More DOCDEX Decisions



The advising bank of a documentary credit subject to UCP 600 delayed the advising of an amendment, and the beneficiary took the matter to a court of law. It was decided that an advising bank may elect not to advise an amendment, but it must inform the issuing bank without delay as per UCP 600 sub-article 9 (e), although UCP 600 does not specify a period of time in which an advising bank should advise an amendment. 




A credit included a progress-payment structure with third and fourth payments against identical documents, third at sight, fourth at usance. Subsequent to presentation of documents, the sight aspect was reimbursed. However, at maturity of the usance aspect, the issuing bank refused to pay stating that the credit had expired and no documents were presented. The confirming bank reverted by stating that it considered the credit to be ambiguous, presentation of the same documents (notably 3/3 B/L) impossible, credit covering "mixed payment" with no separate drawing for usance. It was decided that despite the credit being ambiguous, it was available by negotiation with separate sight and usance drafts required. The presentation contained no information of usance drafts being presented and, accordingly, the issuing bank had no obligation to reimburse.




A claim was made under a Counter Standby LC. The issuer of the counter-standby received a court order stopping 2/3 of the demand, notified the claimant and paid the 1/3 not impacted.  The claimant paid the beneficiary the amount received under their local standby and reached a settlement outside the terms of the standby for less than the unpaid 2/3.  Once the court order was lifted, the claiming bank contacted the issuer of the counter-standby for payment of the amount of the settlement with interest from settlement date to date of receipt. It was decided that the claim must be honoured, but the interest aspect was outside the purview of DOCDEX.







Back to recent articles