Late presentation

[Yahya]

Where a cover letter is dated after the latest allowed date of presentation , can an issuing bank (IB) refuse the docs claiming the discrepancy " late presentation"?
Their contention that the cover letter should have stated that the docs were presented within the presentation period stipulated in the L/C.
Then we have informed them that the docs were presented within the period stated in the L/C and the statement on our cover letter certifying that the terms and
conditions have been complied with should also be sufficient evidence of the presentation has been made within the allowed time in the L/C.

And I also want to emphasize that there is no doc dated after the presentation date but cover letter and the presentation has been made within L/C expiry date.
Despite all these facts the IB bank still insists on that the lack of statement makes the presentation be discrepant.

Please also refer to ICC Official Opinion R373.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Yahya

[LeoCullen]

As the cover letter is not required under the L/C - the documents required under the L/C were presented on time and the cover letter indicates that the documents complied, I don't see how this can be interpreted as a discrepancy.

[CSchneiderbauer]

I think that the answer is cleary indicated in UCP 500 Art. 44c.

Regards
Christa

[LeoCullen]

I do not believe that Article 44c is applicable in this case as it relates to a situation where there has been an extension to the expiry of the credit.

From what I read the documents are presented within the expiry date indicated in the credit.

44.c reads as follows:

"c. The bank to which presentation is made on such first following business day must provide a statement that the documents were presented within the time limits extended in accordance with sub-Article 44 (a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 1993 Revision, ICC Publication No. 500."

[NigelHolt]

Yahya,

If a nominated bank omits to include in its schedule the fact that documents were presented within the post-shipment presentation period and/or on or before the expiry date where the date of its schedule suggests otherwise, and the issuing bank refuses documents for this reason, the issuing bank must withdraw the discrepancy(ies) if then provided with this information unless it has strong evidence that the nominated bank’s confirmation is not accurate.

Incidentally, the discrepancy ‘late presentation’ really ‘gets my goat’* [!], as it could equally apply to documents presented after the post-shipment presentation period or after the expiry date or both. To me, banks ought to be specific and say ‘Documents presented more than X days after shipment’ and/or ‘Documents presented after the expiry date’ so that it is clear as to the nature of the discrepancy.

* origin unknown

Regards, Jeremy

[KimChristensen]

Dear Yahya,

I also agree with you.

There is in fact a number of ICC opinions to support this in addition to the one mentioned by you. E.g. R.205 and R.481.

Best regards
Kim

[Yahya]

Thanks again for all comments,
I agree with Leo that Art 44c is not applicable in this case,as the docs presented within the L/C validity.
Jeremy,The Issuing Bank could not have any evidence supporting
"late presentation" .Their refusal was only based on the fact that"missing statement" on cover letter which dated after the latest permitted date of presentation stated in the L/C.
I don't think that nominated banks must indicate the date of receipt of docs , we do have
" reasonable time to examine and and determine" don't we ?

Regards,

[NigelHolt]

Yahya,

I quite agree that a bank has a reasonable time to examine documents. Nonetheless, I would expect a nominated bank to indicate that documents had been presented within the appropriate ‘deadline(s)’ where that was not obvious from the date of the nominated bank’s schedule and for the issuing bank to refuse the documents where the nominated bank failed to include this statement in these circumstances.

Regards, Jeremy

[Yahya]

Dear Jeremy,
I appreciate your viewpoint and understand your concern to see some words on cover letter about timely presentation.
In this case ,If the presenter had included such a statement, there might have been no refusal from the issuing bank. as I said in my first posting that" all terms and conditions are complied with" should also mean to the issuing bank that " the presentation has been made within permitted time limit in the L/C. My point for this case,where the cover letter has the statement " all terms... complied with" , there is no need to put a seperate indication on cover letter
about timely presentation.
If the docs are sent attached a cover letter stating "approval basis" or the like, the issuing bank may be entitled to refuse the docs based on the fact that
it has no evidence about timely presentation from the presenter. (assuming there is no seperate info from the presenter)

Regards,
Yahya

[edited 7/1/2005 3:07:48 PM]

[NigelHolt]

Yahya,

I certainly have some sympathy with your view regarding the statement that "all terms and conditions are complied with" should also mean to the issuing bank that " the presentation has been made within permitted time limit in the L/C” and would quite understand an issuing bank taking this view. I would simply observe that:

1. Many presentations made to my bank that bear this statement are non-compliant in some way.

2. I see few credits that require the nominated bank to make this statement when forwarding them to the issuing bank. In such circumstances I would expect the schedule to be silent on the question of compliance and only to contain a statement relating to the subject in the circumstances of your query and for that statement to be specific and not general.

Overall, if you want to be certain of avoiding this situation, be specific regarding the particular deadline that apparently might have been missed.

Regards, Jeremy

[edited 7/1/2005 3:18:58 PM]