ICC Digital Library Forum

Had any one tried the CDCS Practice Test posted in the CDCS web site?

I did not understand two discrepancies in the last question of the Practice Test Simulation Exercise. The two discrepancies are 'Partial shipment effected' and 'Transport document not signed in accordance with UCP600'.

The invoice did show exactly the goods as called for by the LC. I did not understand why it is a partial shipment. The only possible reason is invoice bearing a sentence 'Marks: 2003 pallet numbers 1/5 -4/5', I assume this is the shipping mark and should not be considered as there should be 5 pallets where only 4 were shipped.

In box 16 of the CMR, it had specified name of the carrier. Box 23 of the CMR was duly signed despite it had not bear a stamp. However, the Unpublished Official Opinion TA601 of UCP500 had come to a conclusion that the absence of an indication that the signature is that of the carrier or name and the capacity of the party signing the CMR, would not be a reason for refusal.

Could any expert kind enough to advise why this two points were treated as discrepancies in the sample test?

Regards
Ray

Ray,

My inexpert opinion is that the reason is because someone has made a mistake. I certainly agree with your analysis of the invalidity of the supposed discrepancies.

Incidentally, I infer that the ‘ADDITIONAL CONDITION’ ‘GOODS MUST BE OF DUTCH ORIGIN’ is -rightly- regarded as being a NDC.

Regards, Jeremy

Thank you Jeremy,

That at least ease my mind I have not made anything wrong in that question.

Regarding the NDC 'Goods must be of Dutch Origin'. I agree that we need not cite for this statement in document examination. However, if invoice or other documents showing Goods are of HK Origin, this would constitute as a discrepancy despite of the NDC nature.

One query is if documents showing shipping mark including the wordings 'Origin - HK', do we deem this as a shipping mark only and not the origin of goods?

Regards
Ray