*originally posted by Larry Bacon
As with all other mail, original Bs/L received in the post were rubber stamped with the date of receipt. The negotiating bank, however, have taken this as the date of shipment, and being after the latest date for shipment, have rejected the Bs/L.
Does the bank have a right to make this interpretation ?
[edited 9/29/00 4:01:40 PM: none]
[edited 11/2/00 4:16:52 PM by Alexander D Ryan (Moderator): Added user]
Original B/L
Original B/L
*Originally posted by?
I think the bank has no right to make such interpretation
I think the bank has no right to make such interpretation
Original B/L
*Originally posted by ?
Usually, all bills of lading have a column entitled "Date and Place of Issue". Date stamp on any other part of the document should, as far as I concerned, not be considered as date of issue.
Usually, all bills of lading have a column entitled "Date and Place of Issue". Date stamp on any other part of the document should, as far as I concerned, not be considered as date of issue.
Original B/L
*originally posted by Naeem Jan
It depende on the wording of stamp and its position. It the stamp clearly states "received" and the name of receiver, it should be acceptable to the negotiating bank. However, the second consideration is presence of shipped on board stamp. If the stamp is not there (shipped on board in pre-printed form) it maight misled toward the fact that "received dated xx/xx/xx" is a date of receipt of b/l by the stamping authority upon shipment.
Another consideration is customs and practices of such marking.
To establish facts it is imperative to view the original instrument. Therefore, all above suggestions are only opinions.
dragon@fsd.comsats.net.pk
It depende on the wording of stamp and its position. It the stamp clearly states "received" and the name of receiver, it should be acceptable to the negotiating bank. However, the second consideration is presence of shipped on board stamp. If the stamp is not there (shipped on board in pre-printed form) it maight misled toward the fact that "received dated xx/xx/xx" is a date of receipt of b/l by the stamping authority upon shipment.
Another consideration is customs and practices of such marking.
To establish facts it is imperative to view the original instrument. Therefore, all above suggestions are only opinions.
dragon@fsd.comsats.net.pk
Original B/L
Practising as an LC consultant for nine years, I now come to believe that anything can happen in the LC community, such as this query.
I think if the dispute goes to the court, the neogotiating bank should lose, because, as commented by the bankers above, there is a marked difference between a "Received" chop and a "shipped on board" notation.
Certain banks may try to manufacture discrepancies which they know cannot hold. But if the beneficiary does not object strongly, then the bank may avoid heavy financial losses due to an unfortunate situation, such as the bankruptcy of the applicant.
We are from www.tolee.com
[edited 6/20/01 6:45:48 PM]
[edited 10/27/01 9:23:53 PM]
I think if the dispute goes to the court, the neogotiating bank should lose, because, as commented by the bankers above, there is a marked difference between a "Received" chop and a "shipped on board" notation.
Certain banks may try to manufacture discrepancies which they know cannot hold. But if the beneficiary does not object strongly, then the bank may avoid heavy financial losses due to an unfortunate situation, such as the bankruptcy of the applicant.
We are from www.tolee.com
[edited 6/20/01 6:45:48 PM]
[edited 10/27/01 9:23:53 PM]