Any one out there come across an 'annex 111' form. Its to do with anti dumping regulations and involves the origin of CRT tubes from the far east.
We have been asked whether we would accept one instead of a C of O on a L/C.
Regards
Peter
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Dear Peter,
I do not know this document unfortunately.
However when examining a “C/O” please refer to ISBP paragraph 196.
So given that the LC does not hold any requirements to the contrary – what you should look for is a document that is signed and dated and certifies the origin of the goods.
So if the Annex 111 form does that … then I would think ok.
Best regards
Kim
I do not know this document unfortunately.
However when examining a “C/O” please refer to ISBP paragraph 196.
So given that the LC does not hold any requirements to the contrary – what you should look for is a document that is signed and dated and certifies the origin of the goods.
So if the Annex 111 form does that … then I would think ok.
Best regards
Kim
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Dear Peter,
Dear Kim,
Even if based on ISBP art.196 "annex 111" should be accepted i/o certificate/origin as long as evidence the origin of the goods, I wouldn't accept it because is other document than the one required under l/c.
I often met the following case:
l/c asking for c/origin and EUR1 presented instead.
Both are evidencing the origin of the goods (EUR1 has box No.4 titled "country or group of countries the goods are considered originated from") but always the issuing bank rejected the EUR1. I repeat:always".
I wondered why. May be because of the different scopes the two docs are issued for: EUR1 is in fact a movement certificate and not a certificate of origin.May be the same case you may apply to "annex 111".What is it issued for ? What does it certify? Does it certify the origin of the goods or someting else ( goods origin being shown just as an additional information).
Otherwise, I should accept (almost)any document showing the origin of the goods.
Dear Kim,
Even if based on ISBP art.196 "annex 111" should be accepted i/o certificate/origin as long as evidence the origin of the goods, I wouldn't accept it because is other document than the one required under l/c.
I often met the following case:
l/c asking for c/origin and EUR1 presented instead.
Both are evidencing the origin of the goods (EUR1 has box No.4 titled "country or group of countries the goods are considered originated from") but always the issuing bank rejected the EUR1. I repeat:always".
I wondered why. May be because of the different scopes the two docs are issued for: EUR1 is in fact a movement certificate and not a certificate of origin.May be the same case you may apply to "annex 111".What is it issued for ? What does it certify? Does it certify the origin of the goods or someting else ( goods origin being shown just as an additional information).
Otherwise, I should accept (almost)any document showing the origin of the goods.
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Sorry, I forgot to sign.
Best regards,
Bogdan
Best regards,
Bogdan
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Dear all,
I would not accept the 111 thing either.
Bogdan,
I agree with you, according to 196 I could present, say, an additional copy of the invoice certifying the origin of the goods.
So, maybe I am wrong, I think that 196 must be read in conjuntion with 43 (to fulfill the function) and as early as july art.
with 14 f 600 (same wording). For me, "fulfill the function" refers to the main function of a document.
Daniel
I would not accept the 111 thing either.
Bogdan,
I agree with you, according to 196 I could present, say, an additional copy of the invoice certifying the origin of the goods.
So, maybe I am wrong, I think that 196 must be read in conjuntion with 43 (to fulfill the function) and as early as july art.
with 14 f 600 (same wording). For me, "fulfill the function" refers to the main function of a document.
Daniel
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Daniel,
The wording " the function of required document" which you mentioned has been firstly appeared on para 43 of ISBP
with respect to " title of docs". It basicly outlines a practice that docs may be titled by their data contents.
Now this wording has been carried forward in UCP600 in relation to " reviewing docs which credits do not specify their issuer or their data content . I'm really confused how this wording applies in many cases.
How does it apply under such a requirement of doc " quality certificate" ?
How do you determine the function of a required doc which is described just by its title in a credit ?
Do you think that I 'm misinterpreting this wording?
Thanks in advance
Yahya
The wording " the function of required document" which you mentioned has been firstly appeared on para 43 of ISBP
with respect to " title of docs". It basicly outlines a practice that docs may be titled by their data contents.
Now this wording has been carried forward in UCP600 in relation to " reviewing docs which credits do not specify their issuer or their data content . I'm really confused how this wording applies in many cases.
How does it apply under such a requirement of doc " quality certificate" ?
How do you determine the function of a required doc which is described just by its title in a credit ?
Do you think that I 'm misinterpreting this wording?
Thanks in advance
Yahya
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Dear Yahya,
I follow you 100%. The examples given by the ICC is so obvious – like “packing list” – but I have had so many cases where it is very hard to determine whether or not a document fulfils the function required by the credit.
Dear Daniel,
I must say that I would be very reluctant to follow the principle of the “main function” of a document.
E.g. what about ISBP paragraph 44 – based on which you can present a combined “invoice & certificate of origin & packing list & beneficiaries certificate”. What would be the “main function” here?
Best regards & have a nice weekend.
Kim
I follow you 100%. The examples given by the ICC is so obvious – like “packing list” – but I have had so many cases where it is very hard to determine whether or not a document fulfils the function required by the credit.
Dear Daniel,
I must say that I would be very reluctant to follow the principle of the “main function” of a document.
E.g. what about ISBP paragraph 44 – based on which you can present a combined “invoice & certificate of origin & packing list & beneficiaries certificate”. What would be the “main function” here?
Best regards & have a nice weekend.
Kim
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
if LC calls for CO, then want CO - a document certifying to the origin of the goods. Do not know what an Annex 111 is. Suggest look at the ICC Publication "international certificates of origin guidelines"
Don Smith
Don Smith
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Kim,
You can present a combined PL and WL because these documents are somehow similar by their title and their function and it happens that a DC requires: document 2:"-PL and WL"
But I have never seen a DC requiring:
document 2:"-An invoice and a cert. of origin and a packing list and a beneficiaries cert." because these documents are not similar by their title and their function.
Yahya,
In my opinion, if a credit requires a cert. of quality showing "quality x" I will of course accept a cert. called cert. of quality but also a cert. of analysis or a cert. of inspection showing the same because they are simlar to the cert. of quality by their title and function (in other words they are of the same family of documents). But I would not accept a cert. of origin because obviouly it has not a similar title or function, its main function is to show the origin.
Am I digging myself in deeper?
Daniel
You can present a combined PL and WL because these documents are somehow similar by their title and their function and it happens that a DC requires: document 2:"-PL and WL"
But I have never seen a DC requiring:
document 2:"-An invoice and a cert. of origin and a packing list and a beneficiaries cert." because these documents are not similar by their title and their function.
Yahya,
In my opinion, if a credit requires a cert. of quality showing "quality x" I will of course accept a cert. called cert. of quality but also a cert. of analysis or a cert. of inspection showing the same because they are simlar to the cert. of quality by their title and function (in other words they are of the same family of documents). But I would not accept a cert. of origin because obviouly it has not a similar title or function, its main function is to show the origin.
Am I digging myself in deeper?
Daniel
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Hi ever one.
I have finally got to the bottom of this one. An annex is actually the last page (out of 28) of an EU regulation (EC No 1531/2002) and relates to imposing anti dumping duty on CRT Television Tubes imported into the EU. The issue as I see it is that the CRT are imported into Turkey , assembled and imported into the UK.
So the annex 111 is declaring that the origin of the goods is as per the above EU regulation. Customs and the DTI can then determine the correct duty.
Our view at the present time (though we are open to suggestions) should be that the L/C should make reference to the EU regulation and call for the specific document in the form as outlined in EC 1531/2002.
As all parties to the transaction should be aware of the regulations, we should hopefully get something presented that fits the bill.
The goods can be imported , the correct duty paid, and everyone is happy, and we as a bank have done our bit to keep the supply chain moving.
Regards
Peter
I have finally got to the bottom of this one. An annex is actually the last page (out of 28) of an EU regulation (EC No 1531/2002) and relates to imposing anti dumping duty on CRT Television Tubes imported into the EU. The issue as I see it is that the CRT are imported into Turkey , assembled and imported into the UK.
So the annex 111 is declaring that the origin of the goods is as per the above EU regulation. Customs and the DTI can then determine the correct duty.
Our view at the present time (though we are open to suggestions) should be that the L/C should make reference to the EU regulation and call for the specific document in the form as outlined in EC 1531/2002.
As all parties to the transaction should be aware of the regulations, we should hopefully get something presented that fits the bill.
The goods can be imported , the correct duty paid, and everyone is happy, and we as a bank have done our bit to keep the supply chain moving.
Regards
Peter