Certificate of Origin

GerhardH · Post by **GerhardH** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:00 am

Certificate of Origin, issued by German Chamber of Commerce has been presented. Signed and stamped on the front side, back side showing name and address of manufacturer.
This Certificate of Origin has been refused because back side has not been signed and stamped by Chamber of Commerce.
We refused this discrepancy according to ISBP Art. 27, but they brought forward the argument that the text on the back side constitutes an alteration, which must be authorized by issuing party.
Thank you in advance for your comments.

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:00 am

Hi,

Unfortunately I would agree that the document is discrepant, since the signature of the Chamber of Commerce would only pertain to the information above it's signature.

Also unfortunately I know that the Chambers of Commerce in Europe will not usually accept to certifying the name and address of the manufacturer on the C.O.

One solution I would suggest is to have the credit amended so that the name and address of the manufacturer appear on the invoice instead of the C.O. (of course prior to presenting documents)

Sorry
Judith
[edited 9/22/2009 5:36:49 PM]

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:00 am

Like many aspects in Trade, there is not a black and white response to all questions. It really depends on the document itself and the LC requirements. In example, if the C/O had a "manufacturer field" on side two and it was completed then I would generally say it is acceptable. Conversely, if something is added say in handwriting to a legalized document, then I would generally reject it unless the addition were properly approved. I agree that ISBP paragraph 27 is the appropriate response but the document itself may overall the common practice so it does need to be reviewed for a true response to be given.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:00 am

Did the DC require that the name and address of manufacturer appeared on the CoO?
Daniel

PradeepT_old · Post by **PradeepT_old** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:00 am

Hi,

Does the front side of the CO bear a reference to the name and address of the manufacturer on the back side ? E.g., does it state that that the name and address of the manufacturer are given overleaf, back side or similar ?

If it does, the document is not discrepant. If the DC does require that name and address of the manufacturer be given on the CO without specifying as to where should such name and address appear, I would accept the CO applying Para 27 of ISBP.

If the back side of CO has a pre-printed field or box for mentioning the name and address of manufacturer, I would still accept the CO whether or not it is signed and stamped by the Chamber of Commerce.

If, however, the name and adress of manufacturer appear to have been super-imposed on the back side of CO, I may have my doubts as to whether such incporporation constituted an alternation provided that such super-imposition contradict any other information given on the front side. However, as Glenn said, without viewing the CO, it will be difficult to post an appropriate response.

Pradeep
Bahrain

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:00 am

Given the fact that the CO was issued by the German Chamber of Commerce, I presume that it is in the standardized form for CO's that are issued in the European community. In such a case, there is nothing printed on the back.

I also presume that the LC required the CO to state the name (and address?) of the manufacturers.

There is a box for "observations", which could eventually indicate the name and address of the manufacturers, but it is very difficult to get a Chamber of Commerce to certifiy such a statement.

And I have never seen an European CO with something on the back -- which would certainly lead me to believe that any mentions on the back were added after signature by the Chamber of Commerce.

I agree it would be easier to give an opinion if we saw the actual CO, but in the absence of such a possibility, I do stand by my original position.

Sorry
Judith

GerhardH · Post by **GerhardH** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:00 am

Dear Daniel,

yes Manufacters are required on C/O.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:00 am

Therefore, if it was required in the credit, it is not an alteration. It is the fulfilment of a DC requirement through an addendum.
Daniel