Presentaion of Documents after discrepancy

naresharya · Post by **naresharya** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:11 am

Dear Experts,

We are the beneficiary, we have submitted discrepant documents twice on the second presentation the only discrepancy pointed out by the applicant’s bank was “ source of incoterm no mentiones” i.e. we had mentioned “Ex-works” but not “Ex-works as per Incoterms 2010”. There is a clause in the LC that all typographical errors which do not affect the quality, quantity or price are acceptable.

My 1st question is whether the above discrepancy can be termed as Typographical error?

The LC presentation period mentioned is “duration of the credit”, lc maturity is December. The applicant’s bank is refusing to either accept the discrepancy as Typographical error and also refusing us to make a third presentation

My 2nd question is, weather the applicant’s bank can deny 3rd presentation even if we are well within the presentation period?

The only solution provided by the applicant’s bank is if the applicant is ready to waive off the discrepancy, to which the applicant has refused after repeated requests.

samrat · Post by **samrat** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:31 pm

any number of presentation can be made, no bank can refuse a presentaion , how ever can send refusal notice as per Articale 16 of UCP 600. stating dicrepancies. but how ever in your case we need to see the Lc to find a solution.

Contact me if you are interested.

surajutc@yahoo.co.in

CDCS2015 · Post by **CDCS2015** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 10:08 am

Hi naresharya:

Ex-works is present in previous 7th edition of INCOTERMS 2000 and also available in the latest 8th edition INCOTERMS 2010. The concept of Ex-works remained the same in the latest INCOTERMS 2010. What i am trying to mean is that the source of the incoterms (INCOTERMS 2000, INCOTERMS 2010) should be provided only in cases where the incoterms used is exclusive to a particular edition e.g. DAF, DES which is not available in INCOTERMS 2010 but available in earlier edition like INCOTERMS 2000 and before.

So, in my opinion, the omission of the source of the incoterms is not classified as a typographical error. It should also not be a documentary discrepancy UNLESS under field 45A it specifically mentioned the source of the incoterms.

For 2nd question, there is no limit on the number of presentations so long as the presentation is done within the expiry date for presentation which in your case is the expiry date of the documentary credit under field 31D.

Hence, please check field 45A of your MT700 documentary credit swift message (i am assuming this LC is in swift message format MT700/701) to check if source of incoterms is stated. If stated, just revise the commercial invoice and make the 3rd presentation. Once your dpcument is complying, under UCP600 article 7, the issuing bank is irrevocably bound to honor your presentation.

naresharya · Post by **naresharya** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:31 pm

It has been 6 Banking days since the 3rd presentation was made, the issuing bank hasn't responded yet.
can we claim Article 14B of UCP600? does it apply for a 3rd presentation which is well within the presentation period?