Airwaybill - original for the consignor

test · Post by **test** » Thu Nov 02, 2000 12:00 am

*originally posted by Leo Cullen

I am an exporter. I have just made a presentation of documents under a letter of credit to a nominated bank. The bank claims a discrepancy as I did not present a full set of air waybills; I presented one air waybill -the original for the consignor. (The credit requested a full set of airwaybills be presented).

Is the bank correct to claim that the documents are discrepent?

test · Post by **test** » Thu Nov 02, 2000 12:00 am

originally posted by Vincent O'Brien

The bank was not correct in claiming a discrepancy in this specic case. UCP 500 Sub-article 27 A (v) specifically states
"(v) appears to be the original for consignor/shipper even if the Credit stipulates a full set of originals, or similar expressions,..."

Presentation of the original for consignor is acceptable in this case.

test · Post by **test** » Thu Nov 02, 2000 12:00 am

*originally posted by Uta Pfeiffer

I fully agree with Mr. O Brien.
You can never ask for a full set of Airway Bill like you can ask for a full set of B/L.
The presentation of the Original Aiwaybill for the consignor
is acceptable.

Uta Pfeiffer/RZB,Vienna,18.8.2000
[edited 11/2/00 3:59:38 PM: Added user]

test · Post by **test** » Thu Nov 02, 2000 12:00 am

*originally posted by ?

The bank was wrong. UCP dictates that. In addition, air waybill is a non-negotiable document. There is no logic for asking the full set.

khalilhamad · Post by **khalilhamad** » Thu Nov 23, 2000 12:00 am

The issuing bank is also "wrong" in calling for a full set of AWB. It appears that some beneficiaries understand UCP better than banks do.
[edited 11/23/00 5:42:31 PM]

RajivGupta · Post by **RajivGupta** » Sun Jan 07, 2001 12:00 am

No. The bank is not correct in asking for the full set of AWB as they are non negotiable documents. The UCP 500 is also explicit about it as already notified. As a matter of fact beneficiaries stipulate set condition like B/L s without realizing the folly & sometimes the L/C opening banks also overlook this.

T.O.Lee · Post by **T.O.Lee** » Fri May 04, 2001 1:00 am

This issuing bank is either careless in or ignorant of air transport operations.

I do not wish to repeat all that being said by others, such as my friend Mr. Vincent O'Brien.

What is the purpose of presenting the whole set of AWB? If the AWB is consigned to the applicant, then the applicant even does not need to present the AWB to claim for the goods upon arrival! He just needs to show his identity to the carrier, same as in a sea waybill, to claim for the goods.

And it is a wrong practice for bankers to endorse on the AWB, which is not endorsable because it is not a negotiable instrument. Yet many bankers do this. Is this a correct banking practice?

The beneficiary also has to check for the content of the LC and amendment, if any, upon receipt, to ensure they are workable, if he wishes to rely on the LC for payment.

I am from www.tolee.com

[edited 5/22/01 3:23:04 PM]
[edited 10/28/01 12:15:29 AM]