Hy everyone.
I have the below case:
-docs sent to issuing bank with discrepancies (also mt750 sent to IB).
-issuing bank released docs to applicant the day after receipt of,
based on applicant written acceptance of docs.applicant acc has been debited on same day.
-applicant informed bnf about his action.
-issuing bank neither effected payment nor adviced remitting bank concerning fate of docs/paym.
-in such case could remitting bank claim immediate paym from issuing bank despite the seven banking days haven't passed ?
info: despite applicant's action is proved remitting bank's action could be taken based only on bnf's statement and presentation of written applicant's acceptance.
I'm waiting for your opinions.
thanks,
bogdan
the other side of art.14
the other side of art.14
Bogdan,
I personally would not -at this stage- concern myself with the provisions of the UCP. Instead, I would simply send a message to the issuing bank saying that we (the nominated bank) understand that the documents have been taken up and ask the issuing bank to confirm if this is the case and, if so, would the issuing bank kindly confirm settlement has been effected in accordance with our instructions.
Incidentally, I am a little surprised that the nominated bank should have sent a MT750 message AND forwarded the documents to the issuing bank. I can only assume that the beneficiary initially asked that the issuing bank be contacted for authority to take up the documents and then subsequently decided it was necessary to get the documents to the issuing bank as soon as possible.
Regards, Jeremy
I personally would not -at this stage- concern myself with the provisions of the UCP. Instead, I would simply send a message to the issuing bank saying that we (the nominated bank) understand that the documents have been taken up and ask the issuing bank to confirm if this is the case and, if so, would the issuing bank kindly confirm settlement has been effected in accordance with our instructions.
Incidentally, I am a little surprised that the nominated bank should have sent a MT750 message AND forwarded the documents to the issuing bank. I can only assume that the beneficiary initially asked that the issuing bank be contacted for authority to take up the documents and then subsequently decided it was necessary to get the documents to the issuing bank as soon as possible.
Regards, Jeremy
the other side of art.14
Dear Jeremy,
Bnf instructed remittiung bank to send docs on approval basis on their(bnf's) own responsibility.
I was just thinking:whould be too much to stipulate under UCP that, in case of payable at sight l/cs, when docs are taken up by applicant issuing bank should effect paym within a time limit (say value date three banking days after applicant's acceptance of docs) after date of taken up by applicant?
bogdan
Bnf instructed remittiung bank to send docs on approval basis on their(bnf's) own responsibility.
I was just thinking:whould be too much to stipulate under UCP that, in case of payable at sight l/cs, when docs are taken up by applicant issuing bank should effect paym within a time limit (say value date three banking days after applicant's acceptance of docs) after date of taken up by applicant?
bogdan