ICC Digital Library Forum

l/c-opening requires following document:
international truck consignment note (cmr), copy for the sender, duly signed, showing 'forwarder' as consignee and notify applicant and marked freigt prepaid'.
cmr was presented without remark 'copy for the sender'
would you accept this document?

ICC Opinion R467 covers a very similar
issue.

The folllowing is taken from the conclusion of that Opinion:

Article 28 of UCP 500 does not cover the issue of "copy for the consignor/shipper" in respect of CMRs unlike the reference in Article 27 for the presentation of a similarly titled document where air waybills are required.

Where a letter of credit requires the presentation of a document and then details a specific version of that document, then this should be adhered to by the beneficiary. In this instance, the presentation of a CMR which does not bear reference to it being "copy for the consignor/shipper" would be deemed to be discrepant.

Wolfgang has indicated that the CMR was presented without the remark 'copy for the sender' and at first glance this would appear to be discrepant. However, he has not indicated which copy this was or whether similar wording was used. Similar wording may make it acceptable, including that of a different language.

Laurence

Yes, nowadays many CMRs – copies for the sender are not actually marked as being „copy for the sender“ as the inquiry points out. There is ICC Banking Commission Opinion – R467 – which covers this issue. However I am not particularly pleased with the outcome of this Opinion. Therefore today situation is, that if L/C requires CMR, the CMR marked „copy for the shipper“ or CMR without any indication which copy it is would be acceptable, but on the other hand if L/C asks for a „copy for the sender“, the CMR presented must be marked as such to be acceptable.

Pavel Andrle

With these connotes, there are normally several ‘carbon copies”. Does it really matter which copy the bank gets? They are all carbon copies of each other. We all live in the real world and does it really effect the transaction if the customer gets a blue copy instead of the green one he wanted?

The only significant difference I can think of in relation to which copy of the CMR is presented relates to signatures and their significance. One of the copies is designated for the receiver and provision is made for their signature, thus proving receipt. Some DCs are issued requiring evidence of receipt instead of or in addition to despatch and in those cases a copy CMR signed by the receiver may fulfill this need.

Laurence

I would accept a CMR which is not marked "copy for consignor/sender/shipper" (which means that it is not marked at all) as long as there is no doubt that it is not a copy for other purposes such as copy for the transporter etc. and that all other requirements are being fulfilled (document has to be an original etc) This is also in line with ISBP on that subject.
Regards
Heinz Hertl

Without liability/responsibility, my own personal views, for what they are worth, are:

The credit seems to contain an express requirement that the ‘copy for the sender’ must be presented. Therefore, I believe the ICN presented must appear to be the ‘copy for the sender’. Accordingly, given the express requirements of the credit, I would feel obliged to reject any ICN that did not appear to be the ‘copy for the sender’. However, I do not believe that the only way of meeting this requirement is for the words ‘copy for the sender’ literally to appear on the document presented. Nonetheless, I would be loathe to accept a document that did not contain some form of words that indicated it was the copy for the sender. As a consequence, the likelihood is that I would reject a document that was silent on the matter.

Assuming point 172 of draft v4 of ISBP remains unchanged (we are still awaiting our copies of the definitive ISBP and are therefore in the dark on this), I would have thought it could only be taken as applying where the credit is silent on the matter.