Page 46 - Demo

_46
ANSWERS TO THE CROSSWORD WILL APPEAR IN THE NEXT ISSUE OF TRADE EXCHANGE
TRAINING DIGEST
_TRADE FINANCE CLINIC
PIT YOUR WITS AGAINST THE EXPERTS!
Every issue of Trade Exchange includes a brain-teaser, drawn from the real-life trials of a trade finance professional. Here is your chance to demonstrate your ability to disentangle the most involved, contentious or just plain weird combinations of documents and to solve a puzzle in the field of documentary operations.
“Second time unlucky”
Dear Experts,
Please provide your opinion on the following situation.
Our customer, the beneficiary of a letter of credit subject to UCP 600, shipped the goods by air and the documents were then presented to the issuing bank well in advance of the expiry date and within the presentation period.
However, the presentation was refused by the issuing bank, which stated the one following discrepancy:
“Airwaybill indicates transhipment which is prohibited in the letter of credit”
We disagreed, pointing out that even though transhipment was prohibited in the letter of
credit and indicated in the airwaybill, this is not
a discrepancy under UCP 600, article 23. The issuing bank replied on the same day they received our disagreeing message and conceded that the transhipment discrepancy was not valid and thereby withdrawn, but that as issuing bank it was now refusing the documents with the one discrepancy:
CONFLICT IN WEIGHT
NET 198KG NET 192KG
“CONFLICT IN WEIGHT – weight in packing list stated as NET 198KG whereas weight in weight list states as NET 192KG”
Despite our protesting that the issuing bank had an obligation to pay, we have not yet received payment and the expiry date of the letter of credit is now more than one month ago.
Please clarify if the issuing bank must pay and let us know if we may pass your answer to the issuing bank?
We await your expert reply.