Shipping marks on 3 lines or 1 line

MarkColeman · Post by **MarkColeman** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:00 am

We have received a letter of credit that shows the shipping marks over three lines. Due to software issues, the shipping marks have been typed on one line on ALL of the export documents. The EXACT wording has been used, but rather than across three lines, it’s all on one.

This has been called as a discrepancy because they say the shipping marks on the documents do not match the shipping marks on the L/C. Is this a discrepancy and is there any ruling confirming that can not be called a discrepancy

Shipping marks on L/C.
Export #######
1 of 10 packages
Made in Australia.

Shipping marks on our documents.
Export ####### 1 of 10 packages Made in Australia.

Mark from Melbourne

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:00 am

Dear Mark from Melbourne,

Let me start by saying that this discrepancy sound outrageous in my ears.

You ask for documentation, and it is truly sad that such is needed in a – clear cut – case like this one.

Anyway, the best I can find is ISBP paragraph 36 – but also paragraph 37+38. In addition to that I have been able to find two opinions covering shipping marks, namely: R.409 and R.444.
(Unfortunately) none of these sources cover the exact scenario that you mention, but I think that all somehow points at the conclusion: that this is not a discrepancy:

The general view is that the purpose of the shipping marks is to “enable identification of “ the goods (which I think is achieved here), and if the shipping marks is mentioned in the credit (as in this case) they need not be identical – but must not be inconsistent. I think that the example mentioned here is 99,9 % identical – and by no means inconsistent.

I hope this helps you.

Best regards
Kim

Yahya · Post by **Yahya** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:00 am

It is very creative !
Kim,I really appreciate your effort to find an explanation for such an absurd discrepancy.
(sorry for saying)I think that it can't help the checker that has determined this discrepancy.
Nothing helps him !

Yahya ,

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:00 am

When I first red the question my first thinking was the one that the documents have not been checked by the correct department.........If however they effectively have, I can just remember this wording "the less reason one has, the less he realizes to be short of".

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:00 am

Shipping Marks with an ancient tradition

Shipping marks have a long history and some countries still preserve that history where it is doubtful that it serves any useful purpose. By this I mean that certain geometric shapes signify particular ports and the wording is often written inside or outside such shapes.

In the example here, the only reason I can think of where a discrepancy might exist is where the LC calls for the marks in words to be accompanied by a geometric shape, e.g. equilateral triangle. Putting the words on one line instead of three could not be interpreted as discrepant unless it changed the shape (triangle) or caused the wording to appear outside instead of inside the shape.

In this case, I would ask the person rejecting to cite the UCP article relevant to the rejection. Whichever article is cited, it should then be possible to demonstrate that a mirror image is not required.

Laurence

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:00 am

Dear Yahya,

I had a really good laugh reading your posting. It made me remember something, which I would like to share with you: When I was young and naive (now I am no longer young), I had a friend with the sworn philosophy, that there was more bad than good in people. This really made me think, and eventually I “decided” that it simply had to be the other way around. With the right approach and arguments, you will prevail in the end. It may be that you meet people, that you simply do not understand (because of religion, culture, view, background etc. etc.), but then you just have to try harder. Like in this case: I am sure that there is a very good reason for using this discrepancy in the specific case. Understand this and you have the key to solve it

So enough preaching for one evening, I just hope that Mark will be able to solve his case. Think we all know the cases where we struggle with obvious wrong refusals – they can really drain you.

And Laurence, thanks for bringing up the “in triangle” example. Good to be reminded of.

Best regards
Kim

Yahya · Post by **Yahya** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:00 am

Thanks Kim,
I think that I found a good reason."Digging out the docs not to pay"

Regards,
Yahya

MarkColeman · Post by **MarkColeman** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:00 am

I beleive there has been a ruling on this by the ICC

Quoted as follows:

"The Panel of Experts unanimously considers that this is indeed a discrepancy justifying rejection of the documents:

- The Invoices show the printing of the Shipping Marks in two lines instead of four lines as appearing in the Documentary Credit."

How can this be??
Mark from Melbourne

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:00 am

Dear Mark,

What is the source for this quote? Sounds like a DocDex - but I can not find it?

Thanks
Kim

MarkColeman · Post by **MarkColeman** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:00 am

I was advised it was a ruling issued by ICC Docdex. I have not seen the full ruling, but from what I have been told, I am amazed that such a ruling has been issued. Has anyone know of this ruling?