Dear all,
ISBP para. 64(b) pertains to MERCHANDISE NOT CALLED FOR in the credit. In this case, the merchandise "furniture" mentioned in the invoice is called for in the credit. The fact that part of the merchandise is "free of charge" does not make it a discrepancy.
Rgds, Gabriel
invoice containing 'free of charge' goods
invoice containing 'free of charge' goods
Jeremy,
1. In order to comply with UCP and ISBP that he should be aware of (easy to say, I agree)
2. FOC goods would have been part of the description if the credit had specified them in the description in question.
Par. 64 most unsatisfactory? Yes. But it is being revised.
Regards
Daniel
1. In order to comply with UCP and ISBP that he should be aware of (easy to say, I agree)
2. FOC goods would have been part of the description if the credit had specified them in the description in question.
Par. 64 most unsatisfactory? Yes. But it is being revised.
Regards
Daniel
invoice containing 'free of charge' goods
Daniel,
I think time to draw matters to a close. My final posting is that:
1) I do not think 64(b), as drafted, permits one to operate on the basis that it is isbp that where goods are FOC they can be taken as not being called for by the credit.
2) given that it is quite possible for a contract to include FOC goods it would make no sense (a) for isbp to assume FOC goods were not called for by the credit and (b) therefore for applicants to even contemplate that this could be a possibility (i.e. isbp to assuming FOC goods were not called for by the credit).
My overall impression is that 64(b) deals with a matter that simply ought not to be relevant to the compliance of documents, just as 114 does (especially as it contradicts sub-Art. 20(a)(v)).
Best regards, Jeremy
I think time to draw matters to a close. My final posting is that:
1) I do not think 64(b), as drafted, permits one to operate on the basis that it is isbp that where goods are FOC they can be taken as not being called for by the credit.
2) given that it is quite possible for a contract to include FOC goods it would make no sense (a) for isbp to assume FOC goods were not called for by the credit and (b) therefore for applicants to even contemplate that this could be a possibility (i.e. isbp to assuming FOC goods were not called for by the credit).
My overall impression is that 64(b) deals with a matter that simply ought not to be relevant to the compliance of documents, just as 114 does (especially as it contradicts sub-Art. 20(a)(v)).
Best regards, Jeremy
invoice containing 'free of charge' goods
Dear all.
To my opinion art. 64 of ISBP is irrelevant to thIS case. However, FOC goods (which were not allowed under the credit) may be regarded as discrepant because they are not in accordance with LC terms (which indicate the amount to be paid for goods supplied).Additional goods may cause expenses in customs and are not always in favour of importer. Such goods should be settled outside of the LC.
THANKS. YAFFI
To my opinion art. 64 of ISBP is irrelevant to thIS case. However, FOC goods (which were not allowed under the credit) may be regarded as discrepant because they are not in accordance with LC terms (which indicate the amount to be paid for goods supplied).Additional goods may cause expenses in customs and are not always in favour of importer. Such goods should be settled outside of the LC.
THANKS. YAFFI