TA.857rev2
A credit was issued via SWIFT MT700 with an instruction in Field 78 that a full set of documents was to be received by the issuing bank within 21 calendar days after the date of shipment. Furthermore, expiry was set in the country of the beneficiary.
In accordance with the guidelines set out in the SWIFT User Handbook, this field should be used solely for instructions from the issuing bank to the paying, accepting or negotiating bank. The guideline indicates that any information within this field would not be applicable to a beneficiary. Normal practice is that Field 48 would contain details of the time period permitted for presentation of documents and, if this field were left blank, then the default period of 21 calendar days, as provisioned for within UCP 600 sub-article 14 (c), would apply.
In the case of this query, Field 48 was blank; thereby intimating that the default presentation period would apply for presentation to a nominated bank.
The issuing bank had refused documents on the grounds that late presentation and credit expired applied.
Within the analysis, it was pointed out that the basis within UCP 600 and associated international banking practice is that the expiry place and place for availability should be the same.
In accordance with this rationale, it was concluded that late presentation did not apply as the documents were presented to the nominated bank within the required presentation period (as permitted by Field 48 being blank). In addition, documents were presented to the nominated bank within the expiry of the credit; therefore the discrepancy of ‘credit expired' also did not apply.
TA.864rev
A credit was issued including a condition for presentation of a ‘Certificate of Australian Origin of the commodity issued by Australian Business Chamber in the form for China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, issued in Australia in one original and three copies'.
The presented document was entitled ‘Certificate of Origin - Form for China-Australia Free Trade Agreement'. It was argued by the issuing bank that this document did not actually specify the origin of the goods. The counter-argument, from the nominated bank, was that the document did not need to meet the normal criteria (specifically, stating the origin of goods) provided it was in the format required by the credit.
Within the analysis, it was highlighted that the document must be in the form as required by the credit and must also specifically indicate the origin of the goods as Australian, as also stated in the credit. The field in the certificate that would indicate origin was only to be completed by the insertion of an acronym that was explained on the reverse of the document. Such explanation did not explicitly indicate that the acronym could solely refer to Australian origin. Accordingly, the document was discrepant.
TA.865
Withdrawn and will be re-submitted.
TA.866rev
Under a collection subject to URC 522, documents were to be released against payment. It was subsequently ascertained by the remitting bank that documents had been released by the collecting bank, to the buyer (including the endorsement of bills of lading), without payment, on the basis that payment would be settled at a later date between the buyer and the seller.
In view of the fact that the collection was subject to URC 522, such rules are applicable to the collecting bank unless it refuses to act according to the collection instruction. As the remitting bank received no such refusal, this was not the case in this query.
As stated within the analysis, by releasing documents to the drawee without payment, the collecting bank acted outside the authority and instructions given by the remitting bank.
The collecting bank, therefore, was considered as being responsible for breach of its obligations under URC 522.
TA.867
The credit required presentation of a factory acceptance test certificate with two alternative counter-signatories being stated as acceptable on an "and/or" basis.
Both counter-signatories signed the presented document. However, the confirming bank refused the document on the grounds that one of the counter-signatories did not evidence the full name of the company on behalf of which it was signed.
The analysis highlighted that the credit allowed for counter-signatories to be either one or both of those stated in the credit. The fact that one of the counter-signatories was as stated in the credit is sufficient grounds to fulfil the terms and conditions of the credit.
It was concluded that no discrepancy existed.
TA.868rev
A credit included a requirement for presentation of a ‘Technical Acceptance Certificate' signed by the applicant and the beneficiary. The presented document, signed by both parties as required, stated that the goods were compliant with the contractual technical requirements. It also certified successful implementation except one item that was pending.
On this basis, the nominated bank refused the documents.
Within the analysis, it was stated that when a credit includes a provision for a ‘Technical Acceptance Certificate' without any further clarification as to the actual content of such a certificate, then the document is to be examined in accordance with UCP 600 sub-article 14 (f) in order to ascertain whether or not its content fulfils the function of the document.
In view of the fact that the credit did not specifically state the actual type of technical acceptance that was to be fulfilled, it was considered, on the basis of the information received, that the presented document fulfilled the required function of such a document. The fact that the applicant had also signed the document strengthened its acceptability.
TA.869rev
A credit provided for shipment of a certain tonnage of goods to be packed in 8 containers, with partial shipment allowed.
Two presentations of documents were made, covering two separate shipments of goods. Although the full complement of 8 containers was utilised, the actual tonnage of shipped goods did not meet the requirement in the credit. On this basis, the issuing bank refused the second presentation. The query questioned whether or not either presentation was complying.
In view of the fact that the credit allowed partial shipment and that it did not specify actual quantities to be shipped in each container, it was evident that the first presentation was compliant.
With respect to the second presentation, the correct number of containers were utilised; however, the required overall tonnage was not met. It was concluded, therefore, that this presentation was discrepant.