Is the Confirming Bank right in its rejection?

[ucp800]

Dear All,

A DC issued in Hong Kong and confirmed by a bank in Taiwan subject to UCP 600 requires a port-to-port bill of lading showing:
Port of Loading: Come by Chance, Canada

Port of Discharge: Any port in China

A port-to-port bill of lading is presented showing:
Port of Loading: Come by Chance, Canada

Port of Discharge: Kaohsiung

The Confirming Bank in Taiwan rejected the bill of lading stating:

1. "Come by chance in Canada" means "Any port at which the goods happen to be discharged in Canada". Come by Chance is not the name of a port. The Port of Loading should show the name of a port in Canada, such as Toronto, as required by UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a) (iii).
2. Republic of China (Taiwan) is an independent country and not part of "China" according to President Chen Shui-bien (陳水扁) and the Democratic Progressive Party (民主進步黨). Accordingly "China" should mean "People's Republic of China".
3. Hence "Any port in China" should mean any port in People's Republic of China, such as Shanghai and not any port in Republic of China (Taiwan), such as Kaohsiung.

Is the Confirming Bank right in its rejection? And why?

Thank you for your assistance.

Regards,
ucp 800

[Judith]

I would tend to agree with the confirming bank for the very reasons that you mentioned in the post.

[cristiand969]

The Confirming is wrong in its rejection of the bill of lading because:
"Come by Chance" is in fact the name of a port in Newfoundland, Canada with the bearing of 47°48' N 54°01' W in Lloyd's Maritime Atlas. So a document checker should know geography thoroughly in order to do his job well and to meet the requirement of ISBP 681 Paragraph 100.

According to UCP 600 articles 4 & 5, DC deals with documents and certainly not with politics, particularly that document checking cannot rely solely on the statement from President Chen Shui-bien or any political party.
According to People's Republic of China, "China" includes Taiwan under the "One Country" concept.

According to another political party in Taiwan, the Kuomintang ( the Nationalist Party), "China" means the "Republic of China" and includes mainland China, once under the administration of Republic of China led by President Chiang Kai-shek before mainland China was taken over by the People's Republic of China led by Chairman Mao Ze-dong in 1949.
Hence, as far as UCP 600 is concerned, "China" should mean both People's Republic of China and Republic of China. In other words "China" should include mainland China and Taiwan.
Therefore there is no discrepancy in the bill of lading

[Judith]

I had no idea that “Come By Chance” was a port! Just goes to show that the more you know, the more you don’t know!

About Taiwan, I am a bit on the fence on this. You see for all practical purposes, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong are “separate” countries. I mean, you have different, governments, laws, visa applications etc. (I mean, I’ve travelled to all three “countries” and I needed three different visas! Well, actually, you don’t need a visa to go to HK, but you need separate ones to get into China and Taiwan…)

But I see where you are coming from. Should we give the beneficiary the benefit of the doubt? On the other hand, how far does the logic stretch?

For e.g., does “Any port in the United States” include the states of Hawaii and Alaska and some islands in the Caribbean?

That’s why, for historical reasons, I think that “Any port in China” would probably not include Hong Kong and Taiwan unless specifically included.

This of course, is just my opinion and I'd like to hear other views.

[Judith]

After reflecting on this and talking to colleagues, I stand corrected.
“Any port in China” will include Hong Kong and Taiwan unless specifically excluded.
“Any port in USA” will include the states of Hawaii and Alaska.
It will be illogical to exclude these ports.

The issuing bank must take more care while issuing such LCs.