TA.935rev - resubmission
A credit subject to UCP 600 stated that the port of discharge was to be Cat Lai Port, HoChiMinh City Vietnam.
The presented bill of lading indicated the port of discharge as HoChiMinh City Vietnam, and the place of delivery as Cat Lai Port, HoChiMinh City Vietnam.
This was considered as a discrepancy by the issuing bank, but not agreed by the negotiating bank.
Reference was made to UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a) (iii) in respect to a bill of lading indicating shipment from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the credit and the qualification in ISBP 821 paragraph E8 (b) which provides for the named port of discharge to be stated in the field headed "Place of final destination" or words of similar effect.
As stated in the credit, the term "place of delivery" is to be considered the same as the term "place of final destination" as clarified by the phrase in ISBP paragraph E8 (b) "words of similar effect". In order to be compliant with the credit and to be in accordance with ISBP paragraphs E8 (a) and (b), the place of delivery field in the bill of lading should have stated "Port of discharge Cat Lai Port, HoChiMinh City".
As a side point, the confirming bank had mentioned that the tracking of the goods confirmed the required discharge of goods. It was emphasised that this cannot be considered as part of the examination of the bill of lading which is based on the document alone.
In conclusion, the discrepancy was considered as valid.
TA.940
A demand guarantee was issued subject to URDG 758 to support an underlying sales agreement stating that a drawing can be made should invoices fall past due in excess of 90 days from the invoice date.
The beneficiary presented a demand to the guarantor clearly stating that it was a demand under the relevant guarantee.
The demand was refused by the guarantor on the basis of three alleged discrepancies: