Dear Daniel,
First of all – this is of course an abstract example to illustrate the point, but the LC would never be drafted like this. It would stipulate 4 different documents – and following the wording of para 44 – combining them would be acceptable. In any case I can not find anything to the effect that the documents should be “somehow similar”. Just as I can not find anywhere where it says that the function required should be the “main function”.
Best regards
Kim
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Think perhaps that I should ”refine” my statement above by saying – that even though it is the function of the document that is of primary importance, then the document – if titled – must bear a similar title (ISBP, para 43).
Which in my mind means that:
* For the Annex 111 form – it could of course be argued whether or not this is in fact a “similar title”. (Based on Peters last posting it would in any case seem as if this document is in fact used to certify origin of the goods, in which case, I would be reluctant to refuse based on that – but I guess that you would need to see the document as a whole)
* For the combined documents – I would not have a problem if a document was titled “invoice & certificate of origin & packing list & beneficiaries certificate” – as it then would signal four separate functions – provided of course that the correct number of documents were presented, and that the requirements for all four documents are complied with (I am not saying that this is a logic approach – or for that matter a good idea).
It is good that you have solved the case Peter – and in any case it is the far best solution that the LC calls for the document actually to be presented.
Best regards
Kim
Which in my mind means that:
* For the Annex 111 form – it could of course be argued whether or not this is in fact a “similar title”. (Based on Peters last posting it would in any case seem as if this document is in fact used to certify origin of the goods, in which case, I would be reluctant to refuse based on that – but I guess that you would need to see the document as a whole)
* For the combined documents – I would not have a problem if a document was titled “invoice & certificate of origin & packing list & beneficiaries certificate” – as it then would signal four separate functions – provided of course that the correct number of documents were presented, and that the requirements for all four documents are complied with (I am not saying that this is a logic approach – or for that matter a good idea).
It is good that you have solved the case Peter – and in any case it is the far best solution that the LC calls for the document actually to be presented.
Best regards
Kim
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Dear all,
I love these debates.
First of all let overview ISBP's art.43: "whether titled "packing note","packing and weight list",etc or an untitled document."The word PACKING it is stated under all titles quoted. Is the word that relates the title of the document presented to the title of the document required also indicating the required content of the document. ISBP doesn't state that WEIGHT LIST is similar to PACKING LIST.
I would accept a weight list presented i/o packing list as long as indicates the packing. But I also think that someone,somewhere, wouldn't.
Re combined document I often met as follow:
" commercial invoice must evidence:
-goods origin
-packing
-certify that (bla-bla-bla)"
I never met as indicated by Kim (and I hope I'll never meet because I'm sure the bnf will ask which is the title of the document).
Regards,
Bogdan
I love these debates.
First of all let overview ISBP's art.43: "whether titled "packing note","packing and weight list",etc or an untitled document."The word PACKING it is stated under all titles quoted. Is the word that relates the title of the document presented to the title of the document required also indicating the required content of the document. ISBP doesn't state that WEIGHT LIST is similar to PACKING LIST.
I would accept a weight list presented i/o packing list as long as indicates the packing. But I also think that someone,somewhere, wouldn't.
Re combined document I often met as follow:
" commercial invoice must evidence:
-goods origin
-packing
-certify that (bla-bla-bla)"
I never met as indicated by Kim (and I hope I'll never meet because I'm sure the bnf will ask which is the title of the document).
Regards,
Bogdan
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Pleae do NOT read anything into the ISBP paragraph 43 "whether titled "packing note","packing and weight list",etc or an untitled document." We gave examples and did NOT mean to imply that it was specific with anything to do with "packing".
Don Smith, Co-Chair, ISBP Task Force
Don Smith, Co-Chair, ISBP Task Force
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Mr. Smith,
Thank you for clarification.
Best regards,
Bogdan
Thank you for clarification.
Best regards,
Bogdan
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
I should also have pointed out that there is something I do not like with "similar title", untitled" (despite the fact I try to make the best of it). It is because of the famous sentence which is still quoted in many legal cases: "There is no room in a documentary credit for documents which are almost the same or which will do as well."
Is it still valid?
Daniel
Is it still valid?
Daniel
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
I think 600's art.14d and f answer to our debate.
Data content must reflect the title of the document and the purpose it is issued for.
We cannot always know the legal or commercial reason the applicant ask for a specific document to be presented. I'm sure that sometimes presentation of a different document, even if indicating a similar information, may raise some problems for the applicant. May be the applicant needs exactly the document required under l/c and no other one can replace its function. We're not in the posision to establish if a document can or cannot replace the one asked for.
Regards,
Bogdan
Data content must reflect the title of the document and the purpose it is issued for.
We cannot always know the legal or commercial reason the applicant ask for a specific document to be presented. I'm sure that sometimes presentation of a different document, even if indicating a similar information, may raise some problems for the applicant. May be the applicant needs exactly the document required under l/c and no other one can replace its function. We're not in the posision to establish if a document can or cannot replace the one asked for.
Regards,
Bogdan
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Bogdan,
That's the point. If an applicant needs a certificate of origin called "certificate of origin" for whatever reason, the bank will have to accept a document with a similar title and so on. So will poor applicant to specify "a certificate of origin called certificate of origin" and so overburden the credit? On the other hand, if a judge says "black" and a private rule says "white" what will prevail? It the same way, with the infamous "originals",, we have a decision but also legal cases. Again, what will prevail if a similar "thing" happens?
Any opinion?
Daniel
That's the point. If an applicant needs a certificate of origin called "certificate of origin" for whatever reason, the bank will have to accept a document with a similar title and so on. So will poor applicant to specify "a certificate of origin called certificate of origin" and so overburden the credit? On the other hand, if a judge says "black" and a private rule says "white" what will prevail? It the same way, with the infamous "originals",, we have a decision but also legal cases. Again, what will prevail if a similar "thing" happens?
Any opinion?
Daniel
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
I started this one so I had better finish it. In this particular case only an AnnexIII will do. If they produce anything else the customs could impose extra duties on the shipment. Document checkers are not required to be familiar with EU Law, but if the applicant asks for a particular form, my view is that we should word the l/c to make sure thats what he gets.
We add a clause to our L/c's to the effect that presenting a GSP form A when a certificate of Origin is asked for is not OK.
Regards
Peter
We add a clause to our L/c's to the effect that presenting a GSP form A when a certificate of Origin is asked for is not OK.
Regards
Peter
'ANNEX 111 FORM'
Dear Daniel,
Is not a problem of judge saying "black" and rules saying "white". The problem is when bank says "black"(or even "grey") and the rules say "white".
The judge join the show when our understanding isn't the right one.
I remember Dion's song "think twice". We always have to think twice.
We must not give legal cases a higher importance than to UCP.We shall end giving more attn to such cases than to the rules.And isn't ok to do so.
I end here wishing the best to all.
Bogdan
Is not a problem of judge saying "black" and rules saying "white". The problem is when bank says "black"(or even "grey") and the rules say "white".
The judge join the show when our understanding isn't the right one.
I remember Dion's song "think twice". We always have to think twice.
We must not give legal cases a higher importance than to UCP.We shall end giving more attn to such cases than to the rules.And isn't ok to do so.
I end here wishing the best to all.
Bogdan