I would like the opinion of DC-PRO participants on the following questions :
1. Should an advising bank be allowed to add an extra document as a requirement under a L/C advised by them ? Such documentary requirement is added without the knowledge of the issuing bank, but the document presented is not forwarded to the issuing bank by the advising bank.
2. Should an advising bank be allowed to add an extra clause or condition as a requirement under a L/C advised by them ? Such clause/condition is added without the knowledge of the issuing bank, but is not forwarded to the issuing bank by the advising bank.
In both cases the advising bank is also the negotiating bank.
Please respond with your comments indicating if you may take different positions depending on whether you are the issuing bank or the advising bank.
Obviously the above cases are based on actual recent experience, but I do not want to influence opinions of contributors to DC-PRO, but merely gauge other opinions.
Advising Bank's additional requirements
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Advising Bank's additional requirements
We know that the advising bank responsibilities are clearly indicated in article 7 and 12 of UCP 500. In addition, in accordance with article 10 b, c & d we know the role of the nominated negotiating bank. None of these articles allow the advising bank to change the terms and conditions of the credit. Having said that, whether the action of adding a document or an extra clause to the LC is consider a change to the terms and conditions to the credit is the question that need to be answered.
To provide an opinion, one would like to know for what reason would an advising bank require extra clause or document and in what manner was the addition made? Is it evident from the advised LC that the addition made, whether it is a document or clause, is actually made by the advising bank?
If yes, based on the assumption that:
a)the document or extra clause added by the advising bank do not affect any of the documents originally required by the issuing bank in a manner to make any of them discrepant
b) the issuing bank and the applicant are not interested in nor would object to additional document or extra clause required by the advising bank since it is only for the internal use by the advising bank or to meet certain regulatory requirement for an advising bank to negotiate the documents, I don’t see a problem. A beneficiary that would like to present the documents directly to the issuing bank would retain the extra document. Even if the extra document was presented, the issued bank would apply article 13a and either return it to the presenter or pass them on without responsibility.
When we talk about an extra clause, I again assume that the clause is most probably non-documentary and as I said above, it should be clearly visible from the LC received by the beneficiary that the advising bank has added this clause unilaterally. This could again be ok because in some jurisdictions, for a bank to negotiate a document, there are some conditions to be met. For example, for a US bank to negotiate and pay documents under an LC, it must make sure that the documents presented meets the terms and conditions of the LC and at the same time do not violate the U.S. law in relation to boycott clauses, sanctions etc. The advising US bank in this case would add a clause in its advice of the LC to that effect.
If the issue is different from what I have assumed above, then, as an advising bank, if for any reason it would like to request for an additional document or want to add an extra clause, it should request for an amendment to the LC. In the case of the issuing bank, if it came to its notice that the advising bank has added a clause or requested an extra document without its permission and without making it visible to the beneficiary or any other party that this addition is made solely by the advising bank, then it should hold the advising bank responsible for its action because the additional requirements might affect presentation of documents under the LC if it has to be presented to a party other than the advising bank or it would make any future amendments to the LC impossible.
To provide an opinion, one would like to know for what reason would an advising bank require extra clause or document and in what manner was the addition made? Is it evident from the advised LC that the addition made, whether it is a document or clause, is actually made by the advising bank?
If yes, based on the assumption that:
a)the document or extra clause added by the advising bank do not affect any of the documents originally required by the issuing bank in a manner to make any of them discrepant
b) the issuing bank and the applicant are not interested in nor would object to additional document or extra clause required by the advising bank since it is only for the internal use by the advising bank or to meet certain regulatory requirement for an advising bank to negotiate the documents, I don’t see a problem. A beneficiary that would like to present the documents directly to the issuing bank would retain the extra document. Even if the extra document was presented, the issued bank would apply article 13a and either return it to the presenter or pass them on without responsibility.
When we talk about an extra clause, I again assume that the clause is most probably non-documentary and as I said above, it should be clearly visible from the LC received by the beneficiary that the advising bank has added this clause unilaterally. This could again be ok because in some jurisdictions, for a bank to negotiate a document, there are some conditions to be met. For example, for a US bank to negotiate and pay documents under an LC, it must make sure that the documents presented meets the terms and conditions of the LC and at the same time do not violate the U.S. law in relation to boycott clauses, sanctions etc. The advising US bank in this case would add a clause in its advice of the LC to that effect.
If the issue is different from what I have assumed above, then, as an advising bank, if for any reason it would like to request for an additional document or want to add an extra clause, it should request for an amendment to the LC. In the case of the issuing bank, if it came to its notice that the advising bank has added a clause or requested an extra document without its permission and without making it visible to the beneficiary or any other party that this addition is made solely by the advising bank, then it should hold the advising bank responsible for its action because the additional requirements might affect presentation of documents under the LC if it has to be presented to a party other than the advising bank or it would make any future amendments to the LC impossible.
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Advising Bank's additional requirements
Full marks to AbdulhkaderB for guessing that the clause in question is indeed related to U.S sanctions. However, the case in question involves a branch of a US bank outside of the USA. The necessity to adhere to such a clause does not relate to the laws of the country where this branch is located. Therefore should this clause be allowed ?
This clause had the effect of imposing conditions on all documents presented.
Whether or not the advising bank adds such a clause because of compliance with the laws of other jurisdictions is not directly the issue in which I am interested. If such a clause is allowed in principle, there is no limit to what clauses may be added. My personal opinion is that the advising bank is not compelled to advise a credit. If this bank is not prepared to advise a credit in the form in which it received it, it has the option to refuse to advise it. Otherwise, it can request an amendment. However I would welcome other opinions.
The case where an extra document was requested is not related to this one.
This clause had the effect of imposing conditions on all documents presented.
Whether or not the advising bank adds such a clause because of compliance with the laws of other jurisdictions is not directly the issue in which I am interested. If such a clause is allowed in principle, there is no limit to what clauses may be added. My personal opinion is that the advising bank is not compelled to advise a credit. If this bank is not prepared to advise a credit in the form in which it received it, it has the option to refuse to advise it. Otherwise, it can request an amendment. However I would welcome other opinions.
The case where an extra document was requested is not related to this one.
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Advising Bank's additional requirements
Just for notation.
a) US Bank branches outside USA must comply with the laws of the country that the branch is located and certain US laws which are also applicable to US companies, banks etc located outside of USA.
a) The the extra clause imposes certain conditions on all the documents as rightly stated by Mr. Laurence, but at the same time, complying with them will not make the documents discrepant when examined against the LC received from the issuing bank.
I believe that this additional clause is like telling the beneficiary if you want to negotiate documents with us this is the pricing we charge. If you agree fine if not look for another bank, request for an amendment to have the LC negotiated by another bank etc.
[edited 9/6/01 11:30:17 AM]
a) US Bank branches outside USA must comply with the laws of the country that the branch is located and certain US laws which are also applicable to US companies, banks etc located outside of USA.
a) The the extra clause imposes certain conditions on all the documents as rightly stated by Mr. Laurence, but at the same time, complying with them will not make the documents discrepant when examined against the LC received from the issuing bank.
I believe that this additional clause is like telling the beneficiary if you want to negotiate documents with us this is the pricing we charge. If you agree fine if not look for another bank, request for an amendment to have the LC negotiated by another bank etc.
[edited 9/6/01 11:30:17 AM]
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Advising Bank's additional requirements
This is really a though provoking query that needs some “meditation”. I have reviewed the articles of UCP 500 under the following question in my mind:
WHO OWNS THE LETTER OF CREDIT?
WHOSE PROPERTY IS THE LETTER OF CREDIT?
1. If we take a close look on the articles 7, 8 and 9 we notice that it refers to “credit”, “instructions appear to have been received” which in my opinion refers to the original credit and does not give the advising bank any option to add or to delete anything therefrom.
Art. 7- a.
A CREDIT may be advised to a Beneficiary through another bank (the 'Advising Bank') without engagement on the part of the Advising Bank
Art.7-a.
If the Advising Bank cannot establish such apparent authenticity it must inform, without delay, the bank from which THE INSTRUCTIONS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED
2. If we agree with article 8-a. then we should agree that the advising bank couldn’t amend an irrevocable credit since he is not a party to that credit. This is because it is not his property.
Art. 8-a.
A revocable Credit may be amended or cancelled by the Issuing Bank at any moment and without prior notice to the Beneficiary.
3. In case of confirmed credits, the confirming bank cannot amend the credit terms unless there is consent from the parties to the credit; issuing bank and beneficiary.
Art. 9-b.
A confirmation of an irrevocable Credit by another bank (the "Confirming Bank") upon the authorisation or request of the Issuing Bank, constitutes a definite undertaking of the Confirming Bank, in addition to that of the Issuing Bank, provided that the stipulated documents are presented to the Confirming Bank or to any other Nominated Bank AND THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CREDIT ARE COMPLIED WITH.
4. The nominated bank is required to effect payment/negotiate documents against the terms and conditions of the credit, which is again the original credit routed to it from the issuing bank.
Art. 10-d.
By nominating another bank, or by allowing for negotiation by any bank, or by authorising or requesting another bank to add its confirmation, the Issuing Bank authorises such bank to pay, accept Draft(s) or negotiate as the case may be, AGAINST DOCUMENTS WHICH APPEAR ON THEIR FACE TO BE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CREDIT and undertakes to reimburse such bank in accordance with the provisions of these Articles.
5. The following article serve as a disclaimer for the issuing bank against the advising bank who unilaterally attempt to amend the terms and conditions of the credit. Imposing extra documents or extra clauses/ conditions terms amounts to amendment of the original instructions transmitted by the issuing bank, therefore if the credit is played with then the whole credit becomes in way “revocable” on the part of the issuing bank. This will certainly have serious consequences on the applicant-beneficiary relationship and on the issuing bank-beneficiary relationship. In this case the advising bank may have to face legal consequences as a result thereof.
Art. 18-b.
Banks assume no liability or responsibility should the instructions they transmit not to be carried out, even if they have themselves taken the initiative in the choice of such other bank(s)
WHO OWNS THE LETTER OF CREDIT?
WHOSE PROPERTY IS THE LETTER OF CREDIT?
1. If we take a close look on the articles 7, 8 and 9 we notice that it refers to “credit”, “instructions appear to have been received” which in my opinion refers to the original credit and does not give the advising bank any option to add or to delete anything therefrom.
Art. 7- a.
A CREDIT may be advised to a Beneficiary through another bank (the 'Advising Bank') without engagement on the part of the Advising Bank
Art.7-a.
If the Advising Bank cannot establish such apparent authenticity it must inform, without delay, the bank from which THE INSTRUCTIONS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED
2. If we agree with article 8-a. then we should agree that the advising bank couldn’t amend an irrevocable credit since he is not a party to that credit. This is because it is not his property.
Art. 8-a.
A revocable Credit may be amended or cancelled by the Issuing Bank at any moment and without prior notice to the Beneficiary.
3. In case of confirmed credits, the confirming bank cannot amend the credit terms unless there is consent from the parties to the credit; issuing bank and beneficiary.
Art. 9-b.
A confirmation of an irrevocable Credit by another bank (the "Confirming Bank") upon the authorisation or request of the Issuing Bank, constitutes a definite undertaking of the Confirming Bank, in addition to that of the Issuing Bank, provided that the stipulated documents are presented to the Confirming Bank or to any other Nominated Bank AND THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CREDIT ARE COMPLIED WITH.
4. The nominated bank is required to effect payment/negotiate documents against the terms and conditions of the credit, which is again the original credit routed to it from the issuing bank.
Art. 10-d.
By nominating another bank, or by allowing for negotiation by any bank, or by authorising or requesting another bank to add its confirmation, the Issuing Bank authorises such bank to pay, accept Draft(s) or negotiate as the case may be, AGAINST DOCUMENTS WHICH APPEAR ON THEIR FACE TO BE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CREDIT and undertakes to reimburse such bank in accordance with the provisions of these Articles.
5. The following article serve as a disclaimer for the issuing bank against the advising bank who unilaterally attempt to amend the terms and conditions of the credit. Imposing extra documents or extra clauses/ conditions terms amounts to amendment of the original instructions transmitted by the issuing bank, therefore if the credit is played with then the whole credit becomes in way “revocable” on the part of the issuing bank. This will certainly have serious consequences on the applicant-beneficiary relationship and on the issuing bank-beneficiary relationship. In this case the advising bank may have to face legal consequences as a result thereof.
Art. 18-b.
Banks assume no liability or responsibility should the instructions they transmit not to be carried out, even if they have themselves taken the initiative in the choice of such other bank(s)
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Advising Bank's additional requirements
1. The issue in question is raised within the scope of UCP 500 and not applicable laws therefore we should not as L/C practitioners be concerned about the legal consequences affecting the US Branch located outside the US. If that branch feels that certain conditions has to be added then it should obtain the approval from the issuing bank and not unilaterally impose certain clauses/documents in the original L/C. (although as a political superpower US can impose anything)
2. This action of imposing clauses / documents is not like pricing for negotiation. If one rents a house he cannot demolish and rebuild that house or do structural alterations without the consent of the landlord. The same thing applies for the L/C. The addition of clauses/documents is major structural alterations to it, which is not allowed in UCP.
3. How can one be sure that this addition of a certain clause /document will not have an effect on other document and once the originally requested document are presented will not be found in consistence with each other?
I think that the advising bank should follow the rule “TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT"
[edited 9/6/01 12:21:30 PM]
2. This action of imposing clauses / documents is not like pricing for negotiation. If one rents a house he cannot demolish and rebuild that house or do structural alterations without the consent of the landlord. The same thing applies for the L/C. The addition of clauses/documents is major structural alterations to it, which is not allowed in UCP.
3. How can one be sure that this addition of a certain clause /document will not have an effect on other document and once the originally requested document are presented will not be found in consistence with each other?
I think that the advising bank should follow the rule “TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT"
[edited 9/6/01 12:21:30 PM]
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Advising Bank's additional requirements
We do not want to confuse readers here and divert to politics.
The terms and conditions of the original LC are not altered. They would be written / copied in the advice as stated by the issuing bank. What we are saying is the negotiating bank could have its own conditions for negotiating the documents. It would say for example to the beneficiary that if you want to negotiate documents with us you should comply with US sanction laws. Other banks would say, for example, we need to see your official permit for exporting this type of goods or provide copy of your license that you are allowed to do this type of business in the country of export before we pay you.
The beneficiary may agree and comply with the request or contact the applicant to have the LC advised through another bank.
Such advising banks,in my opinion, are considered proactive and it is actually for the benefit of the beneficiary. It is better that the beneficiary knows the conditions for negotiation with a particular bank at the earlier stage than wait until the last minute and gets stuck.
We all know that no bank would reject a business in anticipation that something might go wrong. They may take precautionary measures instead. In these cases, the bank would advise the LC putting its conditions for negotiation, if beneficiary agrees the bank would get the business as well as it would comply with its internal requirements. If beneficiary disagrees / refuses, the advising bank would not be interested to be involved in such business because the penalties imposed (for e.g. on US banks) in many cases are heavy i.e. much higher than the income gained from negotiating the documents under the LC.
The main issue is that the beneficiary should know:
1) the additional requirement is that of the advising bank.
2) these additions don't make the documents required under the original LC discrepant or hinder future amendments.
As we want to respect the rights of the issuing bank, applicant & the beneficiary, it is also fair to state that we should respect the rights of the negotiating bank. In any case the beneficiary is not forced to negotiate with this bank. It has the option, in time, to request change of the advising bank / negotiating bank.
[edited 9/6/01 2:20:12 PM]
[edited 9/6/01 2:23:07 PM]
The terms and conditions of the original LC are not altered. They would be written / copied in the advice as stated by the issuing bank. What we are saying is the negotiating bank could have its own conditions for negotiating the documents. It would say for example to the beneficiary that if you want to negotiate documents with us you should comply with US sanction laws. Other banks would say, for example, we need to see your official permit for exporting this type of goods or provide copy of your license that you are allowed to do this type of business in the country of export before we pay you.
The beneficiary may agree and comply with the request or contact the applicant to have the LC advised through another bank.
Such advising banks,in my opinion, are considered proactive and it is actually for the benefit of the beneficiary. It is better that the beneficiary knows the conditions for negotiation with a particular bank at the earlier stage than wait until the last minute and gets stuck.
We all know that no bank would reject a business in anticipation that something might go wrong. They may take precautionary measures instead. In these cases, the bank would advise the LC putting its conditions for negotiation, if beneficiary agrees the bank would get the business as well as it would comply with its internal requirements. If beneficiary disagrees / refuses, the advising bank would not be interested to be involved in such business because the penalties imposed (for e.g. on US banks) in many cases are heavy i.e. much higher than the income gained from negotiating the documents under the LC.
The main issue is that the beneficiary should know:
1) the additional requirement is that of the advising bank.
2) these additions don't make the documents required under the original LC discrepant or hinder future amendments.
As we want to respect the rights of the issuing bank, applicant & the beneficiary, it is also fair to state that we should respect the rights of the negotiating bank. In any case the beneficiary is not forced to negotiate with this bank. It has the option, in time, to request change of the advising bank / negotiating bank.
[edited 9/6/01 2:20:12 PM]
[edited 9/6/01 2:23:07 PM]
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Advising Bank's additional requirements
1. I do not think that we are diverting into politics we are in it actually. All the procedures referred to like “US sanction laws”, “official permit for export”, “penalties imposed by US banks” are all politically motivated actions. So who is confusing who should be obvious.
2. All precautionary measures taken by the negotiating banks are procedural issues that are respected.
My argument before was based on the concept of "structural alterations" in the original L/C. Internal procedures for any bank is different from imposing a condition or a clause or even a document in the L/C therefore if the advising bank feels that he has conflicting laws with the L/C or it has to follow certain lawful procedures when negotiating L/C then it might refrain from dealing with this L/C. until then nothing in the original L/C has been altered unless there is an official amendment is forth coming from the issuing bank.
3. The last statement of Mr. Abdulkader “In any case the beneficiary is not forced to negotiate with this bank. It has the option, in time, to request change of the advising bank / negotiating bank.” put the conclusion in line of what I have stated before “TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT” so if I’m not mistaken we are not in disagreement.
[edited 9/6/01 10:28:00 PM]
2. All precautionary measures taken by the negotiating banks are procedural issues that are respected.
My argument before was based on the concept of "structural alterations" in the original L/C. Internal procedures for any bank is different from imposing a condition or a clause or even a document in the L/C therefore if the advising bank feels that he has conflicting laws with the L/C or it has to follow certain lawful procedures when negotiating L/C then it might refrain from dealing with this L/C. until then nothing in the original L/C has been altered unless there is an official amendment is forth coming from the issuing bank.
3. The last statement of Mr. Abdulkader “In any case the beneficiary is not forced to negotiate with this bank. It has the option, in time, to request change of the advising bank / negotiating bank.” put the conclusion in line of what I have stated before “TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT” so if I’m not mistaken we are not in disagreement.
[edited 9/6/01 10:28:00 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Advising Bank's additional requirements
It seems to me that the motivation of the bank is as much political as legal. If it has a (US) legal problem with advising the L/C without such clauses, there is no compulsion for it to advise the L/C. When it chooses to advise the L/C with the additional clauses, this is a political decision. I have always considered that all versions of the UCP steered clear of politics so that banks could be seen as trusted intermediaries in international trade transactions. If we allow such intervention in this case, where will it end ?
The point I would like to discuss here is that the addition of a clause by the advising bank is the equivalent of an amendment, but this amendment does not have the approval of the applicant, the issuing bank, or the beneficiary.
However, I am also concerned with the principle that if the advising bank is unilaterally allowed to add a clause, there appears to be no limit to what conditions it may impose. It has been said that the reason for addition of such a clause is to comply with US laws, but if that is the case a bank may use the excuse of citing the laws of any country without having to give a reason for it.
For example, should London branches of Arab banks acting in the role of advising banks be allowed to add a requirement for a Halal certificate for meat shipments not involving Arab countries ?
Another example might be of the advising bank adding a requirement of legalisation to a certificate of origin which was not in the original L/C.
An issuing bank ultimately receiving documents presented under such conditions would not regard such additional clauses or documents as making the presentation discrepant. In fact they may not be aware of such unilateral additional conditions and it is standard procedure to ignore documents additional to the requirement of the original L/C. However, this is not the point at issue.
Should an advising bank be permitted to add clauses or documents to an L/C, assuming that the bank does not break the laws of the country in which it is situated by omitting such clauses or documents ?
My thanks to Hatem and Abdulkader for their continuing discussions on this, but I would appreciate a broad spectrum of contributors viewpoints.
The point I would like to discuss here is that the addition of a clause by the advising bank is the equivalent of an amendment, but this amendment does not have the approval of the applicant, the issuing bank, or the beneficiary.
However, I am also concerned with the principle that if the advising bank is unilaterally allowed to add a clause, there appears to be no limit to what conditions it may impose. It has been said that the reason for addition of such a clause is to comply with US laws, but if that is the case a bank may use the excuse of citing the laws of any country without having to give a reason for it.
For example, should London branches of Arab banks acting in the role of advising banks be allowed to add a requirement for a Halal certificate for meat shipments not involving Arab countries ?
Another example might be of the advising bank adding a requirement of legalisation to a certificate of origin which was not in the original L/C.
An issuing bank ultimately receiving documents presented under such conditions would not regard such additional clauses or documents as making the presentation discrepant. In fact they may not be aware of such unilateral additional conditions and it is standard procedure to ignore documents additional to the requirement of the original L/C. However, this is not the point at issue.
Should an advising bank be permitted to add clauses or documents to an L/C, assuming that the bank does not break the laws of the country in which it is situated by omitting such clauses or documents ?
My thanks to Hatem and Abdulkader for their continuing discussions on this, but I would appreciate a broad spectrum of contributors viewpoints.
Advising Bank's additional requirements
ONE BANK PLAYING TWO SEPARATE ROLES
Before we express any comment or opinion here, we should have our head cleared of the facts. The bank is wearing two hats, being an advising bank and ALSO a negotiating bank.
POWER AS AN ADVISING BANK
As an advising bank, it cannot add any requirement in the DC for presentation of additional document(s), because the UCP has already given it a full liberty not to advise the DC, if it does not feel like it. As Hatem says this is a "take it or leave it" choice.
POWER AS A NEGOTIATING BANK
As a negotiating bank, under the UCP, it may say No if it does not wish to take up the role of a negotiating bank. If it wishes to take up such role, it may specify terms and conditions under which it agrees to negotiate. This is different from asking for additional stipulated document(s), which only the issuing bank has such power, not even the confirming bank.
SAME RESULT BUT DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Although both aproaches may achieve the same result, there should be great differences. One approach is not violating the UCP whilst the other does.
FROM AGENCY PERSPECTIVES
Both the advising bank and the negotiating bank are merely agents of the issuing bank. Hence they should not ask for additional document(s) for presentation under the DC unless authorised. However, it may ask for document(s) which are not deemed to be stipulated documents in the DC but rather being part of the terms and conditions of negotiation. They are not "documents" taking the meaning of Article 13 or 14 in the UCP 500.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/8/01 6:27:53 AM]
Before we express any comment or opinion here, we should have our head cleared of the facts. The bank is wearing two hats, being an advising bank and ALSO a negotiating bank.
POWER AS AN ADVISING BANK
As an advising bank, it cannot add any requirement in the DC for presentation of additional document(s), because the UCP has already given it a full liberty not to advise the DC, if it does not feel like it. As Hatem says this is a "take it or leave it" choice.
POWER AS A NEGOTIATING BANK
As a negotiating bank, under the UCP, it may say No if it does not wish to take up the role of a negotiating bank. If it wishes to take up such role, it may specify terms and conditions under which it agrees to negotiate. This is different from asking for additional stipulated document(s), which only the issuing bank has such power, not even the confirming bank.
SAME RESULT BUT DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Although both aproaches may achieve the same result, there should be great differences. One approach is not violating the UCP whilst the other does.
FROM AGENCY PERSPECTIVES
Both the advising bank and the negotiating bank are merely agents of the issuing bank. Hence they should not ask for additional document(s) for presentation under the DC unless authorised. However, it may ask for document(s) which are not deemed to be stipulated documents in the DC but rather being part of the terms and conditions of negotiation. They are not "documents" taking the meaning of Article 13 or 14 in the UCP 500.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/8/01 6:27:53 AM]