Letter of Credit Rules: Comparing Apples with Oranges

UCP, Letter Of Credit

---

LETTER OF CREDIT RULES

The rules for Letters of Credit, the UCP (Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits), states, “The description of the goods, services or performance in a commercial invoice must correspond with that in the credit” (Article 18 c). Banks typically have interpreted this to mean a verbatim description, letter for letter, and punctuation for punctuation, in accordance with the letter of credit.

The UCP further provides, “In documents other than the commercial invoice, the description of the goods, services or performance, if stated, may be in general terms not conflicting with their description in the credit” (Article 14 e).

APPLES, ORANGES AND FRUIT

Note the use of the words, “not conflicting.” If a letter of credit states “Apples” as the merchandise description, then the invoice must read “Apples.” Other documents, such as the bill of lading, may state “Fruit,” and be considered acceptable because "Fruit" does not conflict with “Apples.”

A bill of lading which states, “Oranges” does conflict and is unacceptable. Interpretation of this policy is more difficult for a banker who has no knowledge of the merchandise or if the merchandise is highly technical.

In recent years I have seen documents prepared by freight forwarders showing all documents, not just the invoice, with the merchandise description identical to the letter of credit. Undoubtedly, this safe method leaves no need on the part of the bank to interpret the description from document to document.

An uncertain bank will take the safe, conservative approach, and ask for replacement documents, refuse payment, or obtain a waiver of the discrepancy from the applicant, if the documents do not strictly match the letter of credit.

Letter Of Credit Discrepancy Created A New Market For Greek Candy

Letter Of Credit, Shipment Date, Applicant, Negotiate Documents

---

LETTER OF CREDIT REQUIRED A LATEST SHIPPING DATE

A US importer applied to a New York bank for a letter of credit for candy from a supplier in Greece. The letter of credit stipulated a shipment date which would insure arrival of the candy in time for a particular Greek festival.

LETTER OF CREDIT PAYMENT REFUSED

Unfortunately, the supplier dispatched the candy one day after the latest date allowed for shipment. When the issuing bank noted this discrepancy, they contacted the applicant for approval to pay, but the applicant declined because the late shipment meant missing the festival date. The Greek bank was notified that payment had been refused.

Since the Greek bank had negotiated the documents and already paid the supplier, they were now the sweet owner of the candy and promptly contacted the New York bank for assistance in finding a new buyer for it.

"NEGOTIATING" A LETTER OF CREDIT

Let’s clarify the technical term “negotiate.” According the UCP, “Negotiation means the purchase by the nominated bank of drafts (drawn on a bank other than the nominated bank) and/or documents under a complying presentation, by advancing or agreeing to advance funds to the beneficiary on or before the banking day on which reimbursement is due to the nominated bank” (Article 2).

In other words, a bank other than the issuing bank may purchase the beneficiary’s documents before the issuing bank receives the documents and consents to payment. This provides an advantage for the beneficiary who receives the money faster. It also provides income to the negotiating bank by collecting fee income plus a fee to compensate them for the cost of “float,” or interest on the money, which they paid but have not yet collected from the issuing bank.

The negotiating bank, however, takes the risk of the issuing bank not paying. In this story, why the negotiating bank chose to purchase discrepant documents remains unclear. Apparently, unable or unwilling to recover the payment from the beneficiary, they solicited the issuing bank’s assistance in the matter.

CREATING A NEW MARKET FOR THE CANDY

Fortunately, the story ends well. The New York bank discovered an agent who was willing to sell the candy for a 20% commission. He traveled the country and successfully established ecstatic buyers for the candy. After he kept 20%, the New York bank remitted over $143,000 more than the draft amount to the Greek bank and the agent launched a new market for the candy.

Thank you to Jim Harrington for another entertaining story.

Does The Letter Of Credit Police The Transaction? Which Seems Better? New Or Reconditioned?

Letter Of Credit, Confirming Bank, Issuing Bank, UCP

LETTER OF CREDIT WAS PAID BY THE BANK This insightful story, told by Jim Harrington, concerns a company that builds equipment for manufacturing cans used in the food and beverage industry. The manufacturer received a letter of credit to pay for a shipment of one machine. Since the documents complied with the terms of the letter of credit, the confirming bank in the Unites States made payment and sent the documents to the issuing bank in Brazil. The issuing bank in Brazil inspected the documents and also honored the payment.

BUYER CLAIMED IT WAS A USED MACHINE, NOT NEW

When the goods arrived in Brazil, the buyer discovered that the vintage machine, manufactured in the 1920s, did not meet the conditions of the contract, which indicated a new machine.

BANKS DEAL IN DOCUMENTS, NOT IN GOODS

When the buyer complained to the issuing bank in Brazil, the bank explained that they deal in documents, not in goods, and that the buyer had no claim against the bank because the documents complied with the terms of the Letter of Credit. As a courtesy, the issuing bank sent a message to the confirming bank, which in turn contacted the beneficiary to inform him of the mistake. Upon checking his records, the beneficiary discovered that through a computer error, a reconditioned machine left their warehouse instead of a new machine.

A GOOD DEAL FOR THE BUYER

The beneficiary contacted the buyer in Brazil with an offer to return the used machine in exchange for a new one, or alternatively, accept a credit of $100,000 and keep the old machine. Upon careful thought, the buyer determined that the more stringent manufacturing specs in the 1920s made the reconditioned machine of better quality than a new one, so he decided to keep the old one and accepted the $100,000 credit.

LETTER OF CREDIT RULES WERE FOLLOWED

The rules for processing letters of credit (UCP) clearly indicate that with a letter of credit, “Banks deal with documents and not with the goods, services or performance to which the documents may relate” (Article 5). Any disputes regarding the goods are handled directly between the buyer and seller, properly leaving the bank as an independent paymaster.

Letter of Credit Documents: How does a Bank Define “Official”?

official documents, letters of credit, certificates, weight certificate, inspection certificate, UCP 600, beneficiary

---

Documents: Official or Unofficial?

On occasion, a letter of credit will require presentation of an “Official Weight Certificate,” or some other “official” document. Could the definition of an official document provoke a debate? An equally intriguing question emerges, "What would constitute an 'unofficial' document?"

Requests for official documents often appear in letters of credit, which cover shipments of agriculture products. The letters of credit will ask for official weight certificates or official inspection certificates. What makes a document official? If issued by a government agency, would that fit the definition of official?

Uniform Customs and Practices ("UCP")

The UCP states that a bank can accept any document as long as it complies with the terms of the Letter of Credit and is not issued by the beneficiary, which seems to allow the bank a great deal of latitude.

It would appear, then, that the beneficiary can’t issue an official document. Does that mean a bank considers beneficiary’s documents, well, unofficial?

Where can we look to find the answer? Once again, we look to the UCP, “Terms such as ‘first class’, ‘well known’, ‘qualified’, ‘independent’, ‘official’, ‘competent’, or ‘local’ used to describe the issuer of a document allow any issuer except the beneficiary to issue that document" (Article 3).