Best Trade Solution

Letter credit required:
01 original and 04 copy for Commercial Invoice
01 original and 04 copy for packing List
The negotiating bank presented:
01 original, 03 photocopy for CO
As the result, the issuing bank refused this documents with the discrepancy:
01 photocopy instead of 01 copy

In the article 39 of ISBP 681 -2007 ICC stated that a photocopy of a signed document
does not qualify as a signed original document. Hereby, Can we qualify a copy document
like a photocopy document????
And in short, the issuing bank is wrong????

Hi Pal,

here is something written on Commentary about art 17 UCP 600:
-Sub-article d) makes it clear that the request for a presentation of copies can be satisfied by the presentation of either originals or copies. Copies would include photocopies.Copies of documents need not be signed,The position regarding copies not requiring a signature is also covered in ISBP, ICC Publication no. 681, paragraph 32.

Other comments appreciated

Ciao

We may want to note that ' The determination of an ' original' document' published on 12.07.1999 by ICC Commission on Banking Technique remain valid under UCP 600 and it is an appendix to ISBP for UCP 600 brochure.
I quote for you the relevant info from the above:
Banks treat as non-original any document that appears to be a photocopy of another document.
.
What is not original: Appears to be a photocopy of another document.....unquote
.
A document is either original or a copy. There is no intermediary state of a document. A copy would include: a document marked COPY, photocopy, carbon copy or a document received by bank telefax machine . However if photocopy is hand signed or printed on the original issuer stationery it is treated as an original document. If the intention of issuing bank was to receive a printed document marked copy , it should have been prohibited in LC presentation of a photocopy.
.
It is very sad to see some people in crucial positions like settlements under L/C without any logic, professional information acquired and the like.

I do agree with Cristiand969.

Hi,

It is surprising to see such kind of silly perception on the side of the issuing bank (IB) in defining a copy document. Yes, I refute the discrepancy raised by the IB. I completely agree with Picant. Thanks to Picant for rightly quote from commentary of ucp 600,

Copyies would include photocopies.

Aslo refer to ISBP 681 para 32,

Copies of documents need not to be signed.

So a copy document need not to be maked as "copy", photocopy of a document will be considered as copy.

Dear LeThao, I think what you have quoted from the ISBP para 39 will not be applied here, it relates to original doc. not copy.

Thanks.

It is sad that we even have to debate this.

As the result, the issuing bank refused this documents with the discrepancy:
01 photocopy instead of 01 copy

Maybe the Issuing bank should explain that if a photocopy is not an copy then do they consider it an original.

There are originals and there are copies and there is nothing in between.
One can dispute whether a document is original or not. But when it is clear that it is not an original it can only be a copy.

Another related discrepancy we see sometimes is :
Original submitted instead of a copy. I donot like this one either. If you dont want the original just take a photocopy or as many photocpies as you want and ignore the original but dont call it a discrepancy.

Thanks to Picant and otehrs for the relevant quotes.

Cheers