We have received a notice of refusal stating the following discrepancy:
+ B/L shows third party as shipper
As per L/C third party as shipper is not allowed.
B/L shows:
Shipper:
Company Xxxx
on behalf of
Company Yyyy
(“Company Yyyy” is the beneficiary of the L/C)
We have rejected the discrepancy stated that the beneficiary actually is shipper using services from another party.
Thanks in advance for your views.
Third party docs or not
-
SladjanaSkakic
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:27 pm
-
SladjanaSkakic
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:27 pm
Third party docs or not
Comments? Someone?
Third party docs or not
For your info I do have a view but I have not posted a response as I tend to follow a policy of not replying to people that only seem to post queries but rarely if ever respond to them.
-
SladjanaSkakic
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:27 pm
Third party docs or not
Dear JSmith, thank you in anyway that you replied. FYI - so far I've sent 4 questions and commented 2 questions from someone else.
Moreover, I thought that answers to any question may be interesting for several others who had similar thoughts, not just for the one who asks.
[edited 10/8/2009 1:50:41 PM]
Moreover, I thought that answers to any question may be interesting for several others who had similar thoughts, not just for the one who asks.
[edited 10/8/2009 1:50:41 PM]
Third party docs or not
‘third party shipper not allowed’
My initial reaction on reading this query quickly was that the discrepancy is valid.
However, as is the norm for me when I look at these queries I usually quickly look at the tools I have available such as UCP and the ISBP and the ICC UCP commentary or opinions to help me make my decision.
ISBP paragraph 22 deals with the different problem of the issuer of documents, and though different there is a logical relationship of direction that guides my decision making process.
ISBP paragraph 22 sates that ‘If a document is to be issued by a named person or entity’ it is also acceptable if ‘the document appears to have been completed or signed, for or on behalf of, the named person or entity’
The BL actually does show that the goods were shipped .i.e shipper is the beneficiary, it is just that the logistics of shipping was done on behalf of the shipper by another party.
Unfortunately, I feel it is a subjective decision because as far as I can see this practical question is not addressed in ISBP or any other ICC reference source yet.
On balance I believe there is no discrepancy.
Svetlana
[edited 10/8/2009 11:44:45 AM]
My initial reaction on reading this query quickly was that the discrepancy is valid.
However, as is the norm for me when I look at these queries I usually quickly look at the tools I have available such as UCP and the ISBP and the ICC UCP commentary or opinions to help me make my decision.
ISBP paragraph 22 deals with the different problem of the issuer of documents, and though different there is a logical relationship of direction that guides my decision making process.
ISBP paragraph 22 sates that ‘If a document is to be issued by a named person or entity’ it is also acceptable if ‘the document appears to have been completed or signed, for or on behalf of, the named person or entity’
The BL actually does show that the goods were shipped .i.e shipper is the beneficiary, it is just that the logistics of shipping was done on behalf of the shipper by another party.
Unfortunately, I feel it is a subjective decision because as far as I can see this practical question is not addressed in ISBP or any other ICC reference source yet.
On balance I believe there is no discrepancy.
Svetlana
[edited 10/8/2009 11:44:45 AM]
Third party docs or not
See also R 491 in the Opinions 1995-2001 where the BC seems to agree that T being the beneficiary, Third Party Trading Co may appear as shipper on behalf on T. In my opinion the fact that the shipper may not be a third party is irrelevant if we consider that in the opinion, the B/L could be endorsed eith by T or TPTC.
Daniel
Daniel
Third party docs or not
PS. However I would appreciate Jeremy's view. So let's hope...
Daniel
Daniel
-
SladjanaSkakic
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:27 pm
Third party docs or not
Dear Svetlana and Daniel, thank you very much for your kind reply.
.
We have rejected the discrepancy refering to ISBP, Para 22, but the issuing bank, or to be more exact,
the confirming bank, has not accepted our rejection of discrepancy stating that para 22 is about issuer of documents and not about shipper who is not the issuer …
.
Documents have now been accepted by the applicant, but it is still interesting to hear what others think.
.
Thanks again.
/Sladjana
[edited 10/8/2009 12:33:21 PM]
.
We have rejected the discrepancy refering to ISBP, Para 22, but the issuing bank, or to be more exact,
the confirming bank, has not accepted our rejection of discrepancy stating that para 22 is about issuer of documents and not about shipper who is not the issuer …
.
Documents have now been accepted by the applicant, but it is still interesting to hear what others think.
.
Thanks again.
/Sladjana
[edited 10/8/2009 12:33:21 PM]
Third party docs or not
Dear Sladjana
Thanks you.
Yes, in my post I also said ISBP paragraph 22 is about something different, that is the issuer of the documents but our day to day decisions are coloured by what we learn and apply in as logical fashion as we can.
Thank you Daniel for directing me to that opinion – it provided some comfort.
It would truly be a terrible situation of an exporter suffered loss due to non payment by a bank for this one reason or discrepancy.
But this is what we are now facing each and every day.
The lot of the document checker is not an easy one, especially if we try to help the exporters who are the most important people right now to get us out of this economic painful crisis.
The financial crisis is definitely providing me with lots of interesting discrepancies.
Svetlana
Thanks you.
Yes, in my post I also said ISBP paragraph 22 is about something different, that is the issuer of the documents but our day to day decisions are coloured by what we learn and apply in as logical fashion as we can.
Thank you Daniel for directing me to that opinion – it provided some comfort.
It would truly be a terrible situation of an exporter suffered loss due to non payment by a bank for this one reason or discrepancy.
But this is what we are now facing each and every day.
The lot of the document checker is not an easy one, especially if we try to help the exporters who are the most important people right now to get us out of this economic painful crisis.
The financial crisis is definitely providing me with lots of interesting discrepancies.
Svetlana
-
RobReissner
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
Third party docs or not
Dear all,
I would say that ISBP Article 22 cannot be applied to counter the refusal. However, Opinion R 491 referred to by Daniel is indeed relevant. In Opinion R 491 the Banking Commission takes the view that either one of the parties can rightfully endorse the document. As such, you can argue that the party clearly indicating it is acting for and on behalf of beneficiary is not a third party.
Regards,
Rob Reissner
I would say that ISBP Article 22 cannot be applied to counter the refusal. However, Opinion R 491 referred to by Daniel is indeed relevant. In Opinion R 491 the Banking Commission takes the view that either one of the parties can rightfully endorse the document. As such, you can argue that the party clearly indicating it is acting for and on behalf of beneficiary is not a third party.
Regards,
Rob Reissner