Dear Expert,
May I ask for your opinion on the following:
L/C
44A: India
44B:Barcelona – Spain by seaway/Airway
46A:
Full set of clean on board Bill of Lading or
Express-Release Bill of Lading or Seawaybill of the appointed Freight Forwarder showing shipment to BarCelona port marked Freight Collect, consigned to the applicant and notify to Forwarder.
Air Waybill
In 1 copy issued by appointed by applicant’s Freight Forwarder showing shipment by air to Barcelona airport, consigned to the applicant and notify to Forwarder.
Copy non-negotiable B/L presented showing:
Pre-carriage by: blank
Place of Receipt: Umbergaon
Port of Loading: NSICT port
Vessel: ABC
Port of discharge: Barcelona
Place of delivery: Barcelona, Spain
At the middle of B/L column: Description of goods and pkgs showing
“Express Bill of Lading”
B/L pre-print
“No. of Original Bills of Lading:” (fill in “0”)
At the bottom left hand side of B/L showing
“Shipped on board The Vessel” at NSICT port
on DEC 10, 2009
Please comment the followings are acceptable or not:
1. copy non-negotiable B/L presented is acceptable since Express Bill of Lading is presented. Actually no original B/L was issued, B/L was also stated no. of original issue is zero.
2. On board notation without specify the actual vessel name is acceptable
Even though place of receipt is differ from port of loading.
Since Shipment is effected at place of receipt Umbergaon is an inland place and the first leg is not effected by Sea. L/C not specific requested Ocean B/L to be presented.
L/C not stated port of loading and port of discharge.
Thank you for your assistance.
Regards,
ucp800
NN copy Express B/L presented
-
ucp800
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:56 pm
- First Name: LEUNG
- Last Name: KING SANG
- Organization: WACHOVIA BANK N.A.
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
-
Trang
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:51 am
- First Name: Tracy
- Last Name: Tracy
- Organization: MB
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Whether amendment accepted or not?
Your comments on the following are appreciated.
The issuing bank issued an LC for USD100,000.00, with partial shipments not allowed. Later the issuing bank issued an amendment to decrease the LC amount from USD100,000.00 to USD50,000.00.
The beneficiary did not give notification of acceptance of the amendment but he presented a set of documents for USD50,000.00 which was equal to the new LC amount after amendment.
The issuing bank refused the documents stating the discrepancies: (i) C/O: C/O FORM A PRESENTED I/O C/O FORM E; (ii) B/L: LACK OF LC NO AND DATE, and returned the documents to the presenter.
Later the beneficiary presented a new set of documents for USD100,000.00. However, the issuing bank refused the documents stating the discrepancy “overdrawn” based on the amendment. The issuing bank reasoned that according to Article 10 (c) the amendment was deemed to have been accepted by the beneficiary as of the time the first presentation was made.
The presenter rejected the discrepancy raised by the issuing bank reasoning that the first presentation was refused and the discrepant documents were returned to the beneficiary, hence, it could not be deemed to be notification of acceptance by the beneficiary of the amendment. The issuing bank must honour as the new presentation was complying with the original LC.
The issuing bank issued an LC for USD100,000.00, with partial shipments not allowed. Later the issuing bank issued an amendment to decrease the LC amount from USD100,000.00 to USD50,000.00.
The beneficiary did not give notification of acceptance of the amendment but he presented a set of documents for USD50,000.00 which was equal to the new LC amount after amendment.
The issuing bank refused the documents stating the discrepancies: (i) C/O: C/O FORM A PRESENTED I/O C/O FORM E; (ii) B/L: LACK OF LC NO AND DATE, and returned the documents to the presenter.
Later the beneficiary presented a new set of documents for USD100,000.00. However, the issuing bank refused the documents stating the discrepancy “overdrawn” based on the amendment. The issuing bank reasoned that according to Article 10 (c) the amendment was deemed to have been accepted by the beneficiary as of the time the first presentation was made.
The presenter rejected the discrepancy raised by the issuing bank reasoning that the first presentation was refused and the discrepant documents were returned to the beneficiary, hence, it could not be deemed to be notification of acceptance by the beneficiary of the amendment. The issuing bank must honour as the new presentation was complying with the original LC.
-
edilee
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:38 am
- First Name: edilee
- Last Name: cdcs
- Organization: cdcs
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
beneficiary accepted first
Dear Trang
your question also good question
my opinion once the beneficiary accepted the amendment and I think it is irrevocable
p.s. please send new subject with a new mail not an answer to other irrelevant subject thanks
.
Dear UCP800
1. as per UCP copy B/L is not a transport document
other comments wellcome for these questions
your question also good question
my opinion once the beneficiary accepted the amendment and I think it is irrevocable
p.s. please send new subject with a new mail not an answer to other irrelevant subject thanks
.
Dear UCP800
1. as per UCP copy B/L is not a transport document
other comments wellcome for these questions