Page 1 of 1

Word "about" in packing unit's description

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:00 am
by AgeTrink
Hi, colleagues.
There is a brainteaser for you regarding a condition describing how the goods have to be packed.
LC reads: "Goods must be packed in new strong PP bags of about 45 kgs or 50 kgs each net and packing list to certify the same".
Now there is a question how to interpret the word "about" in the context. Art 39/a refers only to amount of credit, goods quantity and unit price, not to packing unit's size.
Therefore how would you check the packing list? Must all packs be of size exactly 45 or 50 kgs or is there any tolerance allowed?
I have no idea what to say to our (export) client.

Word "about" in packing unit's description

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:00 am
by POLTERD.
if no total quantity is evidenced udner l/c (goods description) and unless l/c ask for a detailed p/list, p/list could only evidence (among others):"goods are packed in new strong PP bags of about 45 kgs and 50 kgs each net"(if both are shipped.otherwise should evidence only the kind of bags shipped,either of 45 kgs or of 50 kgs).
if l/c states a total quantity and a detailed p/list is presented, 39a is applicable (45 kgs +/-max.10% and/or 50 kgs +/- max.10%).
regards,
bogdan

Word "about" in packing unit's description

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:00 am
by RolandLeupi
In this context I would rather understand that the tolerance should be between 45kg and 50kg, i.e. in packing of not less than 45kg and not more than 50kg
Roland

Word "about" in packing unit's description

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:00 am
by KimChristensen
Dear Age,

Guessing the intention of this, would be … guessing :-)

My suggestion would be to ask the issuing bank for clarification. Perhaps considering asking the beneficiary – and if that results in a reasonable and solid “interpretation” then I would consider following that … depending on the customer, the transaction and the LC.

Best regards
Kim

Word "about" in packing unit's description

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:00 am
by AgeTrink
Thank you all.
In fact we stopped guessing and asked for a clarification. And this clause was then removed entirely.
But the question still remains.. Hopefully there will be no similar cases in the future :)