Overview of recent DOCDEX summaries 380-384



A number of presentations were submitted under a credit subject to UCP 600. 


The issuing bank claimed that they were unable to honour due to the imposition of a judicial order which froze the account of the applicant and prohibited international transfers.


As highlighted by UCP 600 articles 4 and 7, the obligation of the issuing bank is independent from that of the applicant.


Accordingly, it was concluded that the issuing bank must honour. 








In respect of a standby credit issued subject to ISP98, the issuing bank issued a notice of dishonour and returned the documents to the presenter. 


Subsequently the documents were re-presented with the stated discrepancies corrected. The issuing bank issued a new notice of dishonour, claiming three new discrepancies, on the basis of which they returned the documents again. 


The presenter claimed that not only were the new discrepancies invalid, but also that the issuing bank could not raise new discrepancies, and both notices of dishonour (by courier after five business days) were unreasonable.


It was concluded that the timing of both presentations was not unreasonable and that, for the initial presentation, only one discrepancy was valid. With respect to the second presentation, the issuing bank was not allowed to raise new discrepancies. 


On that basis, the second presentation was construed as compliant, with the outcome that the issuing bank was obligated to honour the re-presentation.








Documents were presented under two credits, issued subject to UCP 600, which required presentation of certificates of origin , and bills of lading marked "Liner Terms".


The issuing bank refused payment on the basis of two discrepancies, i.e., that there was a missing signature on the certificate of origin showing chamber's stamp only, and a conflict of "Liner In-Liner Out" on the bills of lading with delivery term "CFR LO" stated in the terms of the credit.


The issuing bank later claimed that "Liner Out" only was allowed because of the credit's prohibition of charges additional to freight. On this basis, they returned the documents to the confirming bank with 1/3 original bill of lading endorsed to applicant's order. 


The confirming bank stated that such endorsement precluded the issuing bank from claiming discrepancies.


It was concluded that none the alleged discrepancies were considered as valid. However, the claim of the confirming bank regarding the 1/3 bill of lading was not considered as a failure to return the documents in the same form and numbers as presented by the Claimant.. 


The issuing bank was not allowed to raise additional discrepancy. Nevertheless, doing so did not invalidate the original refusal.



Back to recent articles