must courier receipt showing date of pick-up

[ucp800]

Dear all,

quote

When a courier receipt was requested and was received but not signed, was the document discrepant when there was no signature space included on the document?

Official Opinion TA668rev - Unpublished UCP 600
From UCP600 - UCP 600 sub-article 17 (a)
QUERY
A documentary credit issued subject to UCP 600 calls for "Beneficiary's certificate along with relevant courier receipt certifying that one set of non-negotiable documents have been sent to the applicant within 3 working days after shipment date".
After presenting the documents to the issuing bank, the nominated bank received a notice of refusal from the issuing bank indicating the following discrepancy: "The presented courier receipt was not signed."
The courier receipt was not signed. It did, however, include a bar code, and there was no signature space included on the document. Is the refusal of the issuing bank correct?
Analysis
By requiring a courier receipt and not a copy of a courier receipt, an original courier receipt was required according to sub-article 17 (a). As mentioned in ICC Opinion TA 654rev, which was approved at the April 2008 Banking Commission meeting, an original courier receipt should be signed. However, the document in question has no signature space. The structure of a courier receipt is not governed by the UCP; this is for each courier company to determine. The ICC Banking Commission cannot dictate that a signature is required when the courier company's document does not require such evidence.
Conclusion
The courier receipt is acceptable.


Official Opinion TA654rev - Unpublished UCP 600
From UCP600 - UCP 600 sub-articles 18 (c) and 14 (d)
QUERY
We shall appreciate your Opinion on the following issue under a credit subject to UCP 600:
Description of goods:
1000 meters fabric as per pro-forma invoices no. 2008/1 dated 01.01.2008 and no. 2008/2 dated 01.01.2008
Partial shipment is allowed.
Required documents:
1. Commercial invoice
2. International Consignment note CMR showing goods consigned to the applicant marked freight prepaid and notify applicant.
3. Packing list
4. Beneficiary's certificate along with relevant original/copy/photocopy of courier receipt certifying that one set of non-negotiable documents have been sent to the applicant within three working days after shipment date.
The beneficiary made a partial shipment and presented documents through the advising bank, to the issuing bank, which raised the following discrepancies:
1. Commercial invoice shows two pro forma invoice numbers and dates whereas other documents show number and date of one pro forma invoice only.
2. CMR shows only the name of the applicant in the notify party field and omits to show its address as mentioned in field 50 of MT700.
3. DHL receipt does not bear the date of pick-up and the initial/signature of the courier company.
Are the above-mentioned discrepancies justified?
Analysis
Discrepancy 1
Sub-article 18 (c) requires that the commercial invoice contain a description of the goods that corresponds with that appearing in the credit.
Sub-article 14 (d) states: "Data in a document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit."
The invoice reflected the description of goods as required by sub-article 18 (c). The other stipulated documents referenced only one of the pro forma invoice numbers, reflecting the partial shipment that had been made. The data was not identical in the other stipulated documents, but in the context of the requirement of sub-article 18 (c) and the fact that the goods description, i.e., "fabric" was identical on the two pro forma invoices, there is no conflict with only one pro forma invoice number being quoted on documents other than the commercial invoice. From a beneficiary's perspective, it would have been more appropriate for it to have made clear in the invoice that the shipment in question related to only one of the pro forma invoices, thus avoiding situations as encountered here.
Discrepancy 2
It must be presumed that the consignee field on the CMR was completed with the name and address of the applicant. The completion of the notify party field with just the name of the applicant does not create a discrepancy. There is a clear relationship between the name of the applicant shown in the notify party field and the name and address shown in the consignee field.
Discrepancy 3
The credit required one set of non-negotiable copies of the documents to be sent to the applicant within three days after the date of shipment. Whilst this information was to be inserted onto the beneficiary certificate, proof of compliance would be evidenced by the date of pick up shown on the courier receipt. The date of pick up was not evidenced. The credit required the presentation of a courier receipt (original, copy or photocopy). If the courier receipt included a space for signature of the courier company, then this should have been signed. The comments in relation to signing of the courier receipt apply on the basis that the presented receipt was an original and not a copy. If a copy courier receipt is required or allowed, it need not be signed.
Conclusion
Discrepancy 1: There is no discrepancy.
Discrepancy 2: There is no discrepancy.
Discrepancy 3: The discrepancy is valid.

unquote

Refer the above case, if the courier receipt was not bearing any pick-up date, and there was no space included on the document,
but it was dated by the sender (LC beneficiary)
for example, some courier companies such as Fedex, TNT etc. May the courier receipt be acceptable?

If the courier company is DHL, there was a space for pick up date. Such pick up date must be filled in.

Even though UCP 600 and ICC case have requested to show pick up date. Please comment whether it is mandatory or not.

Your assistance is much appreciated.

Regards,
ucp800

[shahriar]

in my opinion, if a courier receipt is required not as a transport document but as other document, it will be governed by article 14 f. depending on the requirement (document send within 2 days of shipment) courier receipt may require to show the date of receipt. i would not require to see the signature here even if there is a signature space. comments appreciated.

[cristiand969]

Whilst I tend to agree with you regarding form of courier receipt not covering movement of goods but being a proof of sending documents to the applicant ( N.B. art 25 a of UCP 600 A courier receipt, however named, evidencing receipt of goods for transport, must appear to... ), one cannot overlook the fact that in accordance with ISBP such a document should be signed as it is considered at least a certification that some documents were dispatched. I did not see that a copy of courier is to be presented.
So, in my opinion it should be signed.