Discrepant Documents, a Late Refusal and an Applicant Waiver
Northbridge Bank in Singapore issued irrevocable credit NB-4471 for USD 2,400,000, available with any bank by negotiation, 90 days after sight, subject to UCP 600. The credit required shipment by 15 March, presentation within 21 days, port of discharge Ningbo, and an insurance certificate covering Institute Cargo Clauses (A) for 110% of CIF value. On 28 March, Harbour Trust Bank in Hong Kong presented documents. The bill of lading showed on-board date 14 March, loading Busan and discharge Shanghai. The insurance certificate was dated 16 March, was not endorsed, and cited Clauses (C). The invoice and packing list conformed. Northbridge received the presentation on Monday 31 March and sent a refusal on Tuesday 8 April listing the discharge port, the insurance date and the insurance clauses, but saying nothing about the documents' disposal. On 9 April the applicant, Ningbo Metals, waived all discrepancies and instructed Northbridge to pay. Northbridge's operations team asks whether it can still rely on the discrepancies and whether payment is now due.
1. Was Northbridge's refusal effective under UCP 600? Explain the timing and content requirements.
Read the worked answer
Under UCP 600 sub-article 14(b), the issuing bank has a maximum of five banking days following the day of presentation to examine the documents and determine whether they comply. Northbridge received the presentation on Monday 31 March. The five banking days were Tuesday 1, Wednesday 2, Thursday 3, Friday 4 and Monday 7 April. The refusal on Tuesday 8 April was therefore outside the period.
Timing is not the only defect. Sub-article 16(c) requires a single notice that states that the bank refuses to honour, each discrepancy, and the disposition of the documents - either held at the presenter's disposal or returned. Northbridge listed discrepancies but said nothing about disposal, so the notice was also defective in content.
Under sub-article 16(f), if the issuing bank fails to act in accordance with article 16, it is precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation. The refusal is ineffective, and Northbridge is treated as having accepted the presentation. The bank cannot later rely on any of the listed discrepancies, including the valid ones. The analysis should be documented because the negotiating bank may already have taken a position in reliance on the presentation.
2. Does the applicant's waiver cure the defective refusal? Must Northbridge honour the credit?
Read the worked answer
The applicant's waiver does not repair the defective refusal. Sub-article 16(b) allows the issuing bank, in its sole judgement, to approach the applicant for a waiver of discrepancies. If the applicant waives, the bank may release the documents and honour. That is a commercial permission, not a cure for preclusion. Preclusion had already arisen by 8 April.
Once precluded, Northbridge cannot rely on the discrepancies to refuse payment. It must honour the credit as if the presentation complied. The waiver does, however, remove any argument that payment would be contrary to the applicant's instructions, and it protects the bank in its relationship with Ningbo Metals.
Payment is due at maturity, 90 days after sight. If the credit was available by negotiation and Harbour Trust negotiated or incurred a deferred payment undertaking, Northbridge must reimburse a nominated bank that has honoured or negotiated. The bank should also confirm that the documents have not already been returned; if they have, the position is more complicated and legal advice should be taken before making a duplicate payment. The bank should not debit the applicant twice or treat the waiver as a fresh acceptance.
3. Assume Northbridge pays and later discovers the bill of lading was forged. What options remain?
Read the worked answer
Payment does not extinguish all remedies. UCP 600 article 34 provides that a bank assumes no liability for the genuineness of any document, but the fraud exception sits outside the UCP. If the beneficiary presented a forged bill of lading, Northbridge may have a claim against the beneficiary for money had and received or deceit. Whether it can also recover from Harbour Trust depends on what the negotiating bank knew or ought to have known; mere negligence is not automatically fraud.
If payment has not yet been made and fraud is clearly established before maturity, Northbridge may seek an injunction to restrain payment, but a bare suspicion is not enough. After payment, the bank should preserve the documents, obtain the applicant's cooperation, notify its insurers and consider civil recovery. It should also assess whether the forgery is part of trade-based money laundering and file a suspicious transaction report if the threshold is met.
The bank cannot simply debit the applicant if it has already reimbursed the negotiating bank. It should reconcile the applicant's account only in accordance with the underlying facility and obtain legal advice on any double debit. The key lesson is that a precluded bank loses its UCP defences and must rely on fraud and contract remedies, which are slower and less certain.