ICC Digital Library Forum

Thank Laurence for your good sense of humor that I agree with.
I feel litigation is the only solution but our customer wants to be backed by a DOCDEX decision. The only question to be consulted is if the erroneous quotation 'Subject to Uniform Customs and Practice ICC Paris' instead of 'Subject to ICC URC522' give the presenting bank the right to act as they did, i.e. to deliver documents to drawee without their bank guarantee and then to return a different and handled dox to us.
I'll try to inform you about the solution of this case.

Felix,
I have read this string of messages several times and observe:
1) the remittance letter apparently stated: "COLLECTION AGAINST ACCEPTANCE/PAYMENT" - this is not an internationally recognized instruction.
2) the remittance letter apparently also stated: "SUBJECT TO UNIFORM RULES AND PRACTICE (ICC)" - there is no ICC document by this title.

I would request the Mexican Bank to return the correct original documents, as other commentors have suggested.

I would lodge a claim against the carrier (as others suggested) for the original goods - this does NOT mean they will return the goods to your export client - if, as your client says, the goods have been released to the importer, then the carrier must either product the goods (impossible), or the carrier will (in most countries) be liable for value of the goods. In either of these cases, your export client should have the opportunity to recover.

The real question for your bank is why it gives confusing instructions and has it taken the correct action to ensure this situation is not repeated? Of course this might be a 'direct collection' where the exporter completed the form and gave the confusing instructions - in which case the exporter has already learned that giving confusing instructions and referring to non-existent ICC publications does not give him protection.

Best Regards from the US.
Don