An L/C issued subject to UCP 600 with following details:

Field 59 (name of beneficiary): Natco Ltd, Greece

Field 44 E (Port of Loading/Airport of Departure): Dubai

Field 44 F (Port of Discharge/ Airport of Destination): IR

Field 46A (Documents Required):

1) Original Airway Bill consigned to "Easy Bank" marked Freight Prepaid, indicating applicants as notify party.

2. Certificate of Origin issued by Chamber of Commerce, certifying goods are of China/Taiwan origin.

3. Signed Commercial Invoice in one original.

4. Packing list in one original

Documents Presentation:

All the above Documents were presented with the following information and forwarded to the issuing bank.

1) Airway Bill Shows Shipper as Natco Ltd, Greece

2) Cert of Origin shows Exporter as XYZ LLc, UAE

3) Commercial Invoice & Pack list issued on Letter Head of Natco Ltd, Greece but shows Shipper/Exporter as Natco Ltd, Cyprus

The issuing bank refused the documents and advised the discrepancies as under

A). Cert of Origin shows Exporter as XYZ LLc, UAE which conflict with the information shown on AWB.

B). Commercial Invoice & Pack list issued on Letter Head of Natco Ltd, Greece but shows shipper/Exporter as Natco Ltd, Cyprus which conflict with the information shown on AWB and Cert of Origin.

Kindly advise your opinion whether the issuing bank refusal is valid.

Best regards

UCP600-art.14d: Data in document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit

UCP600-art.14j: When addresses of the beneficiary and the applicant appear in any stipulated document, they need not be the same as those stated in the credit or in any other stipulated document, but must be within the same country as the respective addresses mentioned in the credit.

ISBP681-para.185: The certificate of origin may show the consignor or exporter as a party other than the beneficiary of the credit or the shipper on the transport document .

Conclusion:

In respect of ISBP681-para.185 discrepancy

A) is not valid with reference to UCP600-art.14d and 14j.

discrepancy B) is valid.

Best regards,

Bogdan

2. Invoice showing as shipper/exporter a third company not defined so on the other documents is indeed discrepant as this is conflicting information in the light of UCP600 article 14/d.