Personal knowledge of checker as it relates to a discrepancy
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:00 am
This is somewhat related to the discussion we had last year of what happens when a checker knows that a shipment could not arrive at a named port because it was closed for the winter.
Scenario:
L/C issued by a Middle Eastern Bank requires the commercial invoice to be certified by the Joint Arab Foreign Chamber of Commerce in the exporting country, if available. If not available, then the local chamber of commerce certification is acceptable.
Shipment was effected from the United States. The commercial invoice has been certified by a local (U.S.) chamber of commerce. The first checker wants to call this a discrepancy because she knows for a fact that there is the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C. The second checker does not want to cite this as a discrepancy as there might be mitigating circumstances (as illustrated below in point 4).
My questions/comments to you all:
1) Obviously, this is poor issuance. How on earth are bankers supposed to know what is available where and when? And, let's not get started on the "exporting country" twist of ISBP Paragraph 22, which makes it even worse issuance. For this particular case, the beneficiary is domiciled in the U.S., the goods were both manufactured and exported out of the U.S., so we can safely conclude that the exporting country IN THIS CASE ALONE is the United States. Otherwise, this would be even worse.
2) Do you think that we have a right to call this discrepancy as the checker has personal knowledge of the fact that such a joint foreign chamber of commerce exists?
3) And if the answer to the previous question is yes, would your answer change if the exporting country were a different country, say France, and the particular checker had personal knowledge that such a foreign chamber of commerce existed in that country? In the case of the U.S., it would be much more common knowledge for the checkers in this country to be aware of this fact. In the latter case, it would not. Keep in mind that I am not talking about investigation here. I am talking about knowledge that the checker already possesses.
4) Suppose that the checker does call it a discrepancy, and the beneficiary responds that although this foreign chamber of commerce exists, because of "X" reason (e.g., holidays, force majeure, etc.), the foreign chamber was not "available" for a period of time, therefore the local chamber of commerce had to be used for certification. Would you accept this explanation at face value and certify terms? To me, this is the most difficult question because of the word "available". At first read, one might only think in terms of whether the foreign chamber exists or not, but if you have to add in the concept of "when", that makes it nearly impossible.
I would be most interested in everyone's thoughts, as I am really wrestling with this one. (Oh, and by the way, we did not confirm and it is available with the issuing bank, so we are not in any real dilemma at this point, but we could be in the future if this issue comes up again).
By the way, Happy New Year to all and thank you in advance.
Scenario:
L/C issued by a Middle Eastern Bank requires the commercial invoice to be certified by the Joint Arab Foreign Chamber of Commerce in the exporting country, if available. If not available, then the local chamber of commerce certification is acceptable.
Shipment was effected from the United States. The commercial invoice has been certified by a local (U.S.) chamber of commerce. The first checker wants to call this a discrepancy because she knows for a fact that there is the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C. The second checker does not want to cite this as a discrepancy as there might be mitigating circumstances (as illustrated below in point 4).
My questions/comments to you all:
1) Obviously, this is poor issuance. How on earth are bankers supposed to know what is available where and when? And, let's not get started on the "exporting country" twist of ISBP Paragraph 22, which makes it even worse issuance. For this particular case, the beneficiary is domiciled in the U.S., the goods were both manufactured and exported out of the U.S., so we can safely conclude that the exporting country IN THIS CASE ALONE is the United States. Otherwise, this would be even worse.
2) Do you think that we have a right to call this discrepancy as the checker has personal knowledge of the fact that such a joint foreign chamber of commerce exists?
3) And if the answer to the previous question is yes, would your answer change if the exporting country were a different country, say France, and the particular checker had personal knowledge that such a foreign chamber of commerce existed in that country? In the case of the U.S., it would be much more common knowledge for the checkers in this country to be aware of this fact. In the latter case, it would not. Keep in mind that I am not talking about investigation here. I am talking about knowledge that the checker already possesses.
4) Suppose that the checker does call it a discrepancy, and the beneficiary responds that although this foreign chamber of commerce exists, because of "X" reason (e.g., holidays, force majeure, etc.), the foreign chamber was not "available" for a period of time, therefore the local chamber of commerce had to be used for certification. Would you accept this explanation at face value and certify terms? To me, this is the most difficult question because of the word "available". At first read, one might only think in terms of whether the foreign chamber exists or not, but if you have to add in the concept of "when", that makes it nearly impossible.
I would be most interested in everyone's thoughts, as I am really wrestling with this one. (Oh, and by the way, we did not confirm and it is available with the issuing bank, so we are not in any real dilemma at this point, but we could be in the future if this issue comes up again).
By the way, Happy New Year to all and thank you in advance.