Hi Guys,
I'm Sherly From Indonesia..
Just need your opinion about this :
LC : Shipping Agent's Certificate stating that blablablabla........
Presented : Shipping Agent's Certificate Issued in Beneficiary's Letter Head but signed by the agent of the shipping company..
as appear, that document seems to be inconsistent between the letter head and the signer... since the letter head should be shipping company's letter head not the beneficiary's
is that can be considered as discrepancy ? please reffer to ISBP art 22..
thanks a lot :)
Shipping agent's certificate on beneficiary's letter head
Dear Sherly,
You are right in your conclusion. But I don't think ISBP 681 Article 22 is applicable here. Perhaps UCP Article 14(d) would be more appropriate. It says, '
'Data in a document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit. '
Data in this document are in conflict: the letter head does not belong to the one which has signed the document.
Shipping agent's certificate on beneficiary's letter head
Thank's for your response catalyst :)
in isbp art 22 mentioned "if a credit indicates that a document is to be issued by a named person or entit, this condition is satisfied if the document appears to be issued by the named person or entity. It may appear to be issued by a named person or entity by used of its letterhead, or, if there is no letterhead, the document appears to have been completed and/or signed by, or on behalf of, the named person or entity."
in this case, the document have been signed by the agent, but didn't use the agent's letterhead.
is it a must that the letterhead and signer of the document must be the same? since i cant find the exact refference to this case..
if i take "Ambiguous issuer of Shipping Agent's Certificate" as the discrepancy, do you think it's appropiate?
i really need the exact refference and reason to make this become a valid dicrepancy so that the negotiating bank can't argue with us about it.
thank you :)
Non technical solution
Just cut the letter head off and the problem goes away!
issuing bank position
hehehe i think i'll do that too if we were in nego bank position.. but unfortunately we're in import/issuing bank position.. so pete.. is there any other suggestion or reason to make it final discrepancy?
Break down the ISBP Paragraph 22
The last sentence of the ISBP paragraph states ...It may appear to be issued by a named person or entity by use of its letterhead, or if there is no letterhead, the document appears to have been completed or signed by, or on behalf of the named person or entity.
Since there is letterhead, the second part of the sentence would not apply. Therefore if the certfiicate has a letterhead, that letterhead must be the letterhead of the company named in the letter of credit.
This is your reason for refusing to take up the documents.
I hope this helps out.
LC Sam
Issue of certificate
Dear Peter,
Actually you are right, you know! That ISBP article would have been applicable if the agent had used a plain sheet of paper. If the signature identifies the issuer, and the letter head did not interfere, this issue would not have attracted UCP article 14(d). As long as it does, it would constitute a discrepancy - only because of conflicting info on that particular document.
Even i had such a case, we
Even i had such a case, we quoted it as a discrepancy, the negotiating bank came back, we went back with isbp para 22 and finally the appliocant intervened and said he was willing to accept the doc. so the matter ended there. But this discussion again shows that this discrepancy can be quoted. But still many guysare of the view (i dont know what they refer to) that if a doc. is signed by someone, its issued by that entity/person, no matter on whose letter head it is.
Signing on another company's letter head
Dear CV
You wrote, ' ....if a doc. is signed by someone, it's issued by that entity/person, no matter on whose letter head it is.' I agree with you. The issue is not in dispute. The matter that concerns an examining bank is that, if it overlooks the obviously conflicting data in the document and accepts it inspite of Article 14(d) of UCP 600, it is likely to land itself in trouble; the issuing bank could throw it back on its face.
At the end of the day, the conflicting data takes nothing away from the shipment or the quality of the consginment. There is no reason, otherwise, why the applicant should not accept the goods. But what if it uses this reason (discrepancy) to reject the documents? Can the issuing or the examining then bank find any protection under the UCP or the ISBP?
Signing on another company's letter head
i agree w?th Catalyst in this case, consequently "the conflicting data takes nothing away from the shipment or the quality of the consginment"
There ?s not any distrust that the responsible part of this doc. is the one who signed it. This document fulfills the requested obligations from itself undertaken by the requested part(signed part).
?t doesn't make any difference of which part issued the docs. or who had written in the letterhead, it doesn't effect anything about this case. ? think it would be an acceptable document.
regards,
Catalyst, This is where the
Catalyst,
This is where the issue is. A bank CAN refuse documents and according to UCP article 16(b) 'it may in its sole judgement approach the applicant for a waiver of the discrepancies'. That means if they wish they can refuse the docs without approaching for a waiver and you can't do much about it. So even if the applicant may accept a discreapancy, bank can refuse the docs. In cases like this, I have mostly seen that such shipping co. certificates are normally bank's requirement i.e. say a certificate saying that the ship complies certain regulations. So the bank to satisfy its internal guidelines refuse discreapnt certificates, to the applicant it doesn't matter whether he gets that certificate or not.
COMMON SENSE
From the original query it is expected a shipping agent certificate to be presented. My understanding of a shipping agent certificate is a certificate to be issued (completed/typed) and signed by that agent.
The document in question shows other intention e.g. that certificate was typed/completed/issued by beneficiary and given to the agent to certify by its stamp and signature the conformity of that wording.
The document is discrepant of course.
Just one note: A document may show it was issued by a party and signed and stamped by other party. But both parties must have a relation in that document for example a B/L issued on a carrier letterhead and signed by its agent.
In that certificate beneficiary (in absence of other information) has nothing to do with that agent to the extent of document produced.
regards
Cristian
Common sense
Dear Cristian,
You are right, absolutely! There is no doubt that the document is discrepant.
Rgds