endorsment of attachment to b/l

[Maria]

B/L blank endorsed was required under l/c.
Among other documents B/L was presented together with the attachement. B/L was endorsed correclty, attachement - without endorsment.
The issuing bank raised discrepancy that the endorsment on attachement to B/L is missing.
Was the discrepany jusified?

Thanks for your advise.

[larryBacon]

Welcome to the Discussion Forum Maria !

Your question depends on the relationship between the attachment & B/L. If there is evidence in the B/L proper that the attachment forms a part of the B/L, additional endorsement is not required. The L/C checker would have to be satisfied that the attachment is genuine, but that does not seem to be in question here.

Laurence

[JudithAutié]

Hi Maria, and welcome.

I would also like to refer to para. 30 in the ISBP which seems to me to give a clear reply that only one signature is needed -- of course providing that the attachment can be recognised as being authentic and does not itself require a signature to be valid (which I've never seen yet, but who knows what will be invented by some fertile mind).

Regards
Judith

P.S. Note for Jeremy : Altho I agree with you that sometimes various publications of the banking commission seem to have been thrust down our throats like goose are force fed, I must admit that the ISBP have helped me help my customers (and avoid some nasties with one or two of my correspondents). There is always room for improvement, since no one is perfect, but if a tool can help to handle 90% of the issues, I figure that's a pretty good tool. We shall now have to see if the 90% mark is attained.

Regards
Judith

[larryBacon]

I agree with Judith's comments. Para. 29 of ISBP also supports this view.

Laurence

[NigelHolt]

Judith,

Glad to hear ISBP is proving of use. I share your sentiments regarding it.

Jeremy