TA865rev2 - This opinion had been re-scheduled pending further input from the initiator.
A credit required, among other documents, the presentation of a customs export declaration and an insurance policy.
The credit was subsequently amended in respect of the customs export declaration to read "A copy and/or original customs export declaration issued and authenticated by customs authorities in the exporting country certifying that goods subject of the L/C being exported to (country L) proving its quantity and specifications details, to be accepted in any language and it must be certified by the beneficiary."
The confirming bank refused the documents due to "Custom export declarations not authenticated by customs authorities as requested."
The customs export declaration was an electronically generated document that had not been signed by the customs authorities. However, the beneficiary, as required by the amendment, certified it. In addition, the document bore a bar code MRN that the customs authority later confirmed was the only form of authentication that is added to the document. It was the view of the presenter that the document need not be signed, as it was a copy of an electronically produced document.
The Analysis referred to a previous opinion R636 (TA668rev) that had indicated the acceptability of a bar code as a form of authentication on a courier receipt that had no space for a signature to be added. It also referred to ISBP 745 paragraph A31 (b) that states that copies of documents need not be signed (or dated).
For information, a bar code MRN (Movement Reference Number) contains 18 digits and is composed of the following elements:
- the last two digits of the year of formal acceptance of export movement;
- an identifier of the EU Member State(s) from which the movement originated; and
- a unique identifier for the export movement per year and country.
The discrepancy was not valid.
See TA.865rev2 for the full transcript of the opinion.
TA870rev
A credit indicated that payment was due by deferred payment 30 days from bill of lading and included the condition that all documents are to be issued in English language. The credit contained no reference to any applicable tolerance.
The bill of lading indicated the date of shipment as 1 February 2017, which gives a maturity date of 3 March 2017. The invoice included "terms of payment up to 01.06.2017 without deduction". It also indicated "tolerance of +/-10% on quantity and value per line item". The beneficiary also presented a document titled ‘Delivery Note' that appeared to meet the credit requirement for a packing list.
A certificate of analysis was presented on the beneficiary's letterhead (as allowed by the credit) and contained all the required data in English. However, there was some pre-printed text in Czech language (the beneficiary was from Czech Republic) - effectively confidentiality and copyright provisions.
The confirming bank refused the documents due to (1) the payment terms stated on the invoice (being in conflict with the LC payment terms); (2) the invoice and delivery note both referred to a tolerance that was not quoted in the credit; and (3) the certificate of analysis includes language other than English.
The beneficiary and confirming bank were not in agreement with these discrepancies and communicated their views to each other.
The analysis indicated that none of the discrepancies were valid. For (1), reference was made to a previous Opinion R848 (TA838rev) that indicated that differing payment terms on the invoice did not create a discrepancy. The issuing bank is required to honour according to the payment terms it has expressed in the credit. For (2), it appeared that the credit did not include any quantity of the goods to be shipped. Therefore, the reference to a tolerance would not create a discrepancy with the description of goods in the credit. For (3), this is covered by ISBP 745 paragraphs A21 (a) and (e).
The documents were not discrepant for the reasons stated.
See TA.870rev for the full transcript of the opinion.
TA871rev
A draft was to be drawn on a nominated bank at 30 days sight. Following a presentation by the beneficiary, for which the nominated bank found to be complying, the nominated bank decided that it would not act on its nomination at that time. However, it was willing to do so i.e., accept the draft, once the issuing bank sent its advice of acceptance of the documents.
The question in this query was what date was the due date.
The documents had been presented to the nominated bank on 3 April 2017, which would give a due date of 3 May 2017. The issuing bank had received the documents on 9 April.
The issuing bank had identified a discrepancy and issued its MT734.
Subsequently, on 12 April, it accepted a waiver of the applicant. This would give a due date of 12 May if it were deemed that the due date would be calculated from when the issuing bank received the documents. Unfortunately, the nominated bank did not indicate in its schedule the date it had received the documents. The nominated bank referred to ISBP 745 paragraphs B5 (b) (i) and (iii) to support a due date of 3 May.
The analysis and conclusion recognised that the nominated bank had agreed to accept the draft after it had received the acceptance advice of the issuing bank. Therefore, the due date was 3 May.
The lesson in this case is that in a similar situation a nominated bank should indicate the date that it received the documents and that it intends to act on its nomination when it receives the issuing bank's advice of acceptance. In this case, it would have saved a lot of unnecessary communications between the banks and the need for an opinion.
See TA.871rev for the full transcript of the opinion.
TA872
The amount of a credit was subject to a tolerance of +/- 10%.
It also stated "10 percent more or less on total quantity and amount allowed".
The goods description included a number of line items such as:
50MT for size 1.5 x 1,250XC
and a total quantity of 5,000MT
The nominated bank had negotiated a set of documents where one of the line items was outside the tolerance of +/-10% i.e., 55.55MT for size 1.5 x 1,250XC
The issuing bank refused the documents for an over-shipment of this size. The nominated bank argued that the reference to "total quantity" applied to the total as well as the individual items.
The analysis focussed on the fact that the credit had specifically referred to "total" quantity and that it would apply to the total and not the individual line items. Consequently, the discrepancy was not valid.
See TA.872 for the full transcript of the opinion.