ABSURD
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
ABSURD
Hi
If an L/C excluding Art 35 can be accepted by the beneficiary,then they can also accept a condition from the nominated/confirming bank that they will receive payment only after the I/B confirms receipt of documents at their counters. This may discourage beneficaries from accepting such L/Cs.
Excluding Art 14 D, even though is beneficial to DC Practioners. will take the charm and spirit away from the LC instrument and pave the way for funny transactions to get thru. Its ironic that bene's get paid for doing something correct which again is not what they agreed to.
Regards
Jason
If an L/C excluding Art 35 can be accepted by the beneficiary,then they can also accept a condition from the nominated/confirming bank that they will receive payment only after the I/B confirms receipt of documents at their counters. This may discourage beneficaries from accepting such L/Cs.
Excluding Art 14 D, even though is beneficial to DC Practioners. will take the charm and spirit away from the LC instrument and pave the way for funny transactions to get thru. Its ironic that bene's get paid for doing something correct which again is not what they agreed to.
Regards
Jason
ABSURD
I cannot see any reason why to exclude art 14d
And cannot understand how that exclusion could be beneficial to doc.checkers
Could anyone in favour of the exclusion please explain the intention?
Regards,
Yahya
[edited 7/10/2007 3:12:40 PM]
And cannot understand how that exclusion could be beneficial to doc.checkers
Could anyone in favour of the exclusion please explain the intention?
Regards,
Yahya
[edited 7/10/2007 3:12:40 PM]
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
ABSURD
Even though I am not in favor of the exclusion, I can put it in a simple way that the L/C would permit a document to be presented and not bother about the content. In UCP500 terms(since its still fresh in mind) it would permit ''inconsistency''.
Regards
Jason
Regards
Jason
ABSURD
Jeremy,
May be issuing bank would accept to not exclude art.35 if docs would be sent in two separate lots, in different days (I think this part of art.35 had issuing bank in mind when decided to exclude the 35) .
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the exclusion has been made at applicant's special request. Often issuing banks are stipulating "strange things" under their credits just because applicants want to.
Regards,
Bogdan
May be issuing bank would accept to not exclude art.35 if docs would be sent in two separate lots, in different days (I think this part of art.35 had issuing bank in mind when decided to exclude the 35) .
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the exclusion has been made at applicant's special request. Often issuing banks are stipulating "strange things" under their credits just because applicants want to.
Regards,
Bogdan
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
ABSURD
Hi Bogdan,
Your posting made me think that the applicant may have insisted that Art 35 be excluded because there could be some original document (not b/l) required due to regulatory/custom purpose and without which he may not have access to the goods. If this is the case then it could be a genuine exclusion.
Regards
Jason
Your posting made me think that the applicant may have insisted that Art 35 be excluded because there could be some original document (not b/l) required due to regulatory/custom purpose and without which he may not have access to the goods. If this is the case then it could be a genuine exclusion.
Regards
Jason
ABSURD
Jason,
Sorry , I disagree with your view that UCP500 was allowing
"inconsistency" on the required docs. On the contrary, according to art 21 of UCP500 ,data contents on stipulated docs must not be inconsistent.
But the ICC has always expressed the meaning of the "consistency" referred to sub art 13a and art 21
should be interpreted as meaning that the whole of the docs must obviously relate to the same transaction,i.e.there should be sufficient link between the data content of each doc.
I consider that this wording lead checkers to misinterpret the meaning of "inconsistency" .
Incidentally, I 'm still curious about how the exclusion of art 14d could effect the checking of the docs.
Regards,
Yahya
Sorry , I disagree with your view that UCP500 was allowing
"inconsistency" on the required docs. On the contrary, according to art 21 of UCP500 ,data contents on stipulated docs must not be inconsistent.
But the ICC has always expressed the meaning of the "consistency" referred to sub art 13a and art 21
should be interpreted as meaning that the whole of the docs must obviously relate to the same transaction,i.e.there should be sufficient link between the data content of each doc.
I consider that this wording lead checkers to misinterpret the meaning of "inconsistency" .
Incidentally, I 'm still curious about how the exclusion of art 14d could effect the checking of the docs.
Regards,
Yahya
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
ABSURD
Hi Yahya,
I did not mean UCP 500 was ''allowing inconsistency''. What I wrote was in relation to an ''exclusion'' of an Art in the LC.
I compared the exclusion of Art 14f of UCP600 with the exclusion of Art21 of UCP500.When read that way it would mean that I cannot apply the Art and hence cannot call a doc inconsistent/consistent.
If an LC is excluding these clauses it would mean that they would specify the issuer as well as the data content of the doc thus making life easier for doc checkers.In other words if a doc is presented which does not match the above I can easily reject it without arguement from the bene.
Regards
Jason
[edited 7/12/2007 9:31:12 AM]
I did not mean UCP 500 was ''allowing inconsistency''. What I wrote was in relation to an ''exclusion'' of an Art in the LC.
I compared the exclusion of Art 14f of UCP600 with the exclusion of Art21 of UCP500.When read that way it would mean that I cannot apply the Art and hence cannot call a doc inconsistent/consistent.
If an LC is excluding these clauses it would mean that they would specify the issuer as well as the data content of the doc thus making life easier for doc checkers.In other words if a doc is presented which does not match the above I can easily reject it without arguement from the bene.
Regards
Jason
[edited 7/12/2007 9:31:12 AM]
ABSURD
Jason,
A credit just excluding either art 21 of UCP500 or sub art 14f of UCP600 without stating the details to be shown on docs or issuers of docs (other than TD ,insurance doc or invoice) would be ambiguous to me i.e. this exclusion does not make any sense about checking of docs.
I also consider that exlusions would be disregarded as they have no effect.
Regards
Yahya
A credit just excluding either art 21 of UCP500 or sub art 14f of UCP600 without stating the details to be shown on docs or issuers of docs (other than TD ,insurance doc or invoice) would be ambiguous to me i.e. this exclusion does not make any sense about checking of docs.
I also consider that exlusions would be disregarded as they have no effect.
Regards
Yahya
-
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
ABSURD
Agree with Yahya, I’m not for exclusion of the sub-article but I also understand those who would probably make amendment to the sub-article because of the following:
1) No interpretation or definition of the word "DATA" is given in UCP 600. So what does “DATA” really mean?
2) The expression, “Data in document when read in context of the DOCUMENT ITSELF”, may imply that the scope of examining of a document could be beyond the current practice. See new ICC Opinions from banking commission meeting held in Singapore in April 2007 (Official Opinion TA617rev – Unpublished) in relation to UCP 500 article 25 regarding quantity, quality, measurement etc. There seemingly was conflicting information on the Charter Party bill of lading, one was preprinted and the other was filled in at the time of issuance of the document. If the LC was subject to UCP 600, would the opinion change, if not what is then the scope of the expression stated above?
3) Reason for the usage of the expression "Conflict" in place of "Inconsistent" is not given so that one can appreciate the change.
Hope the commentary will provide enough explanations.
Best regards
[edited 7/12/2007 1:28:26 PM]
1) No interpretation or definition of the word "DATA" is given in UCP 600. So what does “DATA” really mean?
2) The expression, “Data in document when read in context of the DOCUMENT ITSELF”, may imply that the scope of examining of a document could be beyond the current practice. See new ICC Opinions from banking commission meeting held in Singapore in April 2007 (Official Opinion TA617rev – Unpublished) in relation to UCP 500 article 25 regarding quantity, quality, measurement etc. There seemingly was conflicting information on the Charter Party bill of lading, one was preprinted and the other was filled in at the time of issuance of the document. If the LC was subject to UCP 600, would the opinion change, if not what is then the scope of the expression stated above?
3) Reason for the usage of the expression "Conflict" in place of "Inconsistent" is not given so that one can appreciate the change.
Hope the commentary will provide enough explanations.
Best regards
[edited 7/12/2007 1:28:26 PM]
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
ABSURD
Yahya
As mentioned earlier, I am not in favour of excluding Art 14D or 14F and was preparing for the exclusion of the Article as mentioned by Jim. The question here is what do we do in such circumstances rather than our agreements/disagreements on the exclusion. We need to find our way out in such a situation. I agree that an LC would be wierd excluding the art as well as not defining the data content/issuer but what would you do if you receive one such LC.
Regards
Jason
As mentioned earlier, I am not in favour of excluding Art 14D or 14F and was preparing for the exclusion of the Article as mentioned by Jim. The question here is what do we do in such circumstances rather than our agreements/disagreements on the exclusion. We need to find our way out in such a situation. I agree that an LC would be wierd excluding the art as well as not defining the data content/issuer but what would you do if you receive one such LC.
Regards
Jason