ICC Digital Library Forum

Question:
Does a discrepant document with content discrepancy automatically create a late presentation with regards to art.43 ?

We sent documents - including a B/L being discrepant in terms of the signature and the name of the carrier - within the period of presentation to the bank as named in the L/C.
The named bank rejected documents due to the discrepant B/L as mentioned above and additionally due to 'late presentation', refering to UCP500 art.43: "should also stipulate a specified period of time after the date of shipment during which presentation must be made in compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit".

Comments from fellow DCPRO users are welcomed. Would you consider a discrepant document as above described as being als presented automatically late, too?
We would appreciate for all your feedback and/or comments.

Article 43 relates to the period of time for presentation of documents.

If a transport document is required under a credit, the credit should indicate the period of time for presentation of the documents.

If no period of time is mentioned, the bene has 21 days after the date of shipment in which to present the documents.

If the documents are presented within the period for presentation (and the expiry date), for the purposes of listing the discrepancies, this particular provision of UCP has been complied with - regardless of the compliance, or otherwise, of the documents.


[edited 7/2/03 5:04:04 PM]

If I understand the position correctly, the documents were:
1. Presented to the issuing/nominated bank (the ‘bank’) WITHIN the post-shipment presentation period (‘PPSD’),
2. Refused AFTER the end of the PPSD for various discrepancies, and
3. Because of these discrepancies the bank also raised the discrepancy that the documents were not presented, in order, within the PPSD.

If so, my personal opinion is that the bank did not act correctly with respect to 3. above, as discrepancies should only relate to the ‘state’ of the documents as at the time of presentation, not at the time of refusal. However, assuming that the other discrepancies are ‘valid’, this incorrect action is -to me- academic as the documents can never be re-presented in order within the PPSD anyway. I would mention that when I was a document examiner a couple of decades ago the (mal-) practice of my colleagues and I was to act as the bank in this example, not only with respect to the PPSD but expiry as well.

Wolfgang,

you have not indicated whether or not there was a specified period of time for presentation of documents, nor the period of time elapsed from shipment date to presentation to the bank. Your question cannot be fully answered without this information.

Laurence