What are the minimum conditions for a document ?

[larryBacon]

LC calls for a Packing List, amongst other documents.

Presentation includes a document titled "Packing List" and contains the normal details associated with a packing list. However, the detail is typed on a blank page. There is no indication of issuer, no signature, chop, or other means of associating it with other document issuers. This is not hypothetical.

Does the document comply or not ?

Laurence

[JudithAutié]

In my own personal view, and without responsibility :

I see two points raised in this question :
- who should issue documents under a credit
- must the issuer of one document be linked in some manner to issuers of other documents.

Article 21 clearly states that if the credit does not indicate by whom a document must be issued, « banks will accept such documents as presented, provided that their data content is not inconsistent with any other stipulated document presented”. This sentence specifically refers to consistency of data content, and not consistency of issuer(s).

Paragraph 25 in ISBP also only would apply if the credit indicates by whom the document is to be issued. ISBP para 43 states that the content of a document must appear to fulfill the function of the required document. The packing list presented contains the normal details.

Only if the presented packing list appears to contain a certificate or declaration would a signature be required. If this is not the case, and taking into account the preceding points, I see no valid reason for refusing such a document.

Best wishes for a great new year
Judith

[NigelHolt]

Laurence,

Congratulations on making the first posting of the year.

I agree with Judith regarding the issuer question. However, Judith does not seem to me to have addressed the ‘linkage’ question, a subject about which I am highly critical of the ICC Banking Commission and Publication 645. Linkage was covered in UCP400, in the equivalent of the current Art. 21 (22/23?- I do not have access to a UCP400 at the moment), but dropped –without any explanation- from UCP500. P645 only mentions it with respect to cert’s of origin, in para 198, despite there being an opinion –from 1997- on the subject of linkage in general, R251. Finally, Raymond Jack’s discussion of the position under English law, in ‘Documentary Credits’, is most interesting (if anything connected with credits can be said to be interesting).

From the details you have provided, it is not clear if there is anything that could be used to link the p/l with the other documents. However, I infer there is not and that therefore –without any responsibility or liability on my part- I personally consider the p/l is discrepant for this reason, as confirmed by R251.

Incidentally, I think it is critical the question of linkage is properly addressed in UCP600. As a member of the consultative group perhaps you could try and wield some influence on this matter? I certainly ‘banged on’ about it at the last ICC UK meeting and am hoping my views were regarded positively by the UK rep.

Happy New Year, Jeremy

[edited 1/7/2004 2:31:48 PM]

[JudithAutié]

Jeremy,

I do not agree with the idea that the problem is one of linkage -- at least not the way the problem was stated. The "linkage" that Laurence seems to be looking for is linkage of the issuer.

In the UCP400 article 23 did require that the data on the documents had to be related to the invoice (or to the credit but only in the absence of an invoice), which I think was too limited a linkage to make.

I still would accept the pl as presented

Best regards
Judith

[larryBacon]

Judith is correct in that the linkage I was trying to establish was relating to the issuer. If there was a signature on the PL matching that of another document, it would be reasonable to conclude that it was issued by the same person/company.

Article 21 states that Credits should stipulate by whom documents are to be issued. This infers that (all) documents should indicate the issuer. Although the same article goes on to say that banks will accept documents as presented, in the absence of the issuer in the Credit, the assumption here is that any issuer will be acceptable if none is stated. I think that it would be an unreasonable interpretation of the intent of this article to assume that the absence of an issuer is acceptable.

Although the DC business stands on the sidelines of the underlying contract, we must be aware of the legal implications of the documents we are dealing with. I would not have to make this point if we were dealing with invoices or B/L, but I am sure that any lawyer would regard a document issued without any indication of issuer as not worth the paper on which it is written.

I am sure Jeremy would be better informed than I regarding such legal issues.

Laurence
[edited 1/7/2004 6:56:48 PM]

[AbdulkaderBazara]

I believe we all agree that all documents presented under an LC, whether the required issuer of the document is specified in the LC terms and condition or unspecified, must appear to have been issued by someone (a person or an entity etc.). Unless, in some jurisdiction, it is allowed to relate a document that doesn’t show the name of its issuer to the beneficiary (the presenter) as the issuer or responsible for its content, then it could arguably be considered as a discrepant document.

regards & happy new year to all

[NigelHolt]

Laurence,

It was a pleasure trying to help out; no thanks are necessary. (Also congratulations to Judith for being able to decipher your query.)

I can certainly see -an apparently persuasive- argument for saying a document presented under a credit must purport to have an issuer, although I do not believe bankers must be aware -for the purposes of determining compliance of documents- of the ‘legal implications’ of the documents specified in a credit; this seems to run counter to the fundamental tenets of the principles of document examination.

Finally, I would re-iterate my view that the question of ‘linkage’ (in the normal sense of the term) remains an important issue crying out for resolution in the next UCP revision.

Regards, Jeremy

[PGauntlett]

A packing list is one of those types of docs which clearly (if the l/c is silent) does not need to be issued by a named party provided it fulfils its function as a packing list. Other docs fall into this category such as weight note and stowage plan. Obviously it is unusual for the originator of a document not to produce it on headed paper but, in the example quoted, that can't solely be the reason for refusal

Phil

[NigelHolt]

More power to your elbow, my son.

[larryBacon]

Phil,

what is the basis of your statement that no issuer is required for a packing list etc ?
You might well ask me to account for my opinion on the converse. The only document covered in ISBP which is not mentioned in the UCP is the cert. of origin. Par. 197 states "If a credit does not state who is to issue the certificate, than a document issued by any party, including the beneficiary, is acceptable."
This has the effect that a C/O is acceptable, under given circumstances, issued by "any party". The obvious converse, whereby the C/O is not issued by any party, would suggest that it is not acceptable. If this is true, can we infer that the same applies to other documents ?
The context of Article 21 should also come into play here, which exhorts us to provide issuers and data content for every document. If it is intended that issuers are not required for certain documents, why do we have this Article ?

Laurence