Top 10 Letter of Credit Discrepancies

Top 10 Letter of Credit Discrepancies

Discrepancy can be defined as an error or defect, according to the issuing bank, in the presented documents compared to the documentary credit, the UCP 600 rules or other documents that have been presented under the same letter of credit.

According to the LC Market Intelligence Survey conducted by DC-Pro in year 2005 the average discrepancy rate on first time presentations under export letters of credit is 56%.

Although the report is quite out-dated, the figures are presumably almost identical today.

Discrepancies create problems especially for the exporters.

Once the documents are rejected, the issuing banks can only pay the credit amount, if and only if the importers accept the discrepancies.

Leaving the payment decision to the importers’ hands is a great deal of frustration for the exporters.

There are many reasons why exporters present discrepant documents, but the most important ones are:

  • lack of knowledge,
  • could not understand the letter of credit mechanism and
  • underestimating the risk factors associated with the letter of credit transaction.

On this page, you can find 10 most frequently seen discrepancies with examples in letters of credit.

Discrepancy Number 1 : Inconsistency in Documents

UCP 600 states that “Data in a document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.

So if banks find inconsistency between documents, they raise a discrepancy.

Discrepancy Number 2 : Incorrect Data

Information any one of the document presented is not comply with the letter of credit terms and conditions.

Banks examine the documents under a letter of credit according to the letter of credit rules in order to determine whether the presentation is complying or not.

According to Article 2, a complying presentation means a presentation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit, the applicable provisions of the UCP 600 and international standard banking practice.

As a result if banks find out that at least one of the letter of credit condition is not indicated on the presented documents, they raise a discrepancy.

Discrepancy Number 3 : Late Shipment

Goods shipped after the permitted shipment date or period.

If date of the transport document such as the bill of lading date corresponds to a later date than the latest date of shipment stipulated in the credit, then banks raise the late shipment discrepancy.

Example: Multimodal Bill of Lading Late Shipment Discrepancy

Discrepancy Number 4 : Late Presentation

Documents presented later than 21 days after shipment or after the number of dates stipulated in the letter of credit.

If the credit is silent on the latest date of presentation, then you have to present your letter of credit documents within 21 days after “the date of shipment”.

But please keep in mind that this period can be shorten by the credit. As a result you need to read your credit very carefully in order to determine your presentation period.

Discrepancy Number 5 : Letter of Credit Expired

Documents presented after the letter of credit has expired.

Normally banks should not accept any documents that have been presented after the expiry date of the credit.

However, banks left the final decision to the applicants on this regard by evaluating the late presentation as a discrepancy.

Discrepancy Number 6 : Absence of Documents

Documents required by the letters credit is missing. Missing document discrepancy may also cover insufficient number of original documents presentation.

For example, the UCP 600 demands presentation of all original insurance documents if the insurance document states that it is issued more than one original.

If it is clear on the insurance document that it is issued in two originals, then the beneficiary has to present both originals of the insurance documents. If the beneficiary presents only one original instead of two originals, then the issuing bank raises absence of documents discrepancy.

Example: All Originals of Insurance Policies Have Not Been Presented Discrepancy

Discrepancy Number 7 : Carrier Not Defined on the Bill of Lading

The name of the carrier on the bill of lading is not defined and bill of lading is not signed by the master, the carrier or an agent on behalf of the carrier or master.

UCP 600 Article 20 indicates that:

A bill of lading, however named, must appear to:
i. indicate the name of the carrier and be signed by:
the carrier or a named agent for or on behalf of the carrier, or
the master or a named agent for or on behalf of the master.

Any signature by the carrier, master or agent must be identified as that of the carrier, master or agent.

Any signature by an agent must indicate whether the agent has signed for or on behalf of the carrier or for or on behalf of the master.

If banks could not locate the name of the carrier on the face of the bill of lading, then they mention this point as a discrepancy.

Example: Carrier Not Identified and Bill of Lading Not Signed As Per UCP 600 Discrepancy

Discrepancy Number 8 : Incorrect Description of Goods

Description of goods indicated on the invoice and other trade documents differs from the description of goods stated in the credit.

According to the international standard banking practice, the description of the goods, services or performance shown on the invoice is to correspond with the description shown in the credit.

There is no requirement for a mirror image. For example, details of the goods may be stated in a number of areas within the invoice which, when read together, represent a
description of the goods corresponding to that in the credit.

A goods description indicated on any other document may be in general terms not in conflict with the goods description in the credit.

If banks determine that the description of the goods not corresponding to the letter of credit, they raise incorrect description of goods discrepancy.

Example: Description of Goods Discrepancy

Discrepancy Number 9 : Incorrect Endorsement / Absence of Endorsement

Bill of lading, insurance policy or draft (bill of exchange) not endorsed by the beneficiary of the credit.

Discrepancy Number 10 : Partial Shipment or Transshipment Effected Despite L/C Terms

Exporters have to be very careful with the partial shipments and transshipments.

Please read credit text and determine if credit allowed or not allowed partial shipments and transshipments.

Example: Partial Shipment Discrepancy

Packing List Discrepancies

packing list discrepancies

Packing list is a commercial document, in broad perspective.

It is a detailed listing of the contents of the shipment and acts as a supporting document of both commercial invoice and bill of lading.

The packing list (abbreviated as P/L) gives great deal of information regarding the incoming cargo without mentioning the value of the goods.

Gross weight, net weight, packing type, container number, seal number, number of packages, description of goods are the key points of an ordinary packing list.

It is required for customs clearance and most of the times accompanying the commercial invoice.

A packing list is expected to be issued by the exporter.

Packing list is one of the key documents in a typical commercial letter of credit. It is requested under almost all of the letters of credit.

On this page you can find most common discrepancies related to a packing list.

Packing List Discrepancies

Important Definitions Regarding the Packing List under Latest Letter of Credit Rules:

  • According to letter of credit rules the content of the document is much more important than the title of the document. As an example, a requirement for a “Packing List” will be satisfied by a document containing packing details whether it is titled “Packing List”, “Packing Note”, “Packing and Weight List”, etc., or bears even no title.
  • A packing list is to be issued by the entity stated in the credit. When a credit does not indicate the name of an issuer, any entity may issue a packing list.
  • Banks only examine total values, including, but not limited to, total quantities, total weights, total measurements or total packages, to ensure that the applicable total does not conflict with a total shown in the credit and on any other stipulated document.
  • When a credit contains a non‐documentary condition, compliance with such condition need not be evidenced on any stipulated document. However, data contained in a stipulated document are not to be in conflict with the non‐documentary condition. For example, when a credit indicates “packing in plastic cases” without indicating that such data is to appear on any stipulated document, a statement on the packing list indicating a different type of packing is considered to be a conflict of data.

Container Number not in Accordance with the Bill of Lading Discrepancy

container number discepancy

Container number is a unique reference number assigned to a freight container so that the container can be traced and tracked by the government authorities, carriers, shippers and freight forwarders throughout its journey.

Determining the correct container number which belongs to a specific shipment is very important to the custom authorities and other governmental institutions.

As a result a container number will be mentioned on several documents including commercial invoice, consular invoice, bill of lading, packing list, health certificate and other shipping documents.(1)

In a commercial letter of credit transaction the container number indicated on the packing list and bill of lading must not conflict with each other.

The mention of a wrong container number on the packing list, which is inconsistent with the container number indicated on the bill of lading, is a reason for a valid discrepancy and rejection of the presentation.

According to the latest version of letter of credit rules a data in a document must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.

As a result every container number indicated on each document must be identical to one another.

If the issuing bank finds out that the container number indicated on the packing list and bill of lading do not match, then the issuing bank will raise a discrepancy, which is known as packing list and bill of lading show different container number discrepancy.

Discrepancy Example: Container Number on the Packing List is not in Accordance with the Container Number on the Bill Of Lading

A letter of credit has been issued in SWIFT format, subject to UCP latest version, with the following details:

Letter of Credit Conditions

Field 45A: Description of Goods and or Services: 20 mtons of Pure Polyester Powder Coating. Delivery Terms: CIF Port Metro Vancouver, Canada Incoterms 2010.

Field 46A: Documents Required:

  • Signed commercial invoice in triplicate issued by the beneficiary
  • Certificate of origin issued by a local chamber of commerce or any official trade organization confirming that goods are new brand and first hand and originated in China plus 3 copies.
  • Packing list in triplicate indicating quantity and gross weight, net weight, vessel name and container number.
  • Full set clean on board port-to-port marine bill of lading marked freight prepaid issued or endorsed to the issuing bank’s order in 3 originals and 3 non-negotiable copies.

The beneficiary presented a Packing List as shown on the below picture.

Packing List

packing list container number discrepancy

Discrepancy : Packing list states “Container Number: MSCU 120870-8”. On the other hand bill of lading states “Container Number: CMAC 400300-6”. Packing list and bill of lading are indicating different container numbers.

Reason for Discrepancy: The mention of wrong container number on the packing list which is inconsistent with the container number indicated on the bill of lading is a reason for discrepancy and rejection of the presentation.

Sources:

  1. What is a container number? | www.advancedontrade.com

Packing List and Certificate of Origin Show Different Net Weight or Gross Weight Discrepancy

packing list discrepancy example related to gross weight

Packing list and certificate of origin are two important trade documents.

The packing list is a detailed listing of the contents of the shipment and acts as a supporting document.

The certificate of origin verifies the country in which the goods to be exported were originally manufactured.

According to the letter of credit rules, the documents that reference to net weight or gross weight must not conflict with each other.

Along with a packing list and a certificate of origin, bill of lading, commercial invoice, weight list, inspection certificate, vessel certificate and insurance policy are the documents that are expected to contain a reference to the weight of the cargo.

According to the latest version of letter of credit rules a data in a document must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.

As a result every gross weight and net weight values indicated on each document must be identical to one another.

If the issuing bank finds out that the gross weight or net weight indicated on the packing list and certificate of origin do not match, then the issuing bank will raise a discrepancy, which is known as packing list and certificate of origin show different net weight or gross weight discrepancy.

Discrepancy Example: Packing List and Certificate of Origin Show Different Net Weight or Gross Weight 

A letter of credit has been issued in SWIFT format, subject to UCPURR latest version, with the following details:

Letter of Credit Conditions

Field 45A: Description of Goods and or Services: 500 pieces of Touch Screen LCD Monitors. Delivery Terms: FOB Port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan Incoterms 2010.

Field 46A: Documents Required:

  1. Signed commercial invoice in three originals and three copies indicating the L/C no. and contract no. 20140418.
  2. Certificate of origin in one original and one copy issued by chamber of commerce or any other competent authority.
  3. Packing list in three originals and three copies issued by beneficiary indicating quantity and gross and net weights.
  4. Full set 3/3 of clean on board ocean bills of lading marked “freight payable at destination” made out to order and blank endorsed notifying applicant with its full name and address.

The beneficiary presented a Packing List as shown on the below picture.

Packing List
packing list discrepancy gross weight not matching

Discrepancy: The packing list states that “Net weight: 10.000 KGS” and “Gross Weight: 12.000 KGS”. On the other hand, the certificate of origin states that “Net weight: 12.500 KGS” and “Gross Weight: 15.000 KGS”.

The packing list and the certificate of origin show both different net weight and gross weight.

Reason for Discrepancy: According to the latest version of letter of credit rules a data in a document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.

Description of Goods is in Conflict with Other Documents Discrepancy

Description of Goods is in Conflict with Other Documents Discrepancy

The packing list is a trade document, which shows the contents of the shipment in detail and acts as a supporting document of the commercial invoice.

The packing list may provide a means of quickly identifying merchandise required for customs inspection, give a means of determining accurate weights and measurements, and give a means for inspectors to unpack quickly to check a piece count of the contents. (1)

A packing list should state description of goods in line with letter of credit and other documents presented under the same L/C.

It should be stressed that only commercial invoice must contain exact description of goods stated in the letter of credit.

Other documents including the packing list may indicate a description of goods in general terms but not in conflict with the goods description in the letter of credit.

If the issuing bank finds out that the packing list is showing different description of goods than any other document presented, then the issuing bank raises a discrepancy, which is known as description of goods on the packing list is in conflict with other documents.

Discrepancy Example: Description of Goods is in Conflict with Other Documents

A letter of credit has been issued in SWIFT format, subject to UCPURR latest version, with the following details:

Letter of Credit Conditions

Field 45A: Description of Goods and or Services: 2500 Kgs Mild Dutch Cheese with 25% less salt content. Delivery Terms: FOB Amsterdam Port, Holland Incoterms 2010.

Field 46A: Documents Required:

  • Hand signed commercial invoice in three originals all duly stamped indicating description of goods as per proforma invoice no COMINV12345 dated 05.06.2014.
  • Certificate of origin ‘EUR.1’ in one original and one copy issued by competent authority showing Netherlands origin of the goods.
  • Packing list in three folds evidencing the content of each package of the shipped goods.
  • Full set clean on board bill of lading, issued to the order of applicant (with full address), marked freight collect, notify applicant (with full address – phone ++3122190700) (Bill of lading showing additional freight charges is not acceptable).
  • The beneficiary presented a Packing List as shown on the below picture.

Packing List

packing list description of goods discrepancy

Discrepancy: The letter of credit requires shipment of “Mild Dutch Cheese with 25% less salt content”, but the packing list describes the goods as “Light White French Cheese, Desalted”, the description is representing a change in nature, classification or category of the goods.

Reason for Discrepancy: Description of goods on the packing list should be shown in general terms but not in conflict with that stated in the letter of credit or another document.

Sources:

  1. Transportation Best Practices Manual, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Newfoundland and Labrador Division, prepared by PF Collins International Trade Services, 2003, Page:22