How To Deal With Confused Bills Of Lading

Due to the same export goods and the negligence of bank managers,

When sending bills to the issuing bank, they will be confused with each other's bills of lading. Only one 2/3 bill of lading and one 1/3 bill of lading will be used for each set of documents.

The issuing bank will pay the bill very soon, and the B issuing bank will refuse to pay it on the basis of the 2/3 bill of lading.

After A row was informed.

The customer has already taken delivery of the goods by the issuing bank to guarantee the delivery, thus negotiating the bill and finally forcing the bank to pay the bill.

In fact, UCP500 fourteenth gives the issuing bank the refusal to pay when the documents do not conform.

There is a discrepancy in the documents submitted in this case, so the refusal of the issuing bank is justifiable and beyond reproach.

When the ship is returned, the shipping company will ask the issuing bank to fulfill its obligations under the guarantee of delivery, and the issuing bank may suffer a double loss of economy and credibility.

However, in this business, due to the failure of the negotiating bank, it was submitted to the issuing bank counter.

It is a 2/3 bill of lading. Even if the beneficiary asks for a refund, it can not be returned by 2/3. The issuing bank need not worry. On the contrary, insisting on refusing payment will help the issuing bank to avoid fraudulent risks.

According to my overseas

The issuing bank shall not make payment to the foreign exchange authority in respect of the terms of sale and purchase, such as discrepancies arising from the lack of documents of property.

This is to avoid corporate evasion, and to prevent fraud.

First, the delivery guarantee is a guarantee for the issuing bank to the shipping company, not a commitment to the beneficiary.

Though from the surface

As a matter of fact, the subject matter of the guarantee is the goods under the L / C, which is like the issuing bank issuing the goods to the applicant under the L / C on the basis of the delivery guarantee. In essence, the issuing company releases the cargo right to the consignee, and the delivery guarantee is independent.

A bank's guarantee for a shipping company other than a letter of credit.

Secondly, the issuing bank handles documents based on letters of credit and UCP500.

As long as the documents are in conformity with the issuing bank's payment business, the issuing bank will be subject to UCP500 if the documents do not meet the requirements.

The 14 constraint is that the issuing bank has the right to refuse to pay as long as the premises stipulated in the clause are satisfied, and refusing to pay on due grounds will help improve the credibility of the issuing bank.

Three, letters of credit are processed by documents, not by documents.

Goods, services or other acts related to customs.

The issuing bank guarantees that the applicant's delivery is "service related to the documents or other acts". The letter of credit must be based on the documents and the documents are inconsistent.

The bank has the right to refuse payment.

That is, a definite undertaking of the issuing bank, and when the beneficiary submits the documents to the A bank, the documents are identical, which in fact constitutes the obligation of the issuing bank to pay.

As long as the negotiating bank can confirm that it receives the documents, it is indeed a document.

If the agreement is identical, the issuing bank must pay the amount of the letter of credit within a reasonable time.

As long as the negotiating bank truths the facts to the issuing bank and provides evidence at the same time.

The issuing bank should pay if the documents are proved to be in conformity with the documents at their counters.

Of course, this kind of forensics is relatively difficult. It works in theory. It must take a lot of thought to specify exactly the document.

At present, most of the bills of lading issued by China's shipping companies are in three copies (only part of them have ORIGI-NAL, DUPLICATE, TRIPLICATE and so on), so even if three copies are not photocopies, it is impossible to prove that they are full sets of bills of lading.

It is also a difficult problem to prove that the whole bill of lading has been submitted.

A telegraphic statement is made by the negotiating bank that a full set of bills of lading has been presented by the beneficiary when the documents are presented, which seems unable to persuade the issuing bank to make payment, or, in conjunction with the following (2), state where a bill of lading is.

And it is required that the issuing card be searched for, which is easier to accept for the issuing bank.

The potential risks of claiming the goods are not easy for them to do.

However, if the issuing bank is to exchange the wrong bill of lading with the issuing bank through the issuing bank, it will be more successful and easier to be accepted by the issuing bank.

And the importer of the bill of lading wrongly takes account of the involvement of the bank. Even if there are bad ideas (such as claiming goods), it is not easy to put into practice because of the relationship with the banks.

If the bill of lading is lost and the goods are falsely claimed, the whole set of bills of lading cannot be mastered.

Without asking the shipping company for goods, it will be more likely to get lost.

Although this is due to the fault of the bank, the two reasons may make it difficult to recourse to the bank: (1) current customers.

When a bank makes a presentation, it has a weak sense of risk. Generally, it does not require banks to sign the bill, and who in the law advocates the provision of proof, which makes it impossible for the beneficiary to prove that the bank is a full set of bills of lading when the documents are received.

How can it be difficult to predict? (2) even if the recovery is successful, the relationship with the bank's multi-year operation will often be broken down, which makes the beneficiaries worry about the decision.

Therefore, whether the beneficiary can handle the matter properly or not is always in the hands of everyone.

It is essential.

Beneficiary can apply to the negotiating bank.

With pressure, push it to the forefront of negotiation with the issuing bank.

If the beneficiary's bank only pacts the documents to the issuing bank as a single party, or just deals with the outward documentary bill (generally speaking, according to the export documentary agreement, for example, from the issuing bank).

If the beneficiary is required to return the bill to the bank, the beneficiary may request the bank to make a claim for it based on the negligence of the bank, and negotiate with the issuing bank on the basis of UCP500.

This is the right way.

Since the bill of lading is outside, the beneficiary can not ask the shipping company to request the electricity to release the goods to the applicant. He may recommend that the bank guarantee the goods through the bank.

Ask people to do the first thing to pick up the goods, and put into the market as soon as possible - accept the goods will have to pay the price, which is the principle of international trade.

Secondly, explain to the applicant the importance of changing the guarantee to the applicant.

Once a person holds a lost bill of lading, the shipping company will use the delivery guarantee to claim against the issuing bank, and the issuing guaranty bank will open the applicant at the request of the issuing bank, and the final loss will require the applicant to bear it, so as to promote it.

Please pay the redemption form to the issuing bank.

Then one of the bills of lading will be returned to the delivery guarantee. We know that after the original bill of lading is picked up, the other parts will automatically become invalid and can no longer be used to pick up the goods. This avoids the fact that the goods are falsely claimed.

Risk.