Description of Goods and Partial Shipments

IacovosLouca · Post by **IacovosLouca** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:00 am

Dc indicates in description of goods "Charcoal AND Firewood CFR ...Port"
No quantity of goods or unit prices are shown in the Letter of Credit.

Partial Shipments are allowed.

Two sets of documents were already presented covering Charcoal and showing description of goods on invoices as "Charcoal CFR.....Port". These documents were accepted and paid, with the understanding that since the letter of credit allowed partial shipments the Beneficiary had the right to ship only one kind of goods at a time, assuming that the remaining kind of goods i.e. Fire Wood would have been shipped with another shipment as the Dc was not fully utilised.
We have now received another set of documents which we consider to be the final shipment as the balance of the letter of credit is being fully utilised.
This new set of documents covers again "Charcoal CFR ......Port"
Are we correct to consider this a discrepancy due to the fact that the second item i.e´. Fire Wood was never shipmed?

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:00 am

Without responsibility/liability:

I believe you are obliged to treat the last presentation as discrepant.

MarkColeman · Post by **MarkColeman** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:00 am

If the 2nd set of documents was for the remaining balance of funds under the L/C, I would also say that these documents are discrepant. If there were still funds still to be unitised, then they would not be discrepant.

Mark from Melbourne

PGauntlett · Post by **PGauntlett** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:00 am

If the l/c was definitely fully utilised i.e. zero balance the last presentation is discrepant. If there was any balance, however small, docs would be acceptable

Phil Gauntlett

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:00 am

This DC was drafted in such a loose fashion that there is another facet to be considered.

The assumption has been made that because the DC has been fully utilised to its maximum value, that there is no remaining balance. While it may be true that there is no remaining monetary balance, the beneficiary still has the option to make a further shipment of firewood of zero value. No quantity has been specified, so there would be no discrepancy for overshipment. Even if a quantity of kgs had been specified, a small shipment within the 5% allowed would be acceptable.

Therefore the current presentation is acceptable.

Laurence

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:00 am

DonSmith · Post by **DonSmith** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:00 am

I fail to understand the last comment - if the credit is fully utilized by this last shipment, and there is no firewood shipped, I believe this presentation must be considered discrepant. If there is ANY amount remaining, even $0.01 then it could be treated as complying.

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:00 am

Don,

when a credit is fully utilised, two factors are taken into account -
1. Full utilisation of the value of the DC.
2. Full shipment of the goods cited in the DC.

It is usually possible to directly link goods shipped v value, but in this case we have no information on unit price or quantity of goods to be shipped. Therefore it is possible for the charcoal to be chargeable and the firewood to be shipped free of charge. In this example, the charcoal could be shipped in full and documents presented to fully utilise the value of the DC. This would not preclude a subsequent shipment of the second part of the (unspecified quantity) goods, namely firewood. Negotiations under the UCP can be made without the giving of monetary value against documents presented if so dictated by the wording (or in this case the lack of) in the DC.

Laurence

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:00 am

????????

PavelA · Post by **PavelA** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:00 am

In my opinion the presentation would be discrepant. I also fail to follow the logic given above.

With Best Regards,

Pavel Andrle