Serenachang's earlier enquiry quoted:
Credit covered goods to be shipped in 2 instalments.First shipment was short-shipped but applicant
accepted discrepancy.Is the LC still available for the second
shipment or does it require reinstatement?
Adding onto the original enquiry, assuming the credit required 2 shipments to be effected at the following intervals: -
By 31 May 01 200 Units of Panasonic Video Recorders
By 30 June 01 450 Units of Panasonic Video Recorders
Assuming 150 Units were actually shipped on 31 May 01 & the issuing bank has subsequently accepted the discrepancy of short shipment.
Is the beneficiary required to make good the short shipment of 50 Units when he makes the second shipment i.e. should he now ship a total of 500 Units or can he still ship 450 Units?
My thanks for your advice.
[edited 7/27/01 2:51:04 PM]
Shipment by instalment
-
PGauntlett
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
Shipment by instalment
As the short shipment has been accepted (i.e. the l/c has effectively been amended to allow short shipment of 1st instalment) the bene is only now required to fulfil second instalment i.e. ship 450 units by 30/6.
Shipment by instalment
STRICT COMPLIANCE IS MOST SAFE
The second instalment shipment of 450 units is not discrepant because:
(1) It has been performed strictly according to the original DC stipulation on quantity;
(2) There is no amendment to change the quantity of the second instalment shipment; and
(3) The issuing bank and the applicant are both silent on the quantity of the second instalment shipment after accepting the short shipment in the first instalment shipment.
SUGGESTED REVISION OF ARTICLE 41
Perhaps in the next revision of Article 41 in UCP 500, we should offer to the applicant a choice in the shipped quantities, to be cumulative or non-cumulative, as available in the revolving documentary credits.
We are from http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/27/02 11:04:43 PM]
The second instalment shipment of 450 units is not discrepant because:
(1) It has been performed strictly according to the original DC stipulation on quantity;
(2) There is no amendment to change the quantity of the second instalment shipment; and
(3) The issuing bank and the applicant are both silent on the quantity of the second instalment shipment after accepting the short shipment in the first instalment shipment.
SUGGESTED REVISION OF ARTICLE 41
Perhaps in the next revision of Article 41 in UCP 500, we should offer to the applicant a choice in the shipped quantities, to be cumulative or non-cumulative, as available in the revolving documentary credits.
We are from http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/27/02 11:04:43 PM]
Shipment by instalment
Revolving L/C and L/C with partial shipments allowed and stipulated instalments within given periods are completely different issues. In case of revolving L/C, if not otherwise stated in L/C, the failure of the beneficiary to draw on the L/C does not deprive him of possibility to ship and comply with revolved L/C as stated in Credit. Moreover the applicant has plenty of choice ALREADY, as we all should know. The approach that UCP should care for all possibilities we can encounter or even just dream of, is not to be recommended.
There is no mention re. revolving L/C in UCP500 now, so to speak about revision of art. 41 in order to allow what is available in revolving L/C is a logical nonsense.
Pavel Andrle
[edited 8/17/01 10:22:47 AM by LeoCullen (Moderator)]
There is no mention re. revolving L/C in UCP500 now, so to speak about revision of art. 41 in order to allow what is available in revolving L/C is a logical nonsense.
Pavel Andrle
[edited 8/17/01 10:22:47 AM by LeoCullen (Moderator)]
Shipment by instalment
SUGGESTIONS FOR REVOLVING CREDITS INCLUDED IN UCP ARE NOT "LOGICAL NONSENSE"
To be precise, we have no intent to revise Article 41 of UCP 500 just for the purpose of adding rules to govern the operations of revolving credits as one of the participants in the discussion thinks. We did propose revision of this Article but just for the purpose of specifying clearly whether balanced or unshipped quantities can be cummulative or not.
Any participant who wishes to comment on our suggestions is most welcome but he should read our message carefully to understand fully what we really mean before he makes any emotional and humiliating remarks and also not necessarily in an unfriendly tone.
We think it is not appropriate to regard such suggestions as "LOGICAL NONSENSE" as commented by one of the participants on this issue.
WE HAVE TO RESPECT OTHERS AND THEIR OPINIONS ALTHOUGH WE DISAGREE
In a free discussion forum like the DC Pro, although sometimes we disagree others' opinions, we should respect them and their rights to state such different opinions. Hence we should not use strong words to criticise others or their opinions, although we also have the rights to disagree.
One of the communication techniques suitable for use in the DC Pro is "to make a point without making an enemy". It is important not to personalise an issue.
The DC Pro, like golf, is a gentleman's game and should be played as such.
We are from http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/27/02 11:02:30 PM]
To be precise, we have no intent to revise Article 41 of UCP 500 just for the purpose of adding rules to govern the operations of revolving credits as one of the participants in the discussion thinks. We did propose revision of this Article but just for the purpose of specifying clearly whether balanced or unshipped quantities can be cummulative or not.
Any participant who wishes to comment on our suggestions is most welcome but he should read our message carefully to understand fully what we really mean before he makes any emotional and humiliating remarks and also not necessarily in an unfriendly tone.
We think it is not appropriate to regard such suggestions as "LOGICAL NONSENSE" as commented by one of the participants on this issue.
WE HAVE TO RESPECT OTHERS AND THEIR OPINIONS ALTHOUGH WE DISAGREE
In a free discussion forum like the DC Pro, although sometimes we disagree others' opinions, we should respect them and their rights to state such different opinions. Hence we should not use strong words to criticise others or their opinions, although we also have the rights to disagree.
One of the communication techniques suitable for use in the DC Pro is "to make a point without making an enemy". It is important not to personalise an issue.
The DC Pro, like golf, is a gentleman's game and should be played as such.
We are from http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/27/02 11:02:30 PM]
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Shipment by instalment
I’m not in favour of the tone of Mr. PavelA. The argument on article 41 of UCP 500 although was heated but it was very constructive and very enlightening. There was no discussion about revolving credit in particular but participants were trying with their utmost intellectual powers to support their approach to the issues of installment shipments and installment drawings. Let us all remember that UCP 500 is subject to revision from time to time and this is achieved through constructive criticism and interpretations. There is nothing holy about UCP 500 so that we loose our temper against its revision, although this issue did not come up at all in this forum. One can see that this particular argument attracted so much attention and was read 455 time and the posts to this argument were 40, which is a sign of great interest in the issue.
I hope that disagreement is correlated with friendship rather than enmity. I have disagreed with Mr. T.O. Lee but I still long for the day when I will meet him in Saudi Arabia when he will deliver an Advanced Workshop on Trade Finance Risk Management.
I hope that disagreement is correlated with friendship rather than enmity. I have disagreed with Mr. T.O. Lee but I still long for the day when I will meet him in Saudi Arabia when he will deliver an Advanced Workshop on Trade Finance Risk Management.
Shipment by instalment
WE ALL LEARN MORE BY FRIENDLY DISAGREEMENTS
Mr. Shehab, in our Risk Management in Trade Finance workshop which you are going to participate in Jeddah and now also in Riyadh in early October this year, we always encourage participants to disagree. That is the best way to learn, provided we respect one and other and don't personalise the issues. In fact, some of those past participants feed back to us that the more they disagree, the more we learn, the presenter/facilitator included.
Of course, if you agree, we are also happy but we may have missed out something and learn less.
The important thing is how to make disagreements work out productively. One Chinese proverb says: "We understand each other better by disagreements".
We are from http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/27/02 11:01:25 PM]
Mr. Shehab, in our Risk Management in Trade Finance workshop which you are going to participate in Jeddah and now also in Riyadh in early October this year, we always encourage participants to disagree. That is the best way to learn, provided we respect one and other and don't personalise the issues. In fact, some of those past participants feed back to us that the more they disagree, the more we learn, the presenter/facilitator included.
Of course, if you agree, we are also happy but we may have missed out something and learn less.
The important thing is how to make disagreements work out productively. One Chinese proverb says: "We understand each other better by disagreements".
We are from http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/27/02 11:01:25 PM]
Shipment by instalment
It appears that T.O. Lee and some other participants feel that my approach was intended to show disrespect and aggression. I assure you that this was not the intention and if I have caused any personal hurt I regret it.
Before joining this valuable forum I did not even know of Mr T.O.Lee as most of you have never heard of me. The first item I encountered on joining DCPRO forum was a posting by a member in the USA concerning 'excessive detail' in a Credit. It appeared to me that the member from the USA outlined that their banks approach to excessive detail was to charge a fee to discourage this practice.
The next item underneath this appeared to me to be a long lecture from Mr T.O. Lee to the new member, not only a long lecture to the new member but I felt it was a also lecture to LC bankers in general from an LC consultant. With Mr T.O. Lees long comments about issues related to the topic but not necessarily specific to the question in hand together with his promotion of his website so often - I made the mistake of interpreting this that Mr T.O. Lee considers himself the expert lecturer lecturing to the not so experienced bankers.
This propelled me to make direct decisive and blunt responses when my opinion differed on issues raised. I accept that this was a mistake and I have learned from my mistake.
I apologise to him and all other participants who might find my language above as inappropriate or even offensive. I very much appreciate this Forum and see it as excellent opportunity to discuss important issues relating to our work. I very well know that I can be wrong and I am not afraid to be so. The overall purpose of this forum, as I see it, is that we all contribute and gain from each other valuable experience, knowledge and insight.
My contributions have not been meant to be unfriendly or even hostile. Rather direct and constructive though perhaps challenging. I am sorry than in the heat of debate I have used a stronger words that should be the case. English is not my first language though that is not a valid excuse to use inappropriate language.
I will continue to participate in the spirit suggested, the tone will not be hot. It may be warm but with sincere friendly intentions.
Respectfully,
Pavel Andrle
Before joining this valuable forum I did not even know of Mr T.O.Lee as most of you have never heard of me. The first item I encountered on joining DCPRO forum was a posting by a member in the USA concerning 'excessive detail' in a Credit. It appeared to me that the member from the USA outlined that their banks approach to excessive detail was to charge a fee to discourage this practice.
The next item underneath this appeared to me to be a long lecture from Mr T.O. Lee to the new member, not only a long lecture to the new member but I felt it was a also lecture to LC bankers in general from an LC consultant. With Mr T.O. Lees long comments about issues related to the topic but not necessarily specific to the question in hand together with his promotion of his website so often - I made the mistake of interpreting this that Mr T.O. Lee considers himself the expert lecturer lecturing to the not so experienced bankers.
This propelled me to make direct decisive and blunt responses when my opinion differed on issues raised. I accept that this was a mistake and I have learned from my mistake.
I apologise to him and all other participants who might find my language above as inappropriate or even offensive. I very much appreciate this Forum and see it as excellent opportunity to discuss important issues relating to our work. I very well know that I can be wrong and I am not afraid to be so. The overall purpose of this forum, as I see it, is that we all contribute and gain from each other valuable experience, knowledge and insight.
My contributions have not been meant to be unfriendly or even hostile. Rather direct and constructive though perhaps challenging. I am sorry than in the heat of debate I have used a stronger words that should be the case. English is not my first language though that is not a valid excuse to use inappropriate language.
I will continue to participate in the spirit suggested, the tone will not be hot. It may be warm but with sincere friendly intentions.
Respectfully,
Pavel Andrle
Shipment by instalment
First, I have gained from the valuable insight of TO Lee, Mr Andrle and indeed other contributors on the technical issues in hand. Both Lee and Andrle are acknowledged in their respective realms: TO Lee for his resource website, international workshops and shipping industry knowledge among other qualities. Mr Andrle as a highly regarded trade banker and writer of a best selling book on Documentary Credit Practice in Eastern and Central Europe.
Second, I have learned that in this fast response electronic medium without interpersonal or physical proximity it is important to turn the heat down and to take these issues forward in a calmer fashion. In the physical world I have had one or two slightly heated debates in person with many experts in LC's but through the ability to read each others body language in person we have avoided an possibility of conflict but instead enjoyed the debate. I think we have seen many posting on these forums which we would not include in a written communication on physical paper.
Finally, we are all in agreement with the benefit of this medium of global exchange of ideas and views. It is very exciting given the diversity of cultural, language and experience backgrounds coming to the Forum. For me and maybe most of us this is quite a new experience. Like anything new it can take a little time to bed down in a comfortable fashion.
Despite the few hic-cups I think we are all doing a very good job which is evolving into an exceptional resource for the industry.
We have read some excellent Chinese sayings but I would like to leave you with an Irish one "A good Irish stew must cook slowly and at even temperature" I am sure we are using the correct ingredients, we just need to turn the heat down a little on this excellent DC-PRO idea stove of ours.
It is time to move on.
Vincent
Second, I have learned that in this fast response electronic medium without interpersonal or physical proximity it is important to turn the heat down and to take these issues forward in a calmer fashion. In the physical world I have had one or two slightly heated debates in person with many experts in LC's but through the ability to read each others body language in person we have avoided an possibility of conflict but instead enjoyed the debate. I think we have seen many posting on these forums which we would not include in a written communication on physical paper.
Finally, we are all in agreement with the benefit of this medium of global exchange of ideas and views. It is very exciting given the diversity of cultural, language and experience backgrounds coming to the Forum. For me and maybe most of us this is quite a new experience. Like anything new it can take a little time to bed down in a comfortable fashion.
Despite the few hic-cups I think we are all doing a very good job which is evolving into an exceptional resource for the industry.
We have read some excellent Chinese sayings but I would like to leave you with an Irish one "A good Irish stew must cook slowly and at even temperature" I am sure we are using the correct ingredients, we just need to turn the heat down a little on this excellent DC-PRO idea stove of ours.
It is time to move on.
Vincent
Shipment by instalment
To All Dear Members of the DC Pro,
NEED TO CLARIFY PERSONAL STYLE
As a target and victim of Mr. Pavel Andrle's admitted inappropriate comments, I accept his apologies fully, although coming a bit late, and I do not need to write this response if his apology message has not been loaded with further criticism on my personal style.
WE DON'T GIVE FREE LECTURES
I know most of the active participants in the Discussion Forum and of course have not the slightest intention or the gut to give any lecture in the DC Pro. In all my past responses, I was talking to the enquirer mainly. I do not know why Mr. Andrle would make such assumption out of my admitting a bit lengthy messages in the DC Pro. Rest assured that as a consultant, I would not give any lecture anywhere unless I am reasonably paid. He should have realised that his over-reactive comments are 10 times more offensive than lecturing.
SHARING PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS CONTRIBUTION NOT ADVERTISING
One of the rules in DC Pro is no personal advertising. This I am very clear. The DC Pro has already given me the guidelines what is OK and what is not OK, including how my website be quoted. If you check carefully, I only refer to an article in my website when there is such a need for the enquirer to get more related information. Quoting its content in the DC Pro would make the message too long and others may not be interested in it. I did this for the sake of caring about the enquirer than advertising.
We do not do advertising, as the cost is too high for us to bear. We depend on clients' referral. However, it is difficult to share my personal experience and to give all the material facts without sometimes being seen by certain sensitive viewers as self advertising.
DC PRO IS THE ONE TO PLAY BALANCE TO "MAINTAINING FREEDOM OF SPEECH" VS. "DISCOURAGING ADVERTISEMENTS"
Whether it is advertising or not, the DC Pro will be the one to adjudicate and handle. So next time if one sees anything that he considers advertisement, as long as the DC Pro does not edit it , it is OK. The DC Pro understands fully the difference between freedom of speech and discouraging advertisements in the messages. I trust them to play this balancing act well.
I have expressed my defence here and as a Buddhist I will forget about all this unhappy incident and hope everybody will do the same.
Lastly, my thanks to Vincent and Mr. Shehab for their kind words and support and Mr. Leo Cullen of the DC Pro for his efforts in maintaining an open discussion forum that promotes freedom of speech and in which every member including myself enjoys and gains a lot of benefits out of friendly, though sometimes heated exchange of different opinions on the issues.
T. O. Lee
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 8/24/01 2:48:29 PM by LeoCullen (Moderator)]
[edited 9/27/02 10:55:10 PM]
NEED TO CLARIFY PERSONAL STYLE
As a target and victim of Mr. Pavel Andrle's admitted inappropriate comments, I accept his apologies fully, although coming a bit late, and I do not need to write this response if his apology message has not been loaded with further criticism on my personal style.
WE DON'T GIVE FREE LECTURES
I know most of the active participants in the Discussion Forum and of course have not the slightest intention or the gut to give any lecture in the DC Pro. In all my past responses, I was talking to the enquirer mainly. I do not know why Mr. Andrle would make such assumption out of my admitting a bit lengthy messages in the DC Pro. Rest assured that as a consultant, I would not give any lecture anywhere unless I am reasonably paid. He should have realised that his over-reactive comments are 10 times more offensive than lecturing.
SHARING PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS CONTRIBUTION NOT ADVERTISING
One of the rules in DC Pro is no personal advertising. This I am very clear. The DC Pro has already given me the guidelines what is OK and what is not OK, including how my website be quoted. If you check carefully, I only refer to an article in my website when there is such a need for the enquirer to get more related information. Quoting its content in the DC Pro would make the message too long and others may not be interested in it. I did this for the sake of caring about the enquirer than advertising.
We do not do advertising, as the cost is too high for us to bear. We depend on clients' referral. However, it is difficult to share my personal experience and to give all the material facts without sometimes being seen by certain sensitive viewers as self advertising.
DC PRO IS THE ONE TO PLAY BALANCE TO "MAINTAINING FREEDOM OF SPEECH" VS. "DISCOURAGING ADVERTISEMENTS"
Whether it is advertising or not, the DC Pro will be the one to adjudicate and handle. So next time if one sees anything that he considers advertisement, as long as the DC Pro does not edit it , it is OK. The DC Pro understands fully the difference between freedom of speech and discouraging advertisements in the messages. I trust them to play this balancing act well.
I have expressed my defence here and as a Buddhist I will forget about all this unhappy incident and hope everybody will do the same.
Lastly, my thanks to Vincent and Mr. Shehab for their kind words and support and Mr. Leo Cullen of the DC Pro for his efforts in maintaining an open discussion forum that promotes freedom of speech and in which every member including myself enjoys and gains a lot of benefits out of friendly, though sometimes heated exchange of different opinions on the issues.
T. O. Lee
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 8/24/01 2:48:29 PM by LeoCullen (Moderator)]
[edited 9/27/02 10:55:10 PM]