ICC Digital Library Forum

There are two DCs, inter-related (but not back-to-back or transferable) by the fact that the same original full set B/L is required for presentation in each. If each DC calls for the DC no. to be quoted in the B/L, and the B/L issued therefore contains two DC nos., will this be regarded as discrepant ?

There are valid reasons why the entire transaction was not covered by a transferable or back-to-back DC, but for confidentiality reasons, I prefer not to detail this.

Laurence

I would not consider it as a discrepancy. The B/L bears the DC No. as required by the DC. The other DC No. would be considered as additional information.

Best Regards,
Pavel Andrle

In theory, we support the opinion of Pavel because there is no article in the UCP 500 that prohibits a BL to quote two DC Nos.

DATA CONTENT OF SUCH BL WOULD DECIDE DISCREPANCY AND WORKABILITY OF THE TWO PRESENTATIONS

Having said that, we also have to look at the data content of the BL. If the full and complete quantities of the two DCs have been shipped, then we may have a problem. How can one set of BL be presented against two separate DC? We have two presentations here and got only one set of BL. Then one of the presentations would have no BL to support.

However, if the BL covers only part of the quantities of the two DCs, then the next presentation can be made by presenting ANOTHER BL covering the balance quantities of the goods.

So the data content of the BL, that bears two DC Nos. would be a decisive factor in determining discrepancy or in workability of the two presentations.

If ONE DC (RATHER THAN TWO DCS) is presented whereas a BL showing goods covered by another DC (which is not presented), then those goods would be deemed to be "additional goods" and this constitutes a discrepancy according to an ICC Banking Commission decision made by the late Bernard Wheble in Query R.65 on page 98 of ICC Publication No. 371.

So please do not complain that a consultant always make things more complicated. This time there is a need to do so. This is also the reason why we do not give our decision on most of the queries due to insufficient data content provided

www.tolee.com

[edited 3/21/02 4:32:15 PM]

T. O.

The only issue in question here is the acceptability of two DC nos. on the B/L.
The other issues raised by you do not apply because, as I suggested earlier, although these were not back-to-back or transferable DCs, in fact there were similarities in that

1. the B/L was consigned to order
2. the notify party/destination was the same.
3. the applicant of DC#2 was the bene of DC#1. Thus we are not considering simultaneous presentations, which you seem to have assumed and as you say would be impossible.

Laurence

Unless either of the l/c's prohibits the b/l from quoting other l/c no's (I have seen such a clause) the document is acceptable.

Laurence,

Thanks for your clarification. In fact "two 'inter-related' DC" may mean that the goods, port of loading, destination, parties etc. are the same, particularly to a "lateral thinking" consultant. If you have made the point clear in your query, that the beneficiary in the first DC is also the applicant of the second DC, then we would not have made an assumption that does not match the factual situation.

That is also the reason why in drafting our expert's report, we always ask our customer/client to verify the material facts before we proceed further to save time and to avoid inappropriate opinions based on wrong assumptions.

www.tolee.com

[edited 3/24/02 2:37:12 PM]