SHIPPER DIFFERENT FROM BENEFICIARY

ARoncoroni · Post by **ARoncoroni** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:00 am

Several times happen that banks raise discrepancies when the shipper indicated in b/l (or any other transport document) is different from the beneficiary of letters of credit not including the famous clause "third parties documents acceptable" that should not be used as it's not defined in UCP.
My question is: how could a bank justify a refusal of docs based on the a/m discrepancy, when it seems that nowhere the UCP prohibits shipper to be a different entity from beneficiary?

LeoCullen · Post by **LeoCullen** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:00 am

If I understand your question correctly, UCP 500 Article 31 (iii) covers this. It indicates that the consignor/shipper indicated in the transport document can be different from the beneficiary in the credit:

"Unless otherwise stipulated in the Credit, banks will accept a transport document which:

.......

iii. indicates as the consignor of the goods a party other than the Beneficiary of the Credit."

[edited 2/6/2004 4:55:44 PM]

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:00 am

I suggest that if a bank rejects a presentation for shipper not being the beneficiary, you should ask them upon which Article of UCP their rejection is based.

Laurence

LeeHowSeng · Post by **LeeHowSeng** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am

It is very clear in UCP Art 31(iii)
Unless specified in LC , beneficiary does not have to be shown as the shipper/consignor on the BL.
It is simply baseless.