Overview of recent DOCDEX summaries 385-389



Several collections, subject to URC522, included an instruction to deliver documents against acceptance of the draft by the drawee and a bankers avalisation of the draft. Three further collections stated that documents were to be released solely against acceptance of the draft by the drawee. 


Neither acceptance nor payment was made, nor was any advice of non-acceptance/payment provided. The presenting bank alleged fraud by the principal in the transactions, claiming that the drawee had effected payment for the collections directly to the principal.


It was concluded that, for the collections that had been avalised, the presenting bank was obligated to honour. 


Nevertheless, the allegation of fraud was deemed outside the scope of URC 522.




Numerous presentations were submitted under a credit available by deferred payment.


Based upon the fact that the issuing bank did not provide a notice of refusal for a number of the presentations, it was concluded that the issuing bank was liable to honour these presentations. 


For the remaining presentations, the notices of refusal were not in line with UCP 600, meaning that the issuing bank was precluded from claiming that the documents did not constitute a complying presentation and was obligated to honour.


The issuing bank had apparently also endorsed the bills of lading related to several of the presentations, meaning that they would have been unable to return the refused documents in the same condition as received. This was perceived as constituting a breach of UCP 600. 




A number of collections, subject to URC 522, payable at sight, each included a phytosanitary certificate.  


The collecting bank released the certificates, without payment, and the certificates were used to enable customs clearance of the goods. 


It was decided that partial release of documents was a violation of the collection instructions and that the collecting bank was liable.

Back to recent articles