it may be possible to identify the nature of the print from the dots. The copies tend to be blurred somewhat, making it more difficult to determine if a printer or typewriter was used.
If you have examined copies, what allowed you to make the decision that they were copies ? You are likely to have decided that the fact that these are carbonated or self carbonated copies is sufficient to make this decision. If so, it follows that an original was typed/printed and that the copies were underneath. Therefore if one of these appears to be an original and if superimposed over the copies matches exactly, then this is evidence of an original.
The issue of not examining copies not called for under the credit is not to be taken literally. In order to decide if these documents are called for in the credit, you would have to examine them, even if only superficially.
Laurence
[edited 8/19/02 9:12:27 AM]
welcome to the discussion forum.
When a document such as you describe is issued, the stationery used is usually identifiable as emanating from the company issuing it only. In this case, it may be identifiable as original, as the top copy of a set of documents printed on a dot matrix printer is clearly identifiable (ironically because of the poor print quality) as original, not only because of the difference compared to the two other copies, but also because it may be possible to identify the nature of the print from the dots. The copies tend to be blurred somewhat, making it more difficult to determine if a printer or typewriter was used.
If you have examined copies, what allowed you to make the decision that they were copies ? You are likely to have decided that the fact that these are carbonated or self carbonated copies is sufficient to make this decision. If so, it follows that an original was typed/printed and that the copies were underneath. Therefore if one of these appears to be an original and if superimposed over the copies matches exactly, then this is evidence of an original.
The issue of not examining copies not called for under the credit is not to be taken literally. In order to decide if these documents are called for in the credit, you would have to examine them, even if only superficially.
Laurence
[edited 8/19/02 9:12:27 AM]
Does an original document need to bear a mark "Original"?
I would have thought you would find your answer in ‘The determination of an "Original" document in the context of UCP 500 sub-Article 20(b)’, the Commission on Banking Technique and Practice ‘decision’ of 12 July 1999 which ‘emphasizes the need to correctly interpret and apply sub-Article 20(b) of UCP 500.’, particularly section 4 ‘What is not an "Original"?’
Based on the information you provide and the contents of the ‘decision’ I am struggling to see how the invoice could be considered as anything other than ‘original’.
Based on the information you provide and the contents of the ‘decision’ I am struggling to see how the invoice could be considered as anything other than ‘original’.