Is it a new presentation?

[rania]

Dear all,
I need ur comments in this case. A set of documents was received by an issuing bank and discrepancies were found in four documents including an invoice. An adivce of refusal was sent indicating these discrepancies. In response, a corrected invoice only was sent to replace the discrepant one. My questions are:
1-does this corrected invoice represent a new presentation,and another mt s734 needed to be sent to indicate the remaining discrepancies?
2-in this case,field 77b indicates'hold'.would the case differ if it was 'notify'?

ciao

[21vita]

Dear all,
1-does this corrected invoice represent a new presentation,and another mt s734 needed to be sent to indicate the remaining discrepancies?
2-in this case,field 77b indicates'hold'.would the case differ if it was 'notify'?

1-it is not a new presentation
whether rectified doc is presented by bene to nominated bank or by nominated bank to issuing bank,it should not be regarded as a new presentation,it's just a behavior of ''putting the doc in order''.
ICC R13,97:
----the commission decided that the beneficiary and the remitting bank always had the possibility of putting the documents in order provided this was done before expiry of the credit,and the docments were represented within the time limits laid down by the credit,and provide also the documents still complied with the credit terms.
----so ,if all disc docs are rectified and represented then issuing bank have to pay.if the discs previously notified by issuing bank not rectified by bene and still exist, just as the case you mentioned, issuing b has no payment obligation,nor do they need to send another mt734.

but,,if all documents are returned and represented,in my opinion,there should be some difference.

2.i think it makes no different in this situation,see no 1.representation can be made as long as within lc expiry date.

.... i dont know if it's ture. that's the way i read it.other different opinions appreciated.