ICC Digital Library Forum

Hi,

LC states inspection Cert issued by XYZ Ltd.

Presented dox shows issued on the letter add of ABC Ltd and signed by XYZ Ltd.

Is this acceptable.

Without seeing everything it is not easy to make a decision. However, based on what I am reading, I would say that unless the document itself somehow overrides what I am about to say, the signor of the document should typically be considered the issuer.

Glenn, if it could in this way ABC co ltd signing on behalf of XYZ.. will u accept it.

Generally, the answer is yes. I generally presume that the company signing "on behalf of/agent for" has the legal right to do so. Again, it depends on what the document itself states. We accept "on behalf of/agents" signatures for transport and insurance documents so why not others?

Unless the Banking Commission decides that, unlike Viscount Sumner said, "documents which are almost the same or which will do just as well" are now acceptable, I will not accept such a certificate. The issue is why is it so difficult to issue the documents properly and make everyone's life easier. If it goes on like that checking documents will just be guesswork. Too frequently it is already so.
Regards
Daniel

Paragraph 22 of ISBP681 offers some guidance on this question, especially the second sentence. However, here it is seemingly not the case that the required issuer’s ‘letterhead’ has been used nor that there is not any letterhead at all. Whether or not the isbp reflected in the 2nd sentence is intended to exclude other ways in which a document may appear to be issued by a named entity is unclear to me. Nonetheless, I certainly would regard as complying a document on ABC Ltd ‘letterhead’ if signed by ABC Ltd as agent for XYZ Ltd. However, if the document on ABC Ltd ‘letterhead’ was simply signed by XYZ Ltd, without reference to ABC Ltd being their agent, I would have serious concerns regarding the (non-) compliance of the document.

Another interesting topic. I believe that the question was if ABC was signing "on behalf of "XYZ" (the required issuer) would it be acceptable. Then as I indicated, I would generally accept this because I presume that the company "signing on behalf of" another company has the legal right to do so. I believe there are more than one opinion on this topic. A fast review took me to Opinion 198 which stated in part:
"The statement under the second query - item (a) is correct provided that a sender other than the applicant should indicate that he is acting for account and on behalf of the applicant if the documentary credit requires the advice to be sent by the applicant."
As I mentioned, banks generally accept these "as agent" and/or "on behalf of" signatures for carriers, insurers and as such I see no reason why this concept cannot be applied to other types of documents. I also reason that banks do not generally verify signatures nor ensure that signors work for the given company that issues the documents presented. I hope this clarifies.

Here, XYZ did not specify anything (if I read correctly) but just signed. So it could be argued that XYZ just authenticated the certificate and ABC is liable for the content. I also reviewed the opinions, queries, docdexes: nothing fits.
Daniel