Larry,
the same principle applies to these documents that you have outlined-
A Test Certificate – must certify something about testing (most likely of the goods)
Eg. We hereby certify that the goods have been tested in accordance with the requirements of LC no. 212121
A Conformity Certificate – must certify something in relation to the conformity of (most likely) the goods
Eg. We hereby certify that the goods are in conformity with the requirements of LC no. 31313131
(or maybe - We hereby certify that this document is in conformity with the requirements of LC No.31313131)
A Packing Certificate – must say something about the packing of the goods
Eg. We hereby certify that the goods have been packed in conformity with the requirements of LC no. 414141414
[edited 12/12/02 10:34:51 PM]
ART 21 & ISBP
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
ART 21 & ISBP
Leo,
I do not think that banks can take a decision on whether to accept or reject based on something being "most likely". In fact Test certs. & Conformity certs. are just as likely to be based not on the goods themselves, but on compliance with standards achieved by the use of earlier production runs and even earlier (different) production designs. Without any further information, banks would have to accept such certs. despite containing clauses such as "Failed the standard test"; "sample goods found not to be in conformity with ...", in which case, why should they attempt to link the contents to the title of the document, since the contents may not refer to the goods themselves and will be acceptable in any case.
Laurence
I do not think that banks can take a decision on whether to accept or reject based on something being "most likely". In fact Test certs. & Conformity certs. are just as likely to be based not on the goods themselves, but on compliance with standards achieved by the use of earlier production runs and even earlier (different) production designs. Without any further information, banks would have to accept such certs. despite containing clauses such as "Failed the standard test"; "sample goods found not to be in conformity with ...", in which case, why should they attempt to link the contents to the title of the document, since the contents may not refer to the goods themselves and will be acceptable in any case.
Laurence
ART 21 & ISBP
Larry,
This, to me, is the purpose of Article 21.
If the credit does not stipulate, for example, what a conformity certificate relates to (by indicating the data content), then there is a lot of scope for what the document can certify the conformity of.
Even, to the affect that a Conformity Certficate could indicate that the goods (or whatever) do not conform.
[edited 12/13/02 11:29:06 AM]
This, to me, is the purpose of Article 21.
If the credit does not stipulate, for example, what a conformity certificate relates to (by indicating the data content), then there is a lot of scope for what the document can certify the conformity of.
Even, to the affect that a Conformity Certficate could indicate that the goods (or whatever) do not conform.
[edited 12/13/02 11:29:06 AM]
-
DimitriScoufaridis
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:17 pm
ART 21 & ISBP
Laurence / Leo,
Thanks for the relevant opinion & explanation given.
Jeremy,
How would the courts view ISBP since credits are made subject to UCP. Would the doctrine of strict compliance be applied, i.e. the bank will not have to look into the substance of the document or would they see ISBP as complementary and therefore common sense and experience would prevail?
Dimitri
Thanks for the relevant opinion & explanation given.
Jeremy,
How would the courts view ISBP since credits are made subject to UCP. Would the doctrine of strict compliance be applied, i.e. the bank will not have to look into the substance of the document or would they see ISBP as complementary and therefore common sense and experience would prevail?
Dimitri
ART 21 & ISBP
Dimitri,
Personally, I do not see the apparent position taken by ISBP with regard to Article 21 as having any impact on the (I suspect often misunderstood) doctrine of ‘strict (i.e. facial) compliance’, at least as applied by the English courts.
To me, the test will remain the same, i.e. do the presented documents on their face comply with the terms of 1) the credit, 2) UCP, 3) international standard banking practice (as opposed to the ICC document ‘ISBP for the Examination of Documents under Documentary Credits’ (‘ISBP’) which cannot be assumed to be exhaustive) and/or 4) the law to which the credit is subject?
Based on English case law/expert legal commentary I believe that the English courts will regard ISBP as being a highly persuasive document and that they will be loathe to give a decision that contradicts it.
Jeremy
Personally, I do not see the apparent position taken by ISBP with regard to Article 21 as having any impact on the (I suspect often misunderstood) doctrine of ‘strict (i.e. facial) compliance’, at least as applied by the English courts.
To me, the test will remain the same, i.e. do the presented documents on their face comply with the terms of 1) the credit, 2) UCP, 3) international standard banking practice (as opposed to the ICC document ‘ISBP for the Examination of Documents under Documentary Credits’ (‘ISBP’) which cannot be assumed to be exhaustive) and/or 4) the law to which the credit is subject?
Based on English case law/expert legal commentary I believe that the English courts will regard ISBP as being a highly persuasive document and that they will be loathe to give a decision that contradicts it.
Jeremy