Address details required ?

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:00 am

LC calls for Chemical Analysis Cert., amongst others.
Document presented shows name of firm completing the document, but no indication if this company is Ltd., plc, S.A., etc. There is no address, phone, fax, email website or any indication of the country in which this firm is situated.
The document meets the requirements of the LC in terms of goods, ref. no. etc, but is there a discrepancy in not being able to identify the issuer of the document ?

Laurence

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:00 am

LeoCullen · Post by **LeoCullen** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:00 am

Also no. Though by the way you phrased the question, I dont think the answer will come as a surprise.

AlbertB · Post by **AlbertB** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:00 am

There is no discrepancy.
Please see Article 21.

JuergenHoltij · Post by **JuergenHoltij** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:00 am

Would also say no in respect with article 21 UCP. But is it really such easy? Must we not request a minimum of data in order to identify who did issue what. How could a company be held responsible by the applicant in case the analyses was not correct.
I know that in most cases LC's a silent in respect with the most important details, but in case I would have to finance such a deal, I would have some doubts, whether the document presented is really true.

PradeepT_old · Post by **PradeepT_old** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:00 am

As long as the beneficiary could be identified by his name appearing on the document, it is immaterial if the document does not bear the address details etc. NO !

Regards,

Pradeep

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:00 am

Pradeep,

there is no LC requirement for the beneficiary name to appear on this document.
I agree that the UCP is silent on this point, but perhaps the future UCP should change that.
Do you agree ?

Laurence
[edited 2/22/2005 12:06:29 PM]

Yahya · Post by **Yahya** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:00 am

Laurence,
I consider that the UCP should be silent on this point.As it is a fact that this is a matter of applicants not banks.If the applicant gives proper/detailed info about the issuer of required docs such as Inspection , analysis ....then there would be no doubt or problem about the issuer of the docs (I mean of course for banks).
I also believe that this case is not particularly relevant for the revision of UCP and having seen the drafts of UCP Revision,I should say that the Drafting Group has too much work to do before this:))

Yahya
[edited 2/23/2005 3:13:52 PM]

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:00 am

I suggest addressing this in UCP 600 because it is easy to see that it could easily be open to abuse and does not meet the commercial needs of applicants. As suggested earlier, this could also cause difficulty to applicants in seeking legal redress, if necessary.
Currently they have no redress to banks involved in the LC process if the issuer of a document cannot be identified. Legal redress may also be impossible as the issuer cannot be identified.
This would be a simple addition to the UCP which would close a "loophole" in the current draft.
I feel that this is an important issue and merits consideration of the drafting group, even if they are busy. The future benefits accruing from it outweigh the small work involved in drafting it.

Laurence

PradeepT_old · Post by **PradeepT_old** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:00 am

I agree with Lawrence to address this issue in UCP 600