Correction on DHL receipt

PhanThanhNhan · Post by **PhanThanhNhan** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:00 am

Pls give your comments for the following case:
+ L/C subject to UCP600
+ F47A: All corrections and alterations on documents must be authenticated by the party who issued the document with proper stamp and manual signature.
+ F46A: Ben’s certificate stating one set of non-nego docs has been sent to applicant (copy of relevant courier must be attached)
A copy of DHL courier receipt is presented. Under box “To(receiver)”, name of the receiver is corrected (one letter was wrongly written and it has been alterated). We’re wondering that:
1. Whether such correction on DHL receipt must be authenticated or not? If it must be authenticated, will DHL express or the beneficiary do such action (because the beneficiary/the sender often declare such information and the DHL express will pick up the documents).
2. Must a COPY of document be corrected (ISBP not clearly mention this matter)?
Thanks for your comment.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:00 am

Para 32 of ISBP681 states that it is isbp not to require that a copy document is signed. Logically therefore it is isbp not to require it to appear from a copy that any alteration was authenticated on the original document either (authentication requiring a signature). Given this, I do not believe the express credit requirement ‘All corrections and alterations …’ can apply to a copy document under isbp. However, I bet the issuing bank will not see it like that.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:00 am

Point is: how do we know for sure that a requirement in a credit wants to modify or exclude an art. (UCP) or par. (ISBP)
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:00 am

Daniel,

Quite so and I can certainly see an argument that the condition of the credit applies to all documents, copy or not, and therefore overrides isbp (assuming I have understood it correctly in the first place).

Jeremy

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:00 am

I agree with Jeremy. I and would also review ISBP paragraphs 9 and 10. The DHL receipt is completed by the beneficiary. DHL only signs an AWB to acknowledge the pick up.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:00 am

I suggest
Solution number 1: you ask IB and presumably you will be dissapointed and even more confused when you get their answer (if you get it that is)
Solution number 2: you will be on the safe side if you apply strictly (stupidly?) the additional condition.
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:00 am

Glen,

It's presumably my second posting rather than my first with which you agree.

Re the DHL receipt being completed by the beneficiary, does not the receipt APPEAR to be issued by DHL? If so they surely have to be considered the issuer.

Regards, Jeremy

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:00 am

Jeremy,
I agree that it is not a discrepancy and that the issuer may beg to differ but they should not.
DHL receipts are not completed by DHL. The sender/beneficiary must complete the AWB and insert the sender and receiver information and how the courier charges will be paid. When DHL picks up the package they "sign" the AWB acknowledging that they have received a package and will deliver it to the addressee provided by the "sender/beneficiary". The AWB bears DHL letterhead and by signing it, DHL undertakes to become a carrier and deliver the package but for this type of document it is hard to call them an issuer in the traditional sense of the word. Since it is a known document that must be completed by the beneficiary I believe that ISBP paragraph 9 and 10 should apply though I am sure that this reasoning will bring interesting replies.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:00 am

Glen,

I have to disagree with you. To me the fact that the beneficiary completes the document (assuming it is reasonable to expect all bankers involved in doc. credit operations to be aware of this, which I do not think it is) is irrelevant. The simple fact that the receipt (or ‘AWB’ as DHL grandiloquently title it) bears DHL letterhead, and that DHL signs it, makes DHL as a question of appearance, if not law, the ‘issuer’.

Regards, Jeremy

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:00 am

In the same way, in Switzerland, some "approved" shippers fill in electronically the certificates of origin in their premises. They made a print with a facsimile signature. In the end, filled in and printed in the shipper's premises or in the building of the chamber of commerce, the documents are issued by the chamber of commerce.
Regards
Daniel