Awb Actual Flight No. And Date, Inv. Cpt Add Freight Charge

[ucp800]

Dear All,



May I have your comment of the following case:

L/C terms:

LC AMOUNT USD1090.00 MAX

45A:

20000 PCS GLOVES AS PER PROFORMA INVOICE NO. 123

DELIVERY TERMS CPT TUNIS CARTHAGE AIRPORT



46A:

MAIN AIR WAYBILL ORIGINAL NR 3 FOR SHIPPER CONSIGNED TO

ABC BANK INDICATING THE ACTUAL FLIGHT NUMBER

AND FLIGHT DATE DULY SIGNED BY THE CARRIER OR HIS AGENT

MARKED FREIGHT PREPAID NOTIFY APPLICANT.

AIRPORT OF DEPARTURE: KLIA AIRPORT

AIRPORT OF DESTINATION: TUNIS CARTHAGE AIRPORT



CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS IN DUPLICATE



47A:

ANY DOCUMENT BEARING CORRECTION AND/OR ALTERATION SHOULD BE AUTHENTICATED BY THE ISSUER SIGNERS OF THE THE DOCUMENT.



documents presented as follows:



ORIGINAL AWB PRESENTED SHOWING

(ALL DATA PRINTED BY COMPUTER EXCEPT INV. NO. WAS TYPED SEPARATELY ON AWB)

AIRPORT OF DEPARTURE: KUALA LUMPUR

AIRPORT OF DESTINATION: TUNIS

at the middle of the column: requested flight/date:

QR6621/0909 QR568/1009





INVOICE SHOWING 20000 PCS GLOVES AS PER PROFORMA INVOICE NO. 123

DELIVERY TERMS CPT TUNIS CARTHAGE AIRPORT

20000 PCS AT USD0.0285 PER PC FOR USD570.00

AIRFREIGHT COST USD520.00

TOTAL AMOUNT USD1090.00



CERT. OF ANALYSIS ISSUED BY THE BENEFICIARY,

AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHEET SHOWING

"COMPUTER GENERATED SIGNATURE NOT REQUIRED."



DISCREPANCY:

1. INVOICE SHOWING PLUS AIRFREIGHT COST IN CONFLICT WITH

DELIVERY TERMS CPT.

2. AWB SHOWING AIRPORT OF DEPARTURE AND AIRPORT OF DESTINATION IN CONFLICT WITH L/C,

NOT SHOWING ACTUAL FLIGHT NO. AND FLIGHT DATE,

SHOWING UNAUTHENTICATED INSERTION OF INV. NO. NOT ALLOWED BY L/C

3. CERT. OF ANALYSIS NOT MANUALLY SIGNED BY THE BENEFICIARY.



I TREAT DISCREPANY NO. 1 IS VALID SINCE BENEFICIARY SHOULD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FREIGHT CHARGES
ACCORDING TO INCOTERM: CPT

DISCREPANCY NO. 2, AIRPORT OF DEPATURE SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN THIS CASE SINCE KLIA
MEANS KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

OTHER DISCREPANCIES ARE VALID.

DISCREPANCY NO. 3 IS VALID SINCE CERTIFICATE MUST BE SIGNED ACCORDING TO ISBP.



PLEASE LET ME HAVE YOUR VALUABLE OPINIONS.



THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE.



REGARDS,

[Trang]

1. In my opinion, discrepancy No.1 is INVALID. According to CPT term under ICC 2000, The beneficiary must arrange and pay for transport to the named place of destination. This freight is included in the price of goods agreed between the beneficiary and the applicant in their contract. The invoice show freight charges as shown is not considered to be discrepant. In the case invoice show Insurance fee under CPT term, it will constitute discrepancy.
2. Discrepancy No. 2 is of course INVALID. KLIA is excctly the KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
3. ISBP stipulates clearly that certification must be signed. Therefore, in any case, if certificate of analysis does not bear a signature, it shall be considered to be discrepant.
Trang

[LCstudent]

Dear friends ! I refer to Trang´s answer and share his opinion points 1 and 3. I think the invoice is ok showing the single details (unit price) and freight not exceeding L/C amount. Maybe is should be clearer to calculate the unit price INCLUDING freight per glove to avoid any confusion at the bankers desk checking the details. I agree further to the discrepancy "Cert/Analysis not signed". As per ISBP 681 para 37 certificates need a signature, so discr is valid. But I can not follow point 2 relating to AWB: as per ISBP para 141 AP/Departure and Dest must be shown as stated in the credit. So here the mirror-image is to be taken into account. As a banker is not obliged to decide/check if KLIA Airport is the same as Kuala Lumpur they have to look if the given details in LC can be found in the transport document. Same is to be seen under AP/Destination - Tunis seems to be different to Tunis Carthage Airport. I think there is no room for any interpretation. Banks have to look on the face for compliance with L/C details according to the instructions furnished by their applicant. Furthermore I agree with the bank stating the missing the actual flight number and date. The details shown in the middle column are treated as REQUESTED/scheduled flight and date, not a confirmation in view of actual flight number and date. The separate insertion of invoice number on the AWB not authenticated is a clear violation to 47A condition, discrepancy is valid. Have a nice further day. Brgds LCStudent.