Local practice/usage
-
RahimaRazzak
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
Local practice/usage
Our local chamber of commerce certifies/attest documents by affixing their common seal without the words to the effect suggesting certification/attestation. This is contrary to the provisions of Sub Art 20(d) and invariably comes up as a discrepancy. Most local bankers feel that this can be defended on the grounds of local law/usage I feel that to avail this defense the nominated bank needs to go back to the issuing bank and inform it of the local practice/usage, claiming it as a defense once the discrepancy has been raised my be termed as “after the fact”
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Local practice/usage
Your description of the chamber of commerce affixing its seal as a means of certification is common worldwide and does not contravene Article 20d, unless there is specific provision for a particular wording called for in the DC.
-
RahimaRazzak
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
Local practice/usage
sub art 20d suggests that any requirement of authentication,validation,legalisation,
etc will be satisfied by any signature,mark, stamp or label on such document that on its face appears to satisfy the above condition. to my mind the phrase "on its face" suggests the necessity of some words to the effect to show that the document is being legalised/attested/visaed.
In any case I would like to hear the views of my peers on the availabilty of protection in respect of local laws/usage.
etc will be satisfied by any signature,mark, stamp or label on such document that on its face appears to satisfy the above condition. to my mind the phrase "on its face" suggests the necessity of some words to the effect to show that the document is being legalised/attested/visaed.
In any case I would like to hear the views of my peers on the availabilty of protection in respect of local laws/usage.
Local practice/usage
In my opinion it is not necessary in all cases for the signature, label, mark ….etc. to include words to that effect as suggested above to satisfy the above condition on its face. It would depend on the exact L/C condition and document itself. At the end of the day the bank checker must make a decision and be prepared to support that decision.
Pavel Andrle
Pavel Andrle
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Local practice/usage
It is accepted practice that any certificate called for in a L/C must be signed. Thus the signature ALONE certifies the document, without a statement to that effect.
The same is true of documents certified by Chambers of Commerce whereby their stamp, on its face alone, satisfies such requirement in accordance with Articles 20 b and 20 d.
The same is true of documents certified by Chambers of Commerce whereby their stamp, on its face alone, satisfies such requirement in accordance with Articles 20 b and 20 d.
Local practice/usage
ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL QUERY
This is an educational query. The stipulations in sub Article 20 (d) of UCP 500 have already given a very clear and definite answer. The bank that rejects a seal on a document issued by a chamber of commerce shows its interpretation of this sub Article not in a way that the ICC Banking Commission has intended.
SURE WIN IN DOCDEX FOR THE BENEFICIARY
If this dispute were to be adjudicated in the DOCDEX, the issuing bank should lose the case, unless the DC stipulates otherwise or that the document must bear some specific wordings. In that case it overrides the provisions of that sub Article.
"TO DELETE BEFORE ADDING" IS ALWAYS SAFER
Even then it is safer to indicate in the DC that that sub Article does not apply to avoid ambiguity and confusions.
As we are located in Toronto, due to time difference, our comments always come 6 hours or more later.
We are from http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/16/02 7:35:43 PM]
This is an educational query. The stipulations in sub Article 20 (d) of UCP 500 have already given a very clear and definite answer. The bank that rejects a seal on a document issued by a chamber of commerce shows its interpretation of this sub Article not in a way that the ICC Banking Commission has intended.
SURE WIN IN DOCDEX FOR THE BENEFICIARY
If this dispute were to be adjudicated in the DOCDEX, the issuing bank should lose the case, unless the DC stipulates otherwise or that the document must bear some specific wordings. In that case it overrides the provisions of that sub Article.
"TO DELETE BEFORE ADDING" IS ALWAYS SAFER
Even then it is safer to indicate in the DC that that sub Article does not apply to avoid ambiguity and confusions.
As we are located in Toronto, due to time difference, our comments always come 6 hours or more later.
We are from http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/16/02 7:35:43 PM]