发帖
雷达卡
There is a long-running dispute on how to determine the place for presentation under different combinations of SWIFT/MT700 fields 31D & 41a. Following are UCP 600's rules relating to this issue.
UCP rules on place for presentation
Based on the UCP rules, the issue is easy to deal with: the presenter only has to present documents under a credit to the issuing bank, confirming bank or other nominated bank at their respective places by the expiry date and/or within the presentation period.
In other words, the place for presentation is the place of availability, that is, the place of the confirming bank or other nominated bank or the place of the issuing bank, in case the presenter chooses to make presentation directly to the issuing bank, or if the credit is available only with the issuing bank.
UCP 600 is silent on the place of expiry. Moreover, none of the UCP rules regarding the place for presentation or relative bank's undertakings has ever been limited to, or affected by, a credit's place of expiry.
SWIFT standards on place of expiry
Matters become confusing once the place of expiry appears in a credit. According to SWIFT standards, the definitions assigned to field 31D & 41a (both mandatory) are as follows:
Ideally, the place of expiry and the place of availability should match. How to match them? Here are some possible examples in fields 31D & 41a given by SWIFT (using as an example, an issuing bank in Italy and a beneficiary in China):
Mismatching of fields 31D & 41a
Apart from the above examples, there are many credits containing different combinations of fields 31D & 41a, for example as follows:
The question is whether this kind of credit is workable. If so, where is the presentation to be made?
My personal answer to these queries is quite simple. Under scenario 5, the credit is available with the issuing bank only. Expiry in China without the nominated bank is meaningless; the presentation must be made at the place of the issuing bank, that is, the documents must reach the issuing bank by the expiry date and/or within the presentation period. If the beneficiary intends to make presentation and obtain payment or financing at its own place, it must seek an amendment to make the credit available with a nominated bank in China or any bank.
Under scenarios 6-8, the credit expires in Italy and is available with a nominated bank in China or any bank. It would be better for the beneficiary or the nominated bank intending to act on its nomination to seek an amendment or clarification. With this credit structure, presentation still can be made to the nominated bank - UCP 600 sub-article 7(a) applies here - even if the credit has expired by the time the issuing bank received the documents from its nominated bank. It is for the issuing bank to bear the risk of ambiguity in its badly issued credit.
Because UCP 600 is silent concerning the place of expiry, there are many different ways to approach this question. Here readers may not agree with my views. The following approach appears to be the prevailing one.
Under scenario 5, some would claim that it's better to seek an amendment to make the credit available with a nominated bank at the beneficiary's place for presentation. However, under the credit structure above, presentation still can be made to any bank in China. Provided the documents are presented to any bank in China within the expiry date and/or presentation period, and they otherwise comply when they reach the counter of the issuing bank, the issuing bank must honour even if the credit has expired by the time the documents are received.
Under scenarios 6-8, it could be argued that it's better to change the place of expiry. Otherwise, since the credit expires at the issuing bank's place, the documents must reach the issuing bank within the expiry date and/or presentation period, even if the nominated bank is in China. In other words, delivering documents to the nominated bank within the expiry date and/or presentation period doesn't constitute a presentation in terms of UCP 600.
Other UCP articles
In addition, there has been considerable debate concerning the application of UCP 600 articles 7,
8, 12 and 35, etc. under these different scenarios.
Following the logic of the above prevailing guidance, it seems that a credit's place of expiry could modify, to a great extent, the UCP rules on presentation and availability. In that connection, some of the following questions arise:
1. If a credit expires in China (scenario 2-4), could this modify the UCP rules on the right to make a presentation directly to the issuing bank in Italy? Would it be necessary to insert in field 31D that the credit expires "in China and/or Italy"?
2. Many L/C practitioners are speaking in terms of "global presentation", but it would seem that global presentation is impossible under scenarios 4 or 8 due to the limitations placed on the place of expiry. In that case, would it be necessary to insert "any place" in 31D?
3. Under scenario 5, since the definition of presentation is modified, what steps can be taken by the beneficiary to make a presentation? Since there is no nominated bank in China, must the documents be delivered or presented to a local bank? Would it be all right to deliver them to a non-bank? To another company? Or even for the beneficiary to send them to the issuing bank?
4. Under scenarios 6-8, if there is a confirming bank in China, is the presentation completed once the complying documents are delivered to the counter of the confirming bank? Must the documents still reach the issuing bank (expiry place) by the expiry date and/or within the presentation period?
In short, how and to what extent does MT700/field 31D modify UCP 600?
The answers to some of these questions may be obvious, but they illustrate the problems caused by the SWIFT field set aside to designate the place of expiry.
Solution
Why not make the response to these questions simple? Since UCP 600 have made it clear that the place of issuing bank, confirming bank and the other nominated bank is the place of availability, then the place for presentation, why does the credit need a redundant item called "place of expiry" (according to the definition of SWIFT Standards, this also refers to the place of presentation only), which does no one any good and causes trouble?
My suggestion is that the SWIFT standards be changed by changing field 31D "date and place of expiry" to "date of expiry", thereby removing the confusion.
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
京公网安备 11010802022788号
