Dear All,
THis is my past experience.
My company presented documents to bank for LC drawing but received the discrepancies advice quoted :+Weight note showing unit of quantity as pcs instead of copies conflicting with other docs and showing pallet no. as 4 wheres (should be whereas) totol (should be total) of pallets is 48.
As far as I know, ISBP clause 24 Mathematical calculations stated :Details mathematical calculations in documents will not be checked by banks. Banks are only obliged to check total values against the credit and other required documents.
What’s the problem for a weight note to use the unit differ from other documents? It doesn’t affect value of goods. Besides, the pallet number we stated on weight note was “quantity” not a number. We have 12 items each consists of 4 pallets. Of course, total pallets equal to 48. The checker thought that it should be only 12 pallets because each item has the same pallet number 4. That’s ridiculous!
Can any one give some comments?
Hi! The problem is that
Hi!
The problem is that documents presented to be in compliance with LC terms and conditions and to be not inconsistent with each other.
1/ "Pieces" against "copies"
Do You really think that it is the same?
It have nothing with value of the goods, but whether "Tractor - 1 piece" is the same as "Tractor - 1 copy".
What is meant under "copy" when You're talking about "tractor"?
2/ 'Total 4' against 'total 48'
You are trying to use ISBP para which is playing against You.
Yes, banks will not make calculation of sums, divisions another mathematical calcs with a huge volume of data, but they "are only obliged to check total values against the credit and other required documents. "
So that's what they've done...
They compared totals in one document with another.
One has shown "48", another "4".
----------------------------
Just be careful in docs preparation.
-----------------------------
Good luck
Hi, Armadego, Word by
Hi, Armadego,
Word by word, I agreed with you for point 1. It’s a technical contradiction between the supplier and our company. I will try to improve this.
But for point 2, I mean the checker did not really compare all the documents to make final judgement. Let me explain it more detail. Actually, we shipped 12 items of goods and each consists of 4 pallets. My packing list stated total 48 lines of description (each item description stated 4 times) with pallet number “1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4”. Obviously, they can count out total 48 pallets. But my weight note stated only 12 lines of description (each item description stated 1 time) with pallet number “4”. How can they calculate a result other than 48 pallets? Don’t tell me it should be 12 pallets! If they really compare all the documents, they will not make such judgement.
I’m not arguing with ISBP. I’m talking about the attitude of bills checker. Thanks
OK. I guess you have
OK. I guess you have understood first discrepancy clearly.
Now as far as I understand, your weight list mentioned something like this:-
4 pallets of XYZ goods. (this line 12 times).
If i am right, according to you the doc checker should calculate 4x12 which comes to 48. But then remember-- he/she is not supposed to get into mathematical calculations. Although if the weight list nowhere else mentioned total no. of pallets its a different issue.
But I advise you that in future mention the description as you want and just end one line or column stating 'total quantity'. That would make it simpler for all parties invovled.
Sounds reasonable, but I
Sounds reasonable, but I don't think those 'bills checkers' suck in mathsmatics. IMHO, 12x4=48 is not a complicated maths equation for all of us, perhaps your weight list is truly confusing.
But anyway, don't get mad about each other. We value clients and hope clients appreciate our work quality. BTW, can you please not use 'bills checker' next time? We call it trade finance--you know, what we are doing is not limited to checking docs.
Enjoy, fellows.
Reply to lujiang
I have no mean to hurt anyone's feeling.
You are now based on a banker's position to challenge my company's shipping documents. It is not the first presentation of our company. I've asked the banker and they also thought that it was unreasonable to point it as discrepancy. I know different banks have their own practice. But it must be reasonable. If they want clients appreciate their work, they have to show their value.
My banker also called them "Bills checkers" because they actually checked the bill. Your concept is just like EDP changed to IT or MIS. But I respect your term "Trade Finance".
Please think thoroughly before giving comment!
Good Luck
I don't want to be treated
I don't want to be treated as a crazy banker who can't be challenged...
Please note my tone. I clearly said 'Sounds reasonable', which means I agree that your problem is not really a problem, i.e. the bank is wrong. And also said 'don't get mad about each other'. We always have disagreements with clients, sometimes we are too cautious, sometimes clients made mistakes. But what's the big deal? Banks never force clients to amend their docs..we don't challenge anybody, especially clients! We just follow the rules.
Are we clear, feihung520?
TO : LUJIANG
Sorry for my fury! Lujiang.
But it's not as simple as "What's the big deal?" Actually, it's a big deal. We don't mind bank to be too cautious but they caused serious delay for my customer to accept the discrepancies because of their late advice. My customer was in Morocco and issued the LC via a French bank. They had to issue the LC through HQ in France to telex their HK branch to advise us. I don't know how complicated it was. But each time after they advised us discrepancies, they took more than one week to notify my customer which extremely later than our advice. It delayed my customer to accept the discrepancies and get the original documents before free godown period.
You understand my suffering!
Regards