ICC Digital Library Forum

what is the stand if one document listed on the cover schedule was not despatched in error and was subsequently sent to the issuing bank - would the issuing bank be justified in sticking to this as a valid discrepancy

It is assumed that the sender in question is the nominated bank, in which case if such bank verifies that the remaining document was presented within the time allowed, this should not be regarded as discrepant.

The issuing bank might be able to bring a case against the nominated bank for negligence, but this would have no bearing on the validity of documents presented as above and only a court or arbitrator could decide on the merits or otherwise of this based on the exact details.

Laurence

Agreed - provided that all terms and conditions of the L/C were met – complying documents were presented to the nominated bank, than the issuing bank is bound to provide the payment as per L/C. The confirmation of the nominated bank that the remaining complying document was presented in time should suffice.

Pavel Andrle

Without liability/responsibility, personally:

I think Articles 13 & 14 make clear that the term ‘discrepancy’ applies to a way in which the documents fail to comply on their face with the terms of the credit. Therefore, there would be no ‘discrepancy’ if facially compliant documents were actually presented to the nominated bank. The nominated bank’s schedule in this case would seem to be prima facie evidence of this and its confirmation -in the absence of evidence to the contrary- ought to be sufficient.