DHL RECEIPT

[hatemshehab]

i have received the following query.

QUOTE

Dear Hatem

Hello, how are you doing, again I seek your help concerning a controversy which is taking place between us and BNP -PARIBAS BORDEAUX France concerning their alleged discrepancy (since January the 9th) as follows:

The DHL receipt pertaining to dispatch of certain docs by beneficiary to applicant is subject to article 29-b of UCP 500.Where as we insisted, to no avail, that 29-b deals with the document in lieu of transport document and quoting the article: ‘if a credit calls for a document issued by courier or expedited delivery service evidencing receipt of goods.'' hence the document in question is subject to article 21 and not 29-b.
It's worth mentioning that L/c stipulates the following:

" +Beneficiary statement certifying that all original documents marked (x) have been sent directly to the applicant by DHL speedpost within 3 days latest after loading of container (copy/photocopy of relevant DHL receipt must be also joined with required documents).”

Beneficiary presented the required certificate and enclosed a carbonized copy of DHL receipt showing the date and signature of the sender (under the box titled "sender's authorisation and signature “) and shows the carbonized signature of the "picked up by"

The bank considered the DHL receipt as discrepant since it " misses date of assumption of responsibility by DHL ''

We argued that L/C did not stipulate the contents of the DHL receipt and as such it's subject to article 21, which renders the document acceptable as presented.

(Should the bank argued that the nature of the document requires the date of assumption of responsibility by DHL, we would have considered their point of view, yet they did not stipulate the receipt to evidence date of receiving the docs by DHL). Instead they argued that the document is subject to article 29-b which requires the document to indicate date of picking up.

Therefore is the DHL receipt subject to article 21 or to article 29-b.?

UNQUOTE

[NigelHolt]

Without liability/responsibility:

As the document does not cover dispatch of goods sub-Article 29 is of no relevance and Article 21 applies.
[edited 2/23/03 9:57:42 AM]

[asamaha]

I agree that the documents referred to under article 29 relate only to the goods covered by the credit.
I believe also that even DHL receipt for samples of the goods covered by the credit falls under article 21.
Regards
Antoine SAMAHA

[hatemshehab]

Antoine,

You may want to know that the other bank arguing against the alleged discrepancy is a Lebanese one.

It might be noteworthy that what appears to be educational may take months of argument “for” and “against”

Hatem Shehab

[larryBacon]

The only date requirement in this DC relates to the bene cert. Since this has not been shown as discrepant, there should be no other date to be checked, unless the copy DHL receipt showed a date which was inconsistent with the claim on the bene cert.

Laurence

[PavelA]

I agree that the DHL document in this case would be examined according to article 21. Moreover the Credit asked for a “copy/photocopy of relevant DHL receipt”. According to ISBP the copy of the transport document need not show all details as original one, for instance signature.

Pavel Andrle