Presentation Period
Presentation Period
I think that the default presentation period of 21 days should have been reduced to 15 for the same reason that led for reducing the period for refusing a non conforming presentation.
Regards
Antoine Samaha
Regards
Antoine Samaha
Presentation Period
I do not think this is a must as one can easily set a presentation period in a LC. You can also provide a field in the LC Appliction for your customer to decide a suitable presentation period
-
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:20 pm
Presentation Period
It's not always easy for an exporter to get the documents to the bank particularly if there are any legalization requirements and the exporter is not in the same city.
Furthermore, this also gives the exporter time to correct any errors in the documents which have been made.
And once again, I agree that if the importer wants the documents urgently he can always put that in the credit.
Regards
Judith
Furthermore, this also gives the exporter time to correct any errors in the documents which have been made.
And once again, I agree that if the importer wants the documents urgently he can always put that in the credit.
Regards
Judith
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Presentation Period
Dear Antoine Samaha,
In any case: too late to change now - and as Raymond says you can just state 15 days in the LC.
Best regards
Kim
In any case: too late to change now - and as Raymond says you can just state 15 days in the LC.
Best regards
Kim
Presentation Period
Antoine, I’m at a loss to understand why you think that the default presentation period of 21 days should have been reduced to 15; I cannot see any obvious connection between the two.
Also, I would point out that while the MAXIMUM period before which a bank falls foul of the ‘preclusion rule’ has indeed been significantly reduced, the MINIMUM period has also been significantly increased. Under UCP500 a ‘reasonable time’ can be as little as one banking day and many banks feel at risk if they take more than three banking days when dealing with a ‘typical’ credit.
Regards, Jeremy
Also, I would point out that while the MAXIMUM period before which a bank falls foul of the ‘preclusion rule’ has indeed been significantly reduced, the MINIMUM period has also been significantly increased. Under UCP500 a ‘reasonable time’ can be as little as one banking day and many banks feel at risk if they take more than three banking days when dealing with a ‘typical’ credit.
Regards, Jeremy
Presentation Period
I think that nowadays correction or legalisation of documents take much less time than 14 years ago. So, the reason behind reducing the 'DEFAULT' period of presentation is to be more equitable as to the importer's insterest.
Regards
Antoine
Regards
Antoine
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Presentation Period
Dear Jeremy,
Just one comment on your last posting.
I agreed with your “MINIMUM”/”MAXIMUM” view on the “5 banking days” versus “reasonable time”.
I would observe however that this is in no way related to WHEN an issuing bank must honour – or when a confirming must honour or negotiate. This is regulated in article 15 of the UCP 600.
In addition to that I think that selling the “reasonable time” for an “increased MINIMUM period” is a fairly good “trade”.
And still … too late to change now (I hope .
Best regards
Kim
[edited 3/29/2007 8:23:06 AM]
Just one comment on your last posting.
I agreed with your “MINIMUM”/”MAXIMUM” view on the “5 banking days” versus “reasonable time”.
I would observe however that this is in no way related to WHEN an issuing bank must honour – or when a confirming must honour or negotiate. This is regulated in article 15 of the UCP 600.
In addition to that I think that selling the “reasonable time” for an “increased MINIMUM period” is a fairly good “trade”.
And still … too late to change now (I hope .
Best regards
Kim
[edited 3/29/2007 8:23:06 AM]
Presentation Period
Kim, Jeremy,
"Increased minimum period"?
According to Art. 14, a bank has a
"MAXIMUM of 5 banking days", so in my opinion, but I could be wrong, it could still be argued that a bank took too long when checking the document in 4 or 5 days for instance. In other words: what is the difference (at least in English) between "a bank has five days" and "a bank has a maximum of 5 days"?
Daniel
"Increased minimum period"?
According to Art. 14, a bank has a
"MAXIMUM of 5 banking days", so in my opinion, but I could be wrong, it could still be argued that a bank took too long when checking the document in 4 or 5 days for instance. In other words: what is the difference (at least in English) between "a bank has five days" and "a bank has a maximum of 5 days"?
Daniel
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Presentation Period
Dear Daniel,
Thanks for comments. I can only say one thing: I surely hope that you are wrong!
And if you are not - then what was the point of removing the "reasonable time" rule.
Best regards
Kim
Thanks for comments. I can only say one thing: I surely hope that you are wrong!
And if you are not - then what was the point of removing the "reasonable time" rule.
Best regards
Kim
Presentation Period
Daniel,
I do not rule out the possibility that -in law- a bank that took more than a reasonable time could incur a legal liability under a credit subject to UCP600 , but if this were the case it would not be a result of the express terms of UCP600 and it is the express terms of UCP600 alone to which my posting above related.
Unless one takes the view that UCP500 sub-Article 14(e) can only be invoked where a bank has taken more than 7 days (as at least one court has) then under UCP600 the minimum time before the ‘preclusion rule’ (now in sub-Article 16(f)) can possibly be invoked has been increased over UCP500 from one banking day to five banking days.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 3/29/2007 5:39:58 PM]
I do not rule out the possibility that -in law- a bank that took more than a reasonable time could incur a legal liability under a credit subject to UCP600 , but if this were the case it would not be a result of the express terms of UCP600 and it is the express terms of UCP600 alone to which my posting above related.
Unless one takes the view that UCP500 sub-Article 14(e) can only be invoked where a bank has taken more than 7 days (as at least one court has) then under UCP600 the minimum time before the ‘preclusion rule’ (now in sub-Article 16(f)) can possibly be invoked has been increased over UCP500 from one banking day to five banking days.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 3/29/2007 5:39:58 PM]