Best Trade Solution

Hi all,
here are our alive case.
In 2007, at the request of my customer – the buyer A , we issue a credit in favour of Ben B . L/C was subject to UCP 500 and was a negotiation credit.
.
Docs presented, we rejected on basis of discrepancy and refused payment . MT 734 was sent no later the close of the seventh banking day following the day receipt of the docs . As the instruction of Beneficiary via their bank , we returned docs to the presenter and collected post free fully. As regular banking practice, we archived our files a month later. Has the issuing bank undertaking already finished ?
The bebeficiary brough this matter to ICC ( as he informed us ) and got the answer contradicting with ours in 2008.
Basing on ICC decision , the beneficiary contact us to make a claim for damages from giving incorrect discrepancy .
If not, they will bring matter to court for trial.
If it is DOCDEX decision , because the DOCDEX process is a non-binding arbitration , so that it does not bind us unless we agree in our submission.
On the other hand, we strictly apply UCP rules for all actions in this transaction. Is there any retroactive effect of UCP rules ?
Could you please give me your valuable comments about beneficiary’s action. Is it valid and acceptable ?
.
rgds,

dear loankim,

my precise answer is, yes the negotiating bank can do this. simple theory. UCP is a practice and the related party can always seek protection under the law. UCP works as long as it does not conflicts with the law.

Hi iLC,

Thanks for yr opinion a lot . Pls share me more this matter in some elements:
When the negotiationing bank asks the issuing bank to return the docs it means that they have no right to claim payment from the issuing bank?
Does the beneficiary have the right to claim for their sufferring heavy losses of carrying the goods back to his country?
This request is given after 2 years from the time which the issuing bank returns docs to negotiationing bank.
I have know within a month or so, most bank will allow for the extention to occur. Beyond that, banks may have archived their files. Can the issuing bank in this case apply this regulation?
Pls give me yr comments a.s.a.p !
rgds,

Hi all,

Can we apply ICC Official Opinion TA issued in present to resolve for a matter appearing in the past ?

rgds,

this is purely dependent on the applicable law. if the discrepancies were valid, there is no reason to worry i think.

loankim wrote:Hi all,

Can we apply ICC Official Opinion TA issued in present to resolve for a matter appearing in the past ?

rgds,

you can sought for opinion on a hypothetical case even.