| Dear Malik,
Thanks for using the single window.
It is s a bit sad that we still see such
discrepancies. The example you mention has been part of "ISBP" since it was
published in 2002.
I quote you the text from the 2007 version:
Paragraph 184:
"Consignee information, if shown, must not be in
conflict with the consignee information in the transport document. However,
if a credit requires a transport document to be issued "to order", "to the
order of shipper", "to order of the issuing bank" or "consigned to the
issuing bank", the certificate of origin may show the applicant of the
credit, or another party named therein, as consignee. If a credit has been
transferred, the name of the first beneficiary as consignee would also be
acceptable"
For UCP 600 this has actually been used to exemplify
sub-article 14 (d).
This sub-article reads:
"Data in a 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"
The explanation from the UCP 600 Drafting group
reads:
"For example, data concerning the consignee in a
certificate of origin that differs from he consignee data in the bill of
lading would not be considered as being in conflict"
(From "Commentary on UCP 600" page 64)
If you pass this on the issuing bank - I am sure
they will accept the documents.
I hope this helps you.
Thanks
Kim Christensen
|
