country of origin

sbkln05 · Post by **sbkln05** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:56 pm

Lc stipulates goods to be of china origin but no documents required.
Documents submitted with no certificate of origin but invoice show goods are of Japan origin.
will it be consider as discrepancy.

ORUNMILA · Post by **ORUNMILA** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:56 pm

HI all
ACcording to UCP subarticle 14(h) this not a valid discrepancy. a condition was stated without stipulating the document or by whom is to be produce or issued. such conditions are normaly disregarded by banks.

other comments welcome

orunmila

shahriar · Post by **shahriar** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:00 pm

yes, its a discrepancy as per UCP 600 article 14d which reads that data in a document, when read in context with the credit... must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit. this position is also stated in ICC opinion TA644.

while this is true.. i heard a amazing view few days back.. "to be of" is a future tense and therefore document may show any country as origin

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:01 pm

invoice conflicts with L/C terms

Shirley · Post by **Shirley** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:32 pm

1. Cert.of origin: According to UCP, a condition without stipulating the document to indicate compliance with the condition which will be disregard. So, it is no need to present any documents to certify the goods of China origin.
2 Invoice: It should not be the discrepancy if the invoice showing goods are of Japan origin which as per L/C stated.

But I wonder this L/C have the contradiction to the origin of goods. Is it need to clarify with the client / issuing bank?

Welcome to any comments.

Judith · Post by **Judith** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:11 am

Two not smart things were done here.

1. The issuing bank should have done the smart thing and called for goods to be of Chinese origin. They didn't. And when the person issuing the LC realised error and was horrified.

2. The beneficiary should have done the smary thing and not mentioned anything about the goods being of Japanese origin. They didn't.

So, the advantage is back with the issuing bank. The person who issued the LC is thrilled. The error could be covered up!

That's because 14 (h) is subject to 14 (d).
The invoice that states that goods are of Japanese origin is in conflict with the LC terms. This is a discrepancy as per 14 (d).

shahriar wrote:i heard a amazing view few days back.. "to be of" is a future tense and therefore document may show any country as origin

Very amazing indeed

Md.zakir Hossen · Post by **Md.zakir Hossen** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:45 pm

Shariar
Shall appreciate if you please provide the source or the articles where it is mention:
"to be of" is a future tense and therefore document may show any country as origin .

Masoom Hasan · Post by **Masoom Hasan** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:41 pm

Dear Shahriar bhai,

Thanks for quoting the right reference. According to article 14(d), it is a discrepancy and TA644 truely reflects the situtation here.
But what about "to be of" mentioned by you, in that case it might not be a discrepancy. Like as Zakir bhai I am eagerly awaiting for a concrete refernce of it. However, thanks again Shahriar bhai for unveiling such an interesting view point.

- Masoom

ajoy · Post by **ajoy** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:57 pm

Dear Masoom,

When Shahriar quoted as below he didnot imply that he agrees with the the 'amazing view'. On the contrary he is making fun of it.

The so called amazing view is obviously incorrect.

Shahriar said:

while this is true.. i heard a amazing view few days back.. "to be of" is a future tense and therefore document may show any country as origin

Cheers

Ajoy

shahriar · Post by **shahriar** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:53 pm

thanks Ajoy!! you read me correctly.

dear brother masoom,
i was indeed making fun.

Masoom Hasan · Post by **Masoom Hasan** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:25 pm

Dear Shahriar bahi,

Ok. Thanks.

- Masoom

21vita · Post by **21vita** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:57 am

it remind me of another case:
lc do not require cert of origin in 46A field, while in 47A it reads: certificate of origin must show china as ....
issuing bank refused the docs due to "c/o not presented."negotiation bank argue that was not required by lc .it's a non documentary condition.
icc opinion:c/o must be presented with the details lc required...........

country of origin

country of origin

NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION

discrepant

discrepant

Is it need to clarify??

To Shirley and Shahriar

Certificate of origin

Discrepant or not

'to be of'

Thanks ajoy

Ok then

another case concerning c/o