late shipment ?

[NigelHolt]

Yahya,

I would simply observe that if you are correct that this is not a NDC, i.e. it is therefore a 'documentary condition', then a copy trans. doc. that did not show the date of shipment would be automatically discrepant. In other words, it can not be a case of it is alright if the date of shipment is not indicated but if it is it must be on or before the LSD.

Best regards, Jeremy

[AsifMahmoodButt]

UCP and ISBP defines copy as not marked original,labelled copy and need not be signed. It does not say that the data content of the document need not be checked for the requirments in the credit. If a credit calls for a copy of a B/L to be presented to determine shipment details then ART 23 to 26(since these relate to B/ls) could be used to determine Data Content and Function ONLY, depending on the type of B/L copy called for. A copy of a document is useless if there is no data content.
Regards
Jason

[DanielD]

The fact that a copy of B/L is presented after 21 days is not a discrepancy because that makes sense. It will surely not harm the receiver who needs (theoritically) the originals and not the copies. So TA 582 and new article 14 c are OK. On the contrary, a late shipment can surely be harmful. Be the late shipment disclosed by an original or a copy of TD it is in my opinion a discrepancy. We do not just raise discrepancies "pour l'art pour l'art" but to protect the parties, I hope.
Daniel

[AbdulkaderBazara]

The rlative portion in ISBP para 21 may apply when the LC does not provide details. The usual example would be when a standby letter of credit calls for a demand payment / declaration, an invoice marked unpaid & a copy of bill of lading to prove an occurrence of default situation which is required for payment under the standby. In these type of LCs no further details in relation to shipment dates, shipment from / to etc are usually provided.

Here, however, the credit explicitly states the details to be shown on the transport document. It provides the latest shipment date; it may have also provided shipment from / to, freight prepaid etc. This information / data may not be ignored when a copy of bill of lading is called under the LC and thus may not be considered as NDC.

When the LC does not, for example, call for a copy of transport document that provides details stated above, which in this case may be considered as non-documentary condition (NDC), I may accept documents that are silent in regards to the NDC in the LC but I may not accept documents presented that show details in conflict with LC terms and conditions including the NDC.


Regards
Abdulkader

[edited 6/23/2007 10:40:59 AM]

[DanielD]

Jeremy,

If a certificate of origin was requested, would it be a discrepancy?
Daniel

[NigelHolt]

Daniel,

Have to concentrate on UCP600 this week, otherwise I'd have made a further posting by now.

Anyway, I'm sorry do I not understand the context of your question. Perhaps you could clarify it for me to look at when I've got time? Suffice it to say, I look to PP3 and ISBP645 (especially para's 20 & 21) to detemine my approach regarding NDCs.

Regards, Jeremy
[edited 6/27/2007 5:06:36 PM]

[DanielD]

Jeremy,
Yes, not very clear, I was in a hurry (UCP 600). So:
Among the required documents: cert. of origin.
Additional conditions: Origin France
Would you consider this add. condition as aNDC or would you link it with the CoO?
Daniel?

[NigelHolt]

Yes, of course, Daniel because of PP3. However, I cannot see how a LSD can be 'clearly linked' with a requirement for a copy transport document given what the 3rd & 4th sentences of para 21 of ISBP645 says.
[edited 6/29/2007 9:49:18 AM]