Forty collection instructions given by a remitting bank to a collecting bank stated that documents were to be delivered against acceptance of drafts by the drawee and endorsement of the drafts by the collecting bank. The underlying documents were delivered to the drawee without acceptance or endorsement. It was concluded that the collecting bank was responsible for the consequences of failure to follow the instructions and the governing rules. Allegations regarding apparent, intentional, over-shipment of the product and an associated ‘acknowledgement of debt' agreement document were found to be outside of the scope of a DOCDEX Decision.
An issuing bank refused documents presented under a standby credit on the basis that the LOI omitted ‘plus or minus 10%' in the second paragraph. The beneficiary stated that both the discrepancy and the notice of refusal were invalid. It was determined that it is common practice for a presentation to indicate what has actually been shipped and, in any case, the ‘+/-10%' in the LOI had no material relevance. In conclusion, the discrepancy was not valid. Two notices of refusal were sent under the same presentation, so the second had to be considered as ineffective. The first notice did not indicate disposal instructions and was not, therefore, in accordance with UCP. The issuing bank was precluded from claiming it was not a complying presentation. A separate issue of fraud and an associated lawsuit was considered as outside the scope of DOCDEX.
A presenting bank received 50 collection instructions that listed and enumerated the enclosed documents that were to be released by the presenting bank against sight payment according to URC. Only after a significant delay did the presenting bank acknowledge receipt of the documents and then, more than three months after the date of the first collection instruction, claimed a difference between the number of documents received and the number stated on the collection instructions. It was determined that such action could not be considered as ‘without delay' as required by URC and therefore concluded that, as the presenting bank had breached URC, they were precluded from claiming any inaccuracies. Furthermore, should the remitting bank have requested the presenting bank to return the full set of documents in the same condition as received, and the presenting bank was unable to do so, the presenting bank would have been liable for payment.
An issuing bank refused documents presented under a credit due to the addition of the words ‘no hides' in the description of goods within the commercial invoice. It was concluded that the discrepancy claimed by the issuing bank was valid. The additional words "no hides" in the invoice rendered the description of the goods in the invoice as not corresponding to the description of goods in the credit and also created a conflict in data as described in UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d).
Full details can be found in ICC Publication no. 786, Collected DOCDEX Decisions 2013-2016.