Incoterms version not mentioned in the LC but stated in the

GSham · Post by **GSham** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:00 am

LC states, under description of goods, trade term as CIF Shanghai. Invoice presented shows trade term as CIF Shanghai Incoterms 2010. I would say this is not a discrepancy, as the information "Incoterms 2010" in the invoice is additional information not in conflict with the LC (provided it is not in conflict with data in the invoice and the other stipulated documents).

However, if LC states trade term as CIF Shanghai Incoterms 2000, and invoice states it as CIF Shanghai Incoterms 2010, it is a discrepancy.

Can I have your comment please?

Regards,
Gabriel

HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid · Post by **HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:00 am

Dear Gabriel,

It’s a discrepancy.

Please note that although the ICC recommends using INCOTERMS® 2010 after 2011, parties to a contract for the sale with respect of the delivery of goods can agree to use any version of Incoterms after 2011.

Regards,
Duc N.H

GSham · Post by **GSham** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:00 am

Dear Duc N.H.

My view is: it is not a discrepancy if the invoice shows CIF Shanghai Incoterms 2010 whereas LC shows CIF Shanghai only. The rationale is "Incoterms 2010" shown in the invoice is additional information not in conflict with the LC (or data in other stipulated documents). Do you agree or not agree?

Regards,
Gabriel

ZErsamut · Post by **ZErsamut** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:00 am

Hi;

It is not a discrepancy. Please see
Official Opinion R695 / TA615rev - 2005-2008 From UCP500 - Miscellaneous.

Regards.

Zeynep ERSAMUT

GSham · Post by **GSham** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:00 am

Thanks, Zeynep.

Regards
Gabriel

HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid · Post by **HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:00 am

Sorry for my unclear answer.
I meant to agree with you that if LC states trade term as CIF Shanghai Incoterms 2000, and invoice states it as CIF Shanghai Incoterms 2010, it is a discrepancy.

Regards,
Duc N.H