ICC Digital Library Forum

Hi all,

i kindly ask you for your suggestions in the following case: The applicant of a L/C explicitely demands a different L/C number from the original L/C number in the shipping marks only. The demand of the applicant is not covered by L/C instructions.
The original L/C number is also mentioned in the documentation, but not in the shipping marks.
I thought that shipping marks may include any information, because it's just the marking of the cases/pallets/etc. to get them found in case of lost.

Would this be a discrepancy under the credit ?

Thank you in advance for your suggestions.

Best regards
GerhardH

Dear Gerhard,
Since the applicant did not call for the different L/C number in the shipping marks in their LC terms, it would not be a discrepancy. Further, it is not necessary to indicate the L/C number in the shipping marks of your documents.
Regards,
Robert

Dear Gerhard n Robert,

As per the Para 34 of ISBP, the purpose of the shipping marks is to identify the goods, and if credit specifies the definite SM then it should be exactly reflected in those doc’s , but additional details should not be in conflict with the credit terms. So In this case I don’t consider this as a discrepancy but on the other hand I will not encourage such practice.

In my view bankers should be very prudent and try to envisage such stuff in a broader perspective because such bits and pieces like, different L/c no, shipping marks showing wrong, fake, or bogus impression of the goods, their nature or other technical specifications can create problems at the latter stage either from issuing bank or from the customs/port authorities of importing or exporting countries and likelihood of involvement of law enforcement and court authorities is there.

So I will always try to persuade the English idiom “Prevention is better than Cure”

“Vorbeugen ist besser als Heilen”

Regards
Aamir

[edited 2/29/2008 9:52:37 PM: typo]

Any ICC opinion in support to your views that the docs are discrepant ? Shahed