Issuer of a Veterinary Certificate

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:00 am

The doc credit simply calls for a Veterinary Certificate, without stipulating by whom it should be issued nor its contents.

Would a certificate entitled Veterinary Certificate indicating that there was no BSE in the 30 mile area for 12 months but issued by a trading company be acceptable?

Based on Art 21 documents should be accepted as presented. However common sense (which is the least common attribute) seems to indicate that such a document should be issued by a veterinary.

Quick opinions would be appreciated.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:00 am

Judith,

This, to me, is not an easy one. Thus, glad it’s not me that has to make the decision.

Without liability/responsibility my initial –and rather hasty- personal thoughts are:
1. Para 43 of Pub 645 at least confirms ‘The content of a document must appear to fulfill the function of the required document.’
2. I have not the faintest idea what is the function of a ‘Vetinerary Certificate’ (Therefore, I personaly would not issue, advise (where available with ‘me’)/confirm or negotiate documents under a freely negotiable credit which contained this term where the credit did not at least giving details of the required contents.) I notice this is not, for example, a document described in ICC Pub 623, ‘A to Z of international trade’. As a consequence, this would seem to me to be a term that is not widely used in international trade. As a result, I believe that a banker would have a relatively wide degree of latitude in deciding if a document appeared to fulfill the function of the required document.
3. As the word ‘veterinary’ is an adjective and not a noun, nor appears here to be an abbreviation of ‘veterinary surgeon’ (as the apostrophe & ‘s’ are missing, i.e. ‘veterinary’s certificate’) I believe the issuer is not specified. Therefore, Article 21 should be literally applied regarding the issuer and consequently a certificate issued by any party, including the beneficiary, is compliant.
4. Overall, I believe I can see a good case for saying the document is compliant.

Good luck, Jeremy

[edited 9/2/03 11:45:31 AM]

LeoCullen · Post by **LeoCullen** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:00 am

A very similar question came up at a conference that I attended recently. There was no consensus within the panel or the audience as to the proper
handling of such a situation - it would seem to be a grey area.

My personal opinion is that the document appears to comply.

The credit does not stipulate by whom the document should be issued. Nor does it specify the data content. The document is entitled 'Veterinary Certificate' and its data content appears to fulfill the function of such a document (in that it contains what one might perceive to be relevant information).

As Jeremy said above such a requirement should not be included in a credit. For documents that Article 21 will apply to, the issuer and data content should be stipulated.
[edited 9/2/03 1:01:25 PM]

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:00 am

Thanks for your quick replies. I seriously think that we do not have any possibilities to refuse such a document based on UCP500 and ISBP. However this opinion is not shared by everyone.

Judith

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:00 am

Judith,

having personally procured hundreds if not thousands of Veterinary certs., I must disagree with Jeremy that this is an unusual commercial document. It is not necessarily issued by a veterinary surgeon. In fact, it is commonly issued by Dept. of Agriculture or Health officials, typically relating to animal produce or bi-products and certifying the goods fit for human consumption.

However, I must admit that in all the LC's I have processed requiring this document, the issuer of the document has always been stated. This is for the very good reason that typically the importing country will only allow importation of the goods upon presentation of a veterinary cert. by an approved issuer, as above.

In the absence of nomination of the issuer of the cert., I agree that it is a grey area, and that the beneficiary should be allowed to issue the cert.

I hope that this is of some help.

Laurence

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:00 am

Laurence,

Just for the record, I did not say that a veterinary certificate is an unusual commercial document. I simply said that its absence from ICC Pub 623, ‘A to Z of international trade’, would seem to suggest it is a term that is not widely used in international trade. I am more than happy to accept your assurance that it is and that therefore Pub 623 is deficient in this respect (Intro, 4th para: 'designed to include only those terms ... that people in trade are likely to encounter').

Jeremy
[edited 9/3/03 2:20:58 PM]

PavelA · Post by **PavelA** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:00 am

In my opinion the veterinary certificate issued by trading company in this particular case would be compliant with the L/C and UCP500. Re. the 43 para of ISBP – we ICC CR were not in favour of this provision to be included in ISBP, as it is very likely it will lead in many cases to misunderstandings and it goes, in our opinion, beyond requirements of UCP500.

Pavel Andrle

MarkColeman · Post by **MarkColeman** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:00 am

In this case, if I was the exporting bank, I would not payout funds to the exporter (negotiate the docs) until I have received confirmation from the applicants bank that docs are acceptable, due to the fact that it could be seen as a grey area. In Australia, that document would not be acceptable to the Australian Quarantine department. This is a reminder to all banks to ensure when establishing L/C’s, they should stipulate who is to issue such documents.
Regards
Mark

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:00 am

So, in other words, Mark you would refuse the document as being discrepant?

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:00 am

Mark,

whether or not the document is acceptable to the Australian authorities is not a criterion for determining discrepancies. The nominated bank must determine for themselves if documents are discrepant or not. If the issuing bank rejects on the basis that it does not meet the documentary requirements of the government authorities, they are clearly in breach of UCP.

I agree that the best way to handle this is to nip it in the bud by drafting the LC correctly at the application stage.

Laurence