Consulta 309

BENEFICIARIO EN DESACUERDO CON EL RECHAZO DE DOCUMENTOS

En el Grupo de Expertos del Comité español se recibe un escrito de un beneficiario de un crédito documentario, que no se transcribe en su totalidad por ser una deficiente traducción al español, alegando no estar de acuerdo con la forma de rechazar los documentos por parte del banco emisor.

Al solicitar aclaraciones, se recibe la siguiente consulta:

Attn: Secretary General,

Dear Sir,

We thanks for your email dated 29th March. We solicit your help in resolving the matter in question.

The matter relates to drawings under L/C ref No. : XXXXX; dated 4th Nov 2015; issued by Banco XXXX(L/C Copy attached).

The details of drawings are given below:

Our Bank: XXXXBank, India.

Sr No.
Our Bank Swift Ref No
Date
Amt of Drawing
1
XXXXX
28 JAN 2016
US$ 26955.50
2
XXXXX
28 JAN 2016
US$ 10808.30
The complete set of documents are attached herewith.

The documents were rejected by Banco XXXXvide their 1st swift message dated 2nd Feb 2016 and but clarifying the specific defects of discrepancies in their next  swift of dated 10th Feb 2016. (both swift copies attached).

The discrepancies raised by issuing bank on 2nd Feb are as follows;

 

i.            Invoice: Description of goods not as per field 45A

ii.            B/L: Consignee not as per L/C terms.

 

(A) The swift sent by issuing bank on 2nd Feb about the discrepancies is ambiguous and not specified.. We refuted the discrepancies contending that the specific reason (Defect) has not been specified by L/C issuing bank in 1st notice. (1st Swift 2Feb2016- Copy attached), so the discrepancies raised are not valid.

The above contention is supported by commentary on UCP 600 (ICC Publication No. 680 page 73) which reads as under:

““…..be specific as to the reason each is considered to be discrepancy.” – (Annx1-UCP600 Rule- Documents Copy attached.).

Our contention is also supported by the decision of law which reads as follows:

“Toyota Tsusho Corp. v. Comerica Bank, 929 F. Supp. 1065 (E.D. Mich. 1996)”. See below quotes in paragraph C.

(B) The L/C issuing bank sent 2nd swift notice dated 10th Feb 2016 (Copy attached), and then clarifying the defects of discrepancies which is an evident that the 1st rejection dated 2nd Feb 2016 is not valid.

Our above said arguments is supported by the following:

ICC Banking Commission Unpublished Opinions 1995-2004 (ICC publication 660E), R 382 Point no. 7 (page 137) and DOCDEX Decision 1997-2003 (ICC publication 665), DOCDEX Decision no. 223 (page 90), both of which state that “if the discrepancy notice is not specific, then although clarifications were made by the issuing bank later on, it does not make the unclear discrepancy notice, which had been first sent, a valid one”. – ICC Expert opinion R 672 refers. Moreover the refusal of documents has to be vide single notice—Article 16© of UCP 600 refers which is not the case here. (Annx2_UCP600 Rule- Documents Copy attached.).

 

C Cases and Court judgements.

Since it is established that the rejection dated 2nd Feb 2016 is not valid and Banco XXXXX also failed to reject the documents within 5 (five) Banking days following the day of presentation of documents—Article 16 (d) of UCP 600 refers. Therefore the L/C issuing bank is precluded from claiming that the documents are not as per L/C.

 

We request you Sir, to make an issuer see reason as returning documents unpaid cannot extinguish its obligation under L/C.

Please get the matter examined by the expert in ICC Spain and obtain settlement for us.

Hope to hear soon from you.

Thanking You,

Yours Faithfully.

XXXXBeneficiary of the Credit

Análisis

El Grupo de expertos decide por unanimidad centrarse en el artículo 16 de las UCP 600 que dice textualmente:

UCP 600 – Article 16

Discrepant Documents, Waiver and Notice

a. When a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank determines that a presentation does not comply, it may refuse to honour or negotiate.

b. When an issuing bank determines that a presentation does not comply, it may in its sole judgement approach the applicant for a waiver of the discrepancies. This does not, however, extend the period mentioned in sub-article 14 (b).

c. When a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank decides to refuse to honour or negotiate, it must give a single notice to that effect to the presenter.

The notice must state:

i. that the bank is refusing to honour or negotiate; and

ii. each discrepancy in respect of which the bank refuses to honour or negotiate; and

iii.

a) that the bank is holding the documents pending further instructions from the presenter; or

b) that the issuing bank is holding the documents until it receives a waiver from the applicant and agrees to accept it, or receives further instructions from the presenter prior to agreeing to accept a waiver; or

c) that the bank is returning the documents; or
d) that the bank is acting in accordance with instructions previously received from the presenter.

d. The notice required in sub-article 16 (c) must be given by telecommunication or, if that is not possible, by other expeditious means no later than the close of the fifth banking day following the day of presentation.

e. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank may, after providing notice required by sub-article 16 (c) (iii) (a) or (b), return the documents to the presenter at any time.

f. If an issuing bank or a confirming bank fails to act in accordance with the provisions of this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation.

g. When an issuing bank refuses to honour or a confirming bank refuses to honour or negotiate and has given notice to that effect in accordance with this article, it shall then be entitled to claim a refund, with interest, of any reimbursement made.

El Grupo de Expertos analiza también el artículo 14 b. Con referencia a los plazos previstos para el examen de documentos.

Asimismo el Grupo de expertos analiza los anexos y opiniones presentados bajo el punto C de la consulta, los cuales considera no tienen relación directa con este caso.

Respuesta

El Grupo de Expertos por xxxxxxx considera que la primera notificación enviada por el banco emisor, está efectuada dentro del plazo previsto por el artículo 14 b.

Asimismo el Grupo de expertos, por xxxxx, considera que dicha notificación cumple con los requisitos requeridos por el artículo 16c. ya que cita no únicamente los documentos discrepantes, sino también las causas de estas discrepancias en cada documento, entendiendo que son completas y precisas.

La respuesta a la consulta planteada refleja el punto de vista de los componentes del Grupo de Expertos del Comité Español de la Cámara de Comercio Internacional, no de la Comisión Bancaria de la CCI. Esta consulta y su Conclusión deberán ser tomadas en consideración, por la parte consultante, con carácter meramente informativo y, en su caso, deberá ser refrendada por la propia Comisión Bancaria en una próxima reunión de la misma.

La respuesta dada no debe ser interpretada en otro sentido distinto al indicado, es decir, servir de orientación a la parte o partes involucradas y, por tanto, no tendrá implicaciones jurídicas.

Si el caso está en trámite judicial, el Grupo de expertos obviará cualquier opinión sobre el particular.

Ni el Comité Español ni ninguno de sus empleados, incluyendo al Presidente, Secretario y Vicesecretaria serán responsables ante ninguna persona física o jurídica por cualquier pérdida o daño surgido de cualquier acto u omisión relacionados con el punto de vista expresado.