Data content of Inspection Certificate - Article 14-f

[AlbertB]

LC calls for an Inspection Certificate without data content - An Inspecetion Certificate stating "Inspection of the goods was not preformed".
Is this a discrepancy?
Note: It is not a question of defective condition of goods covered by Opinion R339, point 4.

[DanielD]

Albert,

In my opinion, the document does not fulfil its function according to UCP 600 art 14 f, see also Commentary.
Daniel

[Yahya]

Albert,
My view the doc is discrepant.
This is a good example for a document reviewed under sub art 14 F i.e. the intent requirement in the credit is that the doc should evidence that the inspection has been done for the goods.
But the said doc appears to say it wasn't done so. The doc doesn't fullfill the required function.

Regards ,
Yahya

[NigelHolt]

I also agree the document is non-compliant.

[BilselTatar]

Dear Albert;

Inspection Certificate is discrepant, since it does not fulfill its funtion by clearly indicating that "the inspection of goods was not performed".

Regards.

Zeynep

[AlbertB]

Thank You All,

It could be a problem if we go back to UCP 500 (Article 21).

This is one of the "goodie" (positive side) of UCP600.

Happy New Year Every One!
Albert

[KimChristensen]

Dear Albert,

It is not that I do not want to give UCP 600 credit for what it deserves – but in this case I see no difference from UCP 500 – not after ISBP was published in 2002 anyway – as this was (as far as I know) where this principle of “required function” was first introduced (ISBP 2002/2003 paragraph 43 – later repeated word by word in ISBP 2007 paragraph 41).

Best regards
Kim

[AlbertB]

Hi Kim,

Noted & Thanks,

Have a Good One!

Albert