import and export in vehicles
import and export in vehicles okByB
1 LC specified.
Partial delivery.
Produce are delivered from Bunsan port, Korea.
Produce are trucks of Huynhdai, quantity 25 units
The exporter in Korea presented the bills of lading.
Case 1: issued 07/02/2009 shows the number of vehicles: 10 vehicles, delivery from Ulsan port, Hanjin IV ship, the unloading port is Saigon port.
Case 2: issued 07/02/2009, number of vehicles: 5 units, from Ulsan port to Hanjin IV port.
Case 3: issued 15/02/2009 number of vehicles: 10 vehicles from Guangzhou port, China to the port Saigon, on board Hanjin I.
a. What is the estimated delivery date?
b. Does the manufacturer in this case violate the partial delivery law of the LC, why? They have rejected the issues presented above, what do you think about the bank's decision?
Answer: according to the UCP 600 article 31(b):
The presentation of more than one set of transport documents indicating that the delivery of produce is made on the same means of transport, the same journey even if the delivery date is different, the port of loading is not considered to be delivered.
If presenting multiple sets of strains from transport, the last delivery date on
any transport document will be deemed to be the date of delivery.
Whereby
a. Delivery date is 15/02/2009.
b. The exporter in this case does not violate the regulations on delivery of spare parts because in 3 deliveries, although the delivery date and port of loading are different, the delivery is made on the same vehicle, the Hanjin IV and share a journey to Saigon port, Vietnam.
6. The issuing bank refuses to present the above applications as
1 LC specified.
Partial delivery.
Produce
are delivered
from
Bunsan
port
, Korea.
Produce are trucks of
Huynhdai
, quantity 25 units
The exporter in Korea presented the bills of lading.
Case 1: issued 07/02/2009
shows
the number of
vehicles
: 10
vehicles
,
delivery
from
Ulsan
port
,
Hanjin
IV ship, the unloading
port
is Saigon port.
Case 2: issued 07/02/2009, number of
vehicles
: 5 units, from
Ulsan
port
to
Hanjin
IV port.
Case 3: issued 15/02/2009 number of
vehicles
: 10
vehicles
from Guangzhou
port
, China to the
port
Saigon, on board
Hanjin
I.
a. What is the estimated
delivery
date?
b. Does the manufacturer
in this case
violate the partial
delivery
law of the LC, why? They have rejected the issues presented above, what do you
think
about the bank's decision?
Answer: according to the
UCP
600 article 31(b):
The presentation of more than one set of
transport
documents indicating that the
delivery
of produce
is made
on the same means of
transport
, the same journey even if the
delivery
date
is
different
, the
port
of loading is not considered to
be delivered
.
If presenting multiple sets of strains from
transport
, the last
delivery
date
on
any
transport
document will
be deemed
to be the
date
of delivery.
Whereby
a.
Delivery
date
is 15/02/2009.
b. The exporter
in this case
does not violate the regulations on
delivery
of spare parts
because
in 3
deliveries
, although the
delivery
date
and
port
of loading are
different
, the
delivery
is made
on the same
vehicle
, the
Hanjin
IV and share a journey to Saigon
port
, Vietnam.
6. The issuing bank refuses to present the above applications
as