inconsistant signed commercial invoice

[Basel]

this time I need your assistance in a case we're facing with one of the local banks in Jordan, the summary is as follows:
a local l/c opened by a local bank in favor of our client who is a Lebanese client has an account with us, the l/c required for only one document" Commercial Invoice issued by Beneficiary".
the following condition was added under field 47B "the required commercial invoice must be issued and signed within the validity of the credit. originals of which must be duly signed by issuers"
nothing else unusual at the l/c.

documents were negotiated by us in full compliance with l/c terms. we received the following rejection from issuing bank:" commercial invoice not signed by issuers"
the commercial invoice was issued by the beneficiary with his letterhead showing name and address( in Jordan) exactly as per l/c terms, and under signature the name mentioned in English correctly and signed and A STAMP WAS PLACED IN ARABIC WITH NAME OF BENEFICIARY BUT THE ADDRESS INSIDE THE STAMP SHOWED BEIRUT-LEBANON.

is the address of the stamp to be considered as discrepancy?
I appreciate your input in the subject.

Basel

[NigelHolt]

Basel,

On the face of it the party shown in the letterheading and the party shown in the stamp is one and the same legal entity. Therefore I cannot see that the difference in addresses justifies the discrepancy "commercial invoice not signed by issuers" (nor any other discrepancy for that matter based on the UCP or the ISBP).

Regards, Jeremy

[edited 10/21/2005 11:07:07 AM]

[Basel]

thanks Jeremy, I appreciate if we can find some sold evidence from UCP or ISBP or any of ICC Banking Commission Quiries.
any suggessions from anyone else.

Basel
[edited 10/21/2005 1:24:26 PM]

[Basel]

Dears,
Kim
Judith
Laurence

your valuable input in this case is highly appreciated.

Basel

[JudithAutié]

How about considering the paragraph 42 of ISBP which clearly says that "a signature on company's letterhead paper will be taken to be the signature of that company...". From your query it does not seem that the issuing bank mentionned a different address in the stamp as the discrepancy, so it's too late for that now.
Hope that helps
Judith

[NigelHolt]

Judith, what happened to the retirement? Still clinging on?
[edited 10/27/2005 9:00:45 AM]

[KimChristensen]

Dear Basel,

Since you ask so direct

I did see your question, and the reason that I did not offer an opinion, was that I did have anything to add. I see no opinions directly addressing this issue. First of all I think it would be relevant to determine if it is in fact the “right” legal entity that signed the document (as Jeremy indicates). To me this also seems to be the case. secondly (as Judith indicates) it may be beneficial to look at the “definition” of “issuer” – where ISBP para. 42 is a good choice. I may add opinion TA.469 to the basket.
In any case, I do not think that this is a valid discrepancy.
I hope this helps you.

Best regards
Kim

[edited 10/27/2005 9:51:49 AM]

[Basel]

thanks Kim,Judith.
to answer you Kim the same lagal entity whom issued the invoice signed it as its a person not a company since the l/c opened in favour of a person who has two addresses.

[POLTERD.]

also see art.25 of isbp.(issuer of documents).there it is stated that "this condition is satisfied if the document appears to be issued by the named person or entity".that means,in my opinion,that the name of the signing party must be the same as stated on the letterhead and under l/c,no matter the addresses stated on the letterhead and on the stamp.i met cases like this but never received a rejection from the issuing bank.

[Basel]

Polterd,
you're right in your analysis and I also went through similiar cases but this is the first time i get a rejection.
thanks anyway.

Basel