In UCP 600 articles 20 and 23 of UCP 500 became articles 17 and 20, and the wording of these articles has been amended to some degree. However, the outcome did not change materially-sub article 17(c) (iii) still states; "Unless a document indicates otherwise, a bank will also accept a document as original if it..... states that it is original, unless the statement appears not to apply to the document".The wording of the new sub-article 17 acknowledges that sonic documents marked as "Original" may not be originals, but it still requires banks to treat any documents, including copies of B/Ls which are marked as "Original", as original documents when there is no reason to doubt that the marking refers to some other document.
Shipping documents, and in particular B/Ls, would be more attractive as security if sub-article 20(a) (iv) of UCP 600 took precedence over article 17. In other words article 17 should not be applicable to B/Ls.
'think a situation in which a B/ L states that three original B/Ls were issued when the first B/L tendered to the bank as a genuine original and the second and the third are just copies stamped as "Original". These tendered documents are neither discrepant nor inconsistent, and they are in compliance with the requirements set out in the L/ C and UCP 600, putting the document checker in to an 'unsure state.
The risk remains that the security for the L/C, the shipped goods, will be demanded by a third party in possession of a "missing" genuine original B/L, defeating the banks security.
Difficulties arise when the appearance of the document tendered to the bank is such that the bank cannot determine conclusively whether such document is a copy or an original. Unlike carriers, who know exactly what their shipping documents look like, document checkers have no way of verifying
(i) who stamped the copy as original
(ii) whether the B/L is forged or not and, most importantly,
(iii) whether there are more genuine originals outstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment