signature requirement for as presented document

[JimBarnes]

TA654rev and TA668rev appear to require a signature on an original courier receipt.

The stated basis for the opinions is that the particular courier receipts were originals and included an unfilled space for signature.

The courier receipts covered the sending of documents, not transporting goods. Accordingly, they are governed by Article 14(f) and not by Article 25(a).

Is there isbp on "as presented" original documents that explains these opinions? Is there isbp for courier receipts evidencing the sending of documents rather than goods?

Regards, Jim Barnes
[edited 11/5/2008 7:31:48 PM: typo]

[DanielD]

Mr. Barnes,

As for 470/TA.654, my comment for the Swiss NC was: "Discrepancy 3 is not a discrepancy as the courier receipt is subject to art. 14f." It is still my opinion
Regards
Daniel Devahive

[NigelHolt]

TA.654rev seems to me to go wholly against para 38 of ISBP681. TA668 is just a muddle (the second para of the so called ‘analysis’ has no relevance to the question put).

Both opinions are illustrative of the often dire quality of ICC ‘Banking’ Commission opinions. This is seemingly often a product of the desire by the Commission to interpret the UCP / ISBP on the basis of what they think it ought to say rather than what it actually does. Whether or not the new approach, if agreed, will alter this only time will tell.


[edited 11/6/2008 11:52:17 AM]

[KimChristensen]

Dear Jim,

It is my impression – although not clearly spelled out in the Opinion (!!) – that a “receipt” is interpreted in the same manner as a “certificate” or “declaration” – which according to ISBP (2007) paragraph 37 should be signed.

One may of course think what one like about this Opinion.

The way I see it:

1) From a practical point of view it makes life easier for the document checker – as it is very common that those receipts are not signed – and does not have a field for that.

2) The wording about “barcode” has been removed from the analysis – which at least is good, since a bar code by no means makes it up for a signature

Best regards
Kim

[JohnLim]

i would like to hear all your views and comments for the following case.

Background - A LC called for a bene cert certifying that a non nego docs has been presented to the issuing bank plus a courier receipt to this effect is required, under field 46A. In addition, under field 47A, it stated all docs must be signed and / or stamped by the issuer.

Bene presented a bene cert and a courier receipt signed by them (even though the courier receipt does not have any box or space for signature) since LC required a signature of the issuer. The said courier receipt in A4 size, bearing a courier service logo on top, was printed at bene's premises.

Issue - Issuing bank rejected the docs reason being that it was not signed by the courier service company. Is the discrepancy valid?

Presenting bank refuted that since the bene was the issuer, their signature alone on the said doc was suffice. Moreover, the courier recept also bore with a logo of the courier service company on top, which is in accordance with ISBP Pub no.681E no.40.


Thank you.

Regards
Hong

[ThuHoangAnh_]

Dear Hong,

From your description I see that the courier receipt has formed part of the documents required under the L/C. The problem lies in the fact that all the documents are required to be signed whereas the courier receipt has no space for the courier service company’s signature.

The party that issues courier receipt is the courier service company, not party that uses the courier service. Despite the fact that the courier receipt has no space for the signature, if required by the L/C, it must be signed by the courier service company. If the beneficiary feels unable to comply with the requirement due to the said problem, he should ask for an amendment.

I think the discrepancy is valid.

Best regards,
N.H.Duc

[JohnLim]

Dear N.H.Duc

Thanks for your comments.
To me, i am of the view that the said docs has fully complied with ISBP 681E no. 39 and 40 since LC did not call for signatures by hand.

Can i have comments from others. Thanks.

Rgds
Hong

[ThuHoangAnh_]

Dear Hong,

I know my view seems to contradict ICC Offical Opinion TA654rev. Yet, like you I wish to provoke other opinions on the topic.

Best regards,
N.H. Duc

[DanielD]

Hong,

In Insight April-June 2005, there is
a query about whether the beneficiary's statement and the courier receipt formed part of the same documentary requirement. If it is so in your case, presenting bank could argue that the certification and receipt was one document (in singular) and therefore duly signed
Regards
Daniel

[JohnLim]

Hi Daniel

Thanks for your comments. I wonder whether the presenting bank could also further support for their case with ISBP 681E no. 39 and 40? What is your view on this?

Thanks again.

Rgds
Hong