Hi,
L/C calls for a commercial invoice but does not request a legalization by any party. The invoices presented by the beneficiary are 1 org, 7 copies. The original carries the legalization (a signature and a stamp) of an Arabic Consulate on the back side and also a handwritten notation in Arabic on the front (not signed on the front). The copies are not legalized and do not have the Arabic notation on the front. The issuing bank argues that the document is discrepant because the notation on the front is not authenticated by the Consulate. Your comments on the issue will be appreciated.
Authentication by the legalizing party
-
NevinErtan
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:23 pm
Authentication by the legalizing party
I am of the opinion that if the L/C did not request legalization by any party, the issue of legalization being improper etc. is irrelevant. No discrepancy.
With best regards,
Pavel Andrle
With best regards,
Pavel Andrle
-
NevinErtan
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:23 pm
Authentication by the legalizing party
Pavel,
Thank your for your prompt reply. My first comment was just like yours. However, what ISBP Art.9 says about that is a bit different. According to this Article, corrections and alterations in docs. legalized must appear to be authenticated by the party who legalized the documents, regardless of existence of a legalization requirement in the l/C. I think the issue here is whether the notation in Arabic on the front should be regarded as a correction/alteration or not. Further comments are wellcome.
Best regards,
Thank your for your prompt reply. My first comment was just like yours. However, what ISBP Art.9 says about that is a bit different. According to this Article, corrections and alterations in docs. legalized must appear to be authenticated by the party who legalized the documents, regardless of existence of a legalization requirement in the l/C. I think the issue here is whether the notation in Arabic on the front should be regarded as a correction/alteration or not. Further comments are wellcome.
Best regards,
Authentication by the legalizing party
Hi
This is my first cotribution to the forum, but before I comment at the issue I would like to know if by any mean you could figure what was written within the arabic stamp at the front page of the invoice, the reason why is that some stamps require explicitly a signature in order to be valid.
Basel Araj
Jordan
[edited 7/11/2004 8:57:42 AM]
This is my first cotribution to the forum, but before I comment at the issue I would like to know if by any mean you could figure what was written within the arabic stamp at the front page of the invoice, the reason why is that some stamps require explicitly a signature in order to be valid.
Basel Araj
Jordan
[edited 7/11/2004 8:57:42 AM]
Authentication by the legalizing party
Without liability/responsibility & in a personal capacity:
I notice para 9 of Pub. 645 covers ‘corrections and alterations of information or data in documents’. Based on the very limited information available I imagine that the ‘Arabic notation’ (presumably on a ‘Roman alphabet’ document) is neither a ‘correction’ nor an ‘alteration’ to the ‘information’ or ‘data’ contained in the invoice. If so, the document would not seem discrepant.
I notice para 9 of Pub. 645 covers ‘corrections and alterations of information or data in documents’. Based on the very limited information available I imagine that the ‘Arabic notation’ (presumably on a ‘Roman alphabet’ document) is neither a ‘correction’ nor an ‘alteration’ to the ‘information’ or ‘data’ contained in the invoice. If so, the document would not seem discrepant.
-
NevinErtan
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:23 pm
Authentication by the legalizing party
Basel
I don't know the meaning of the handwritten notation in Arabic, probably a statement regarding trueness of information given but it is obviously a notation added by the Consulate, given that the copies do not have it.
Jeremy,
The invoices in question are issued in English. I agree with you that the addition in Arabic should not be considered as correction/ alteration and therefore is outside of para.9. I'm making this comment based on the fact that the notation is in Arabic and added by the Consulate. What if the added notation was in English and that notation was required specifically in the credit? Still not a correction/alteration?
I don't know the meaning of the handwritten notation in Arabic, probably a statement regarding trueness of information given but it is obviously a notation added by the Consulate, given that the copies do not have it.
Jeremy,
The invoices in question are issued in English. I agree with you that the addition in Arabic should not be considered as correction/ alteration and therefore is outside of para.9. I'm making this comment based on the fact that the notation is in Arabic and added by the Consulate. What if the added notation was in English and that notation was required specifically in the credit? Still not a correction/alteration?
Authentication by the legalizing party
Nevin,
The question here is whether the notation in Arabic on the doc. requires an authentication or not ?
Could any notation in a language other than the doc's language be considered an alteration
irrespective of what the notation says ?
Assume that we have certificate in English but it also contains a notation in German Langauge
Should we require an authentication from German Consulate ? !!!
I think it is diffucult for the issuing bank to justify the refusal on the ground that you have mentioned.
The question here is whether the notation in Arabic on the doc. requires an authentication or not ?
Could any notation in a language other than the doc's language be considered an alteration
irrespective of what the notation says ?
Assume that we have certificate in English but it also contains a notation in German Langauge
Should we require an authentication from German Consulate ? !!!
I think it is diffucult for the issuing bank to justify the refusal on the ground that you have mentioned.
Authentication by the legalizing party
Nevin, WL/R&IAPC:
1. If the credit stipulated the invoice had to bear a notation made by a specified third party, say the consulate of the issuing bank's country, then I believe it would have to appear to have been made by the consulate. If the notation was on the front and the stamp & signature on the reverse I would consider the document failed to meet this requirement and thus was discrepant.
2. If:
A. the credit stipulated the invoice had to bear a particular statement by the beneficiary, but did not require 'legalisation' of the invoice, but nonetheless the invoice appeared to be legalised;
B. the statement appeared to have been added after the document was issued;
I believe my view would depend on whether the statement appeared to be a correction or alteration of information or data in the invoice.
I would note that para 9 does not refer to the requirements of the credit but the features of the document presented. This would seem to suggest the credit requirements are not relevant to the making of the decision as to whether or not a correction or alteration of information or data in a document requires authentication. Nonetheless, I can well sympathise with the argument that if legalisation is not a requirement of the credit, what has the applicant lost if an alteration is not authenticated on a legalised document?
[edited 7/13/2004 9:57:56 AM]
1. If the credit stipulated the invoice had to bear a notation made by a specified third party, say the consulate of the issuing bank's country, then I believe it would have to appear to have been made by the consulate. If the notation was on the front and the stamp & signature on the reverse I would consider the document failed to meet this requirement and thus was discrepant.
2. If:
A. the credit stipulated the invoice had to bear a particular statement by the beneficiary, but did not require 'legalisation' of the invoice, but nonetheless the invoice appeared to be legalised;
B. the statement appeared to have been added after the document was issued;
I believe my view would depend on whether the statement appeared to be a correction or alteration of information or data in the invoice.
I would note that para 9 does not refer to the requirements of the credit but the features of the document presented. This would seem to suggest the credit requirements are not relevant to the making of the decision as to whether or not a correction or alteration of information or data in a document requires authentication. Nonetheless, I can well sympathise with the argument that if legalisation is not a requirement of the credit, what has the applicant lost if an alteration is not authenticated on a legalised document?
[edited 7/13/2004 9:57:56 AM]