Which should be shown?

[ldt5205]

47a: INSURANCE EFFECTED BY ALBORZ INSURANCE CO FAX NO 982188803785 IN IRI UNDER INSURANCE POLICY NO.85/1004/4659 WHICH TO BE INDICATED ON ALL DOC
Docs presented only show INSURANCE POLICY NO.85/1004/4659 ,the issuing bank refused the docs since the docs did not show the name of insurance company.
Are the issuing bank justified?

[jmitra]

in my opinion its not a discrepancy even when some documents does not show the insurance policy no. at all. reference ICC opinion on LC no.

[loankim]

Dear Jimitra,

I agree with you that the discrepancy is not valid .
I also know the ICC view point is that bank should not refuse for the absence of a LC number on a doc because the requirement for appearing of a LC number is usually at the instigation of the issuing bank .
Doing that will aid the reconciliation of the doc if it becomes astray of the other docs.
But i have sometimes thought of other purposes such as showing their necessary information because the applicant really need to declare goods easier, etc...i can not evaluate all them.
Anyway, i preferer their purposes to ICC opinions, so i maybe reject docs to protect our customer.

rgds,

[ajoy]

I see two issues here :

1) What purpose does this requirement serve?

I think easy reference / filing /not mixing of documents irrespective of who asked for this - Issuing bank or Applicant or Customs or any other party

Let me phrase the issue differently , suppose 'customs' has asked for this condition:

Can Customs legally refuse clearance of goods if the docs donot show the reference details of the insuance policy? I think no. They can be a bit difficult or nasty but they cannot refuse clearance of goods or pose any other inconvinience or cost on 'applicant'.

(My reasoning for above: Would the 'customs' be ok if the docs had the required reference typed neatly but no insuarance policy in place. No they would not. They actually need to see the insuarance policy..so if the requirement is from 'Customs they basically need it only for easy reference and not mixing up the docs etc i.e for convinience. So the cannot refuse clearance of goods because the docs do not have this 'reference number' typed or handwritten on them. They could be nasty but they cannot refuse clearance.)

2) Who can put the policy number ( or any other reference number) on any or all documents? Is it Bene , applicant , Issuing bank or any party who holds the documnets at any point of time?

Does the 'status' of the document change if you write a reference number on it - in this case the policy number and name of the insuarance company - on to these documents.

Again I think anyone can write/type a reference number or name on any document without changing its 'status' or 'condition' in any way. So if the bene has missed this applicant can themselves add the 'reference number ' to the docs. ( And if the applicant misses this the might govt officials of the 'customs' can wite as many reference nmbers as they like on teh documents)

So I would not point this out as a discrepancy....

Comments welcome.

Cheers

Disclaimer : I have no formal legal expertise and I am pretty sure that a lawyer and or ' Customs' etc may prove me wrong on 2 above. Still I would rather be wrong on this one then point this out as a discrepancy.

[narisa]

dear all
Once l/c not request all docs to show insurance company's name,it's not necessary for showing in any docs.so it is invalid discrepancy.
rgds.

[ajoy]

I agree that the requirement in the LC is not clear:

47a: INSURANCE EFFECTED BY ALBORZ INSURANCE CO FAX NO 982188803785 IN IRI UNDER INSURANCE POLICY NO.85/1004/4659 WHICH TO BE INDICATED ON ALL DOC
Docs presented only show INSURANCE POLICY NO.85/1004/4659 ,the issuing bank refused the docs since the docs did not show the name of insurance company.
Are the issuing bank justified?

This is open to interpretation:

The condition can mean the entire clause " Insuarance efected by Alborz........to be indicated on all documents

OR

The condition can mean that the phrase ' Insuarance Policy NO. 85/1004/4659 ' is to be indicated on all documents.

The latter interpretation seems more reasonable and the docs do show the Insuarance policy number.

However, my contention is that even if the docs didnot show the insurance policy number we should not point it as a discrepancy for reasons given in my previous post and my understanding of the ICC opinion quoted in the thread.

Cheers