Art 14 (d) of UCP 600 states that Data in a document, need not be identical, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit. The last part of this art relating to “data in the credit” is slightly confusing for me, for e.g. where a credit states the origin of goods as “China” without stipulating a document to evidence compliance should the document checker consider this as “data in the credit” or disregard it as if not stated as provided in sub art 14 (h). I assume that having disregarded the non-documentary condition presentation of a document indicating origin of goods other than “china” would be acceptable.
Regards Khalid
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
Nice one, Khalid; hadn’t thought of that. However, I do not think this aspect of 600 14(d) changes anything as -I feel certain- banks would (rightly) refuse as non-complying any documents under 500 where the data in a document conflicted with the credit. In the case of an NDC, if it has to be ‘deemed as not stated’ and as a result ‘diregarded’ then logically it simply cannot be taken into account in the examination of documents in any manner whatsoever.
-
PradeepT_old
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
Dear Khalid/Dear Jeremy,
I am afraid that I do not agree to the “logic” put forward. Even though the stipulation for goods to be of Chinese origin is a “non documentary condition”, it is explicit that documents must not evidence goods of non-Chinese origin. The situation is similar to an LC stipulating terms of shipment as “CFR” without calling for a Bill of Lading that evidences “freight prepaid”. In such a case, will you not reject a Bill of Lading with “freight payable” clause ?
Although a non-documentary condition, the intent of term CFR is explicit. Like-wise, if the intent for the goods to be of Chinese origin is explicit in the Credit, “any document presented must not conflict with data in the credit” in accordance with aforesaid article of UCP 600. Whether or not documents evidence goods to be of Chinese origin (since there is no documentary requirement), the documents presented must not evidence goods of non-Chinese origin and if they do, I will reject them.
Regards,
Pradeep
I am afraid that I do not agree to the “logic” put forward. Even though the stipulation for goods to be of Chinese origin is a “non documentary condition”, it is explicit that documents must not evidence goods of non-Chinese origin. The situation is similar to an LC stipulating terms of shipment as “CFR” without calling for a Bill of Lading that evidences “freight prepaid”. In such a case, will you not reject a Bill of Lading with “freight payable” clause ?
Although a non-documentary condition, the intent of term CFR is explicit. Like-wise, if the intent for the goods to be of Chinese origin is explicit in the Credit, “any document presented must not conflict with data in the credit” in accordance with aforesaid article of UCP 600. Whether or not documents evidence goods to be of Chinese origin (since there is no documentary requirement), the documents presented must not evidence goods of non-Chinese origin and if they do, I will reject them.
Regards,
Pradeep
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
Pradeep,
Sorry, I disagree entirely that ‘Even though the stipulation for goods to be of Chinese origin is a “non documentary condition”, it is explicit that documents must not evidence goods of non-Chinese origin’. The words ‘deem … as not stated’ and ‘will disregard it’ are capable of only one meaning and no other. Either something is a ‘condition’, in which case account must automatically be taken of it in determining the compliance of documents, or it is a NDC, in which case automatically no account whatsoever must be taken of it.
Incidentally, I cannot see that -what appears to be- an Incoterm in a goods description is a ‘condition’ of the credit or a ‘NDC’. It appears to me to be simply information that has to be replicated in the invoice presented and no more.
Lastly, I would mention that I consider Position Paper 3 will effectively continue to represent i.s.b.p. not withstanding that 600 says ‘The four Position Papers issued in September 1994 were issued subject to their application under UCP 500; therefore, they will not be applicable under UCP 600’. Therefore, if the credit in Khalid’s example called for a certificate of origin I would deem it non-complying if it did not show the goods were of Chinese origin.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 12/7/2006 10:36:23 AM]
Sorry, I disagree entirely that ‘Even though the stipulation for goods to be of Chinese origin is a “non documentary condition”, it is explicit that documents must not evidence goods of non-Chinese origin’. The words ‘deem … as not stated’ and ‘will disregard it’ are capable of only one meaning and no other. Either something is a ‘condition’, in which case account must automatically be taken of it in determining the compliance of documents, or it is a NDC, in which case automatically no account whatsoever must be taken of it.
Incidentally, I cannot see that -what appears to be- an Incoterm in a goods description is a ‘condition’ of the credit or a ‘NDC’. It appears to me to be simply information that has to be replicated in the invoice presented and no more.
Lastly, I would mention that I consider Position Paper 3 will effectively continue to represent i.s.b.p. not withstanding that 600 says ‘The four Position Papers issued in September 1994 were issued subject to their application under UCP 500; therefore, they will not be applicable under UCP 600’. Therefore, if the credit in Khalid’s example called for a certificate of origin I would deem it non-complying if it did not show the goods were of Chinese origin.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 12/7/2006 10:36:23 AM]
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
Khalid,
That was a good one. By process of elimination your point would seem to be valid but in practice we would not do that. In accordance with the article we may not, under the LC, be required to present a documentary evidence for the origin of the goods but if we did we have to comply with what is obvious in the LC or else the presentation would be considered discrepant.
Best regards
That was a good one. By process of elimination your point would seem to be valid but in practice we would not do that. In accordance with the article we may not, under the LC, be required to present a documentary evidence for the origin of the goods but if we did we have to comply with what is obvious in the LC or else the presentation would be considered discrepant.
Best regards
-
PradeepT_old
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
Dear Jeremy,
I wouldn't disagree with you for mere argument's sake, however, applicability of position paper (s) in the context of UCP 600 is a moot question, I hope not. And thanks Abdulkader, once again, for your broadbased viewpoint and practical approach, once again. For the same reason, I maintain my stance and in the light of "argument" put forward by me, I will "too" not treat the documents as discrepant.
Regards,
Pradeep
I wouldn't disagree with you for mere argument's sake, however, applicability of position paper (s) in the context of UCP 600 is a moot question, I hope not. And thanks Abdulkader, once again, for your broadbased viewpoint and practical approach, once again. For the same reason, I maintain my stance and in the light of "argument" put forward by me, I will "too" not treat the documents as discrepant.
Regards,
Pradeep
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
Thank you all for your thoughts. The way I see it the wording “data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit” if broken down relates to three different situations.
1. Data in the document, meaning data on any document if provided on other documents must not be inconsistent with each other. This would include additional information not provided in the credit.
2. Any other stipulated document, this relates to documentary conditions & in my view sub art 14 (h) also relates to this part only emphasizing that any NDC is to be ignored as if not stated.
3. And the last part “or the credit in my view relates to the “terms” of the credit for the compliance of you do not require any documentary evidence like the shipment/expiry dates or the incoterms.
I personally tend to agree with Jeremy but having said that I am really not certain if this view would not conflict with the law in many countries. As it is we can see that the forum is divided on this.
regards, Khalid
1. Data in the document, meaning data on any document if provided on other documents must not be inconsistent with each other. This would include additional information not provided in the credit.
2. Any other stipulated document, this relates to documentary conditions & in my view sub art 14 (h) also relates to this part only emphasizing that any NDC is to be ignored as if not stated.
3. And the last part “or the credit in my view relates to the “terms” of the credit for the compliance of you do not require any documentary evidence like the shipment/expiry dates or the incoterms.
I personally tend to agree with Jeremy but having said that I am really not certain if this view would not conflict with the law in many countries. As it is we can see that the forum is divided on this.
regards, Khalid
-
BillSlowinski
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:13 pm
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
All terms and conditions must be complied with. All letters of credit must be read as a whole. The UCP must be read as a whole. That said, I agree with Khalid in that goods of Chinese origin is a term, not a condition. I have always viewed a condition is what is required. A term is a status in relation to others. UCP600 Article 14(h) refers to conditions not terms. So in my opinion, a document showing anything other than goods of Chinese origin would be discrepant. Bill
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
The old ICC published LC formats (listing several documents and then saying "covering ...") and now SWIFT 700 formats are not as clear as they might be about which terms and conditions stated in the LC must be satisfied in which required documents.
It can be reasonably argued that data stated in fields 44A and 45A, as well as 47A, should appear (i) in all documents, (ii) in any one document, (iii) in the document most associated with the data, or (iv) in no document (based on the argument that a failure to state which document(s) must satisfy the condition makes the condition non-documentary). Since these kinds of interpretations of SWIFT format LCs are made thousands of times a day, I should think that there is isbp on the topic. I think that part of the isbp here, aided by UCP500 Article 37, is that all data in field 45A must appear in the invoice (if field 46A calls for an invoice) but need not appear in any other document. Maybe, future SWIFT standards and/or a future ISBP could record this isbp. (That said, early drafts of the current ISBP tried to record isbp on this topic and were quite unsatisfactory.) Of course the data could be expressly linked to a particular document in field 46A or elsewhere in an LC, but typically is not so linked.
I believe that LC bankers have particular problems with country of origin and INCOTERMS data appearing as part of the description of goods in field 45A or or as an additional condition in field 47A. I see such data as description of goods data belonging in an invoice (although I would not insist that country of origin data appear in the invoice if the LC calls for a certificate of origin). What I am not sure of is whether some or all LC bankers see it the same way and, if not, why not.
I agree with Jeremy that an NDC must be ignored. I would not apply the UCP's NDC rule to an LC calling for mention of China as the country of origin, whether in field 45A or 47A, if 46A called for either an invoice or a certificate of origin. I would expect to see that data in one or both of those documents. If that data appeared in one of those documents, that would satisfy me, subject to the UCP's no inconsistency/no conflict provisions. If the LC did not call for either an invoice or a certificate of origin, I would treat the LC as odd and likely invoke the NDC rule, as isbp does not tell me in what other document I should expect to find country of origin data.
It should be OK for an LC to say expressly that no required document may contain data that conflicts with, e.g., Chinese origin of the goods, but I would insist on express wording in the LC so as not to circumvent the NDC rule, which is an important rule if LCs are to enjoy "independence".
Regards, Jim Barnes
It can be reasonably argued that data stated in fields 44A and 45A, as well as 47A, should appear (i) in all documents, (ii) in any one document, (iii) in the document most associated with the data, or (iv) in no document (based on the argument that a failure to state which document(s) must satisfy the condition makes the condition non-documentary). Since these kinds of interpretations of SWIFT format LCs are made thousands of times a day, I should think that there is isbp on the topic. I think that part of the isbp here, aided by UCP500 Article 37, is that all data in field 45A must appear in the invoice (if field 46A calls for an invoice) but need not appear in any other document. Maybe, future SWIFT standards and/or a future ISBP could record this isbp. (That said, early drafts of the current ISBP tried to record isbp on this topic and were quite unsatisfactory.) Of course the data could be expressly linked to a particular document in field 46A or elsewhere in an LC, but typically is not so linked.
I believe that LC bankers have particular problems with country of origin and INCOTERMS data appearing as part of the description of goods in field 45A or or as an additional condition in field 47A. I see such data as description of goods data belonging in an invoice (although I would not insist that country of origin data appear in the invoice if the LC calls for a certificate of origin). What I am not sure of is whether some or all LC bankers see it the same way and, if not, why not.
I agree with Jeremy that an NDC must be ignored. I would not apply the UCP's NDC rule to an LC calling for mention of China as the country of origin, whether in field 45A or 47A, if 46A called for either an invoice or a certificate of origin. I would expect to see that data in one or both of those documents. If that data appeared in one of those documents, that would satisfy me, subject to the UCP's no inconsistency/no conflict provisions. If the LC did not call for either an invoice or a certificate of origin, I would treat the LC as odd and likely invoke the NDC rule, as isbp does not tell me in what other document I should expect to find country of origin data.
It should be OK for an LC to say expressly that no required document may contain data that conflicts with, e.g., Chinese origin of the goods, but I would insist on express wording in the LC so as not to circumvent the NDC rule, which is an important rule if LCs are to enjoy "independence".
Regards, Jim Barnes
UCP 600 Sub art 14 (d) & 14(h)
Hi everyone.
I believe a NDC cannot be disregarded as long as a reference to it is made under a document.
In this case either no goods origin is indicated or, if any of the docs required evidence the goods origin, that must be china.
I believe a NDC cannot be disregarded as long as a reference to it is made under a document.
In this case either no goods origin is indicated or, if any of the docs required evidence the goods origin, that must be china.