CDCS全真模拟试题.doc

皓空贸易单证网整理 CDCS EXAM EXERCISE1、A documentary credit subject to UCP 500 bears a title Irrevocable Documentary Credit has a special condition as follows: This documentary credit will become inoperative upon receipt of a cable to this effect from the issuing bank after issuance. After receipt of such a cable advice, the beneficiary made a presentation nevertheless. The issuing bank sent a refusal notice by SWIFT pointing out a discrepancy as follows: Documents presented after expiry of the documentary credit render the presentation discrepant. Is the issuing bank correct in its refusal? 2、Is the following refusal notice acceptable for a DC subject to UCP 500? We refuse the documents and have found the following three discrepancies in the presented documents:（1）The port of discharge in the B/L is not the same as that stated in the DC. （2）Presentation after expiry. （3）Corrections in the certificate of origin are not authenticated by the issuer. 3、What is an unconfirmed letter of credit under UCP500? 4、Is it possible that a confirmed letter of credit subject to UCP 500 becomes an unconfirmed letter of credit without the consent of the beneficiary? 5、Is the following refusal notice acceptable for a DC subject to UCP 500? We have found the following three discrepancies in the presented documents:（1）The port of discharge in the B/L is not the same as that stated in the DC. （2）Presentation after expiry. （3）Corrections in the certificate of origin are not authenticated by the issuer. Meanwhile we are holding the documents at your disposal and risk. 6、An applicant informed the issuing bank that the goods were rubbish and asked the issuing bank to freeze payment under a DC subject to UCP 500 due to trade frauds although the documents presented were all compliant. Should the issuing bank follow the instructions from the applicant? 7、Is this refusal notice acceptable for a DC subject to UCP 500? We refuse to pay you due to the following three discrepancies:（1）The commercial invoice does not meet the terms and conditions of the DC. （2）Third party B/L presented. （3）Unclean B/L presented. Meanwhile we are holding the documents at your disposal and risk. 8、A DC subject to UCP 500 issued by Bank I was confirmed by Bank C expiring on 1 September 2002. There was no restriction on the presentation. The beneficiary presented the documents to Bank I on 29 August 2002. Is this the best practice? What are therisks? 9、A presenting bank had the following messages in its covering letter/schedule dated 24 June 2003 presented against a DC subject to UCP 500. We have found the following discrepancies in the documents:（1）The port of discharge in the B/L is not the same as that stated in the DC. （2）Presentation after expiry. （3）Corrections in the certificate of origin are not authenticated by the issuer. The documents are now presented for collection. Please approach the applicant for a waiver and give us your authority to negotiate by SWIFT message. The issuing bank sent its refusal notice as follows: After consulting the applicant, we determine to refuse the documents due to the three discrepancies with the underlying reasons as stipulated in your covering letter/schedule dated 24 June 2003. Meanwhile, we are holding the documents at your disposal and risk. 10、A nominated paying bank sent three refusal notices on the same day under a DC subject to UCP 500. The first notice was sent by fax listing all the discrepancies with reasons; the second notice made by telephone advising payment dishonour and the third notice sent by telex advising that documents were returned to the presenter by local courier. Is this acceptable? Please state your reasons. 11、UCP 500 Article 2 states that: For the purpose of these Articles, branches of a bank in different countries are considered another bank. Charles del Busto explained in ICC Publication No. 511 UCP 500 and 400 Compared that the underlying reason is because branches of the bank in different countries may be subject to different jurisdictions. What is legal in the head office of a bank may not be legal in its branches in different countries. Hong Kong was a British territory before 1 July 1997. After 1 July 1997, Hong Kong became part of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) but it practises One Country Two Systems whereby the applicable law in Hong Kong is the Basic Law (Common Law) whereas that of PRC is Civil Law. On 24 June 2003, a documentary credit subject to UCP 500 issued by Bank ABC Beijing Head Office was advised by its branch in Hong Kong. There were disputes on the discrepancies between the Beneficiary and the Bank ABC Head Office. The Beneficiarys law firm served a strong letter to Bank ABC Hong Kong Branch showing its intent to sue it in Hong Kong unless payment was made within 14 days. Bank ABC Hong Kong Branch replied as follows: Due to different jurisdictions between Hong Kong and PRC, we are in fact a different bank according to the provisions of UCP 500 Article 2, based on the interpretation of Charles del Busto in ICC Publication No. 511 UCP 500 and 400 Compared. Hence as an advising bank we have no payment obligations. Your client, as a beneficiary, should sue our Head Office in Beijing instead. Is the defence of Bank ABC Hong Kong Branch correct? 12、The applicant showed to the beneficiary a written undertaking from the issuing bank for its agreement to issue a letter of credit subject to UCP 500. However, due to change in financial position of the applicant, the issuing bank later decided not to do so. The beneficiary wrote to the issuing bank to force its commitment in writing. Is the beneficiary successful? Please give your reasons. 13、Under which condition that a confirmed letter of credit subject to UCP 500 may become unconfirmed without the consent of the beneficiary? 14、In determination of the compliance of a refusal notice with the UCP 500, should the stipulations of UCP 500 Articles 13 and 14 be read separately for (a) document examination for compliance, (b) determination of refusal or acceptance and (c) sending of the refusal notice respectively? 15、One set of Drafts drawn on the drawee bank presented under a documentary credit subject to UCP 500 expiring on 30 August 2002 was accepted on 30 July 2002 for 30 days deferred payment but was unpaid on maturity 30 August 2002. According to UCP 500 Article 9 (a) (iii) (b) the beneficiary made a new set of replacement Drafts drawing on the issuing bank on 3 September 2002. The issuing bank refused to pay the Drafts because they were drawn and presented after expiry of the DC. Is the issuing bank correct in its decision? Please state your reasons. 16、An issuing bank sent its refusal notice on the 7th banking day after receipt of the documents presented under UCP 500. In fact a simple set of documents was presented for sales of kitchenware, consisting of a total of 12 pages of documents. Is this refusal notice sent within reasonable time? 17、An issuing bank sent its refusal notice to a presentation under UCP 500 to a presenting bank overseas by courier. Is this acceptable? 18、Under UCP 500, can a beneficiary, through a presenting bank, have the right to present documents against a confirmed letter of credit directly to the issuing bank? 19、A standby letter of credit subject to UCP 500 was issued to back up an open account transaction where payment was made only 30 days after the shipped on board date. The standby required presentation of Drafts in duplicate, one Default Statement signed by the Beneficiary, one copy of Commercial Invoice and one copy of shipped on board B/L. It also specified that no presentation could be made until after default in payment. The Issuing Bank sent its Refusal Notice as follows: We refuse to pay due to the following discrepancy in the B/L: The copy of B/L was presented more than 21 days after shipment, which is against the stipulation in UCP 500 Article 43 (a). Is the Issuing Bank correct in its refusal decision? 20、For a DC subject to UCP 500, what should the presenting bank advise the beneficiary who asks for direct presentation to the issuing bank, thereby by-passing the confirming bank? 21、A standby LC issued by Bank I was confirmed by Bank C expiring on 1 September 2002. There was no restriction on the presentation. The beneficiary presented the documents to Bank I on 29 August 2002 but was wrongly dishonoured on 2 September 2002 relying on invalid discrepancies, such as the commercial invoice was not marked original whereas the standby LC did not ask for such marking. The documents were returned to the beneficiary that received them on 5 September 2002. The beneficiary presented the same documents without any alteration to the confirming bank on 6 September 2002. The refusal notice from the confirming bank stated: We refuse to pay due to presentation made after expiry of the standby LC. Meantime we are holding the documents at your disposal and risk. Is the confirming bank right in its refusal under ISP98? 22、Case Study A beneficiary put in its purchase agreement a special condition: Payment by a confirmed letter of credit and a confirmed letter of credit subject to UCP 500 was advised by the advising bank, which was also the nominated paying bank for at sight payment with reimbursements subject to URR 525 by an independent reimbursing bank. When the issuing bank in country A was ordered by the local government to freeze payment due to foreign exchange control, the beneficiary presented the compliant documents (later certified by the ICC DOCDEX Decision) to the nominated paying bank in country B, but no payment was made. What are the reasons? 23、A beneficiary made a compliant presentation under a documentary credit subject to UCP 500. The applicant showed to the issuing bank that the same beneficiary had made fraudulent presentation under another documentary credit issued by another bank and instructed the issuing bank not to pay the beneficiary. The issuing bank did not follow the instruction and paid the beneficiary. The applicant refused to reimburse the issuing bank. Is the applicant right in doing so? Please give your reasons. 24、Is the nominated paying bank in question 10 subject to the sanction under UCP 500 Article 14 (e)? 25、A DC subject to UCP 500 has the following stipulation: Purchase Contract No. 123456 dated 24 June 2003 attached herewith forms an integral part of this documentary credit. Is this stipulation acceptable and what are the risks? 26、Case Study A documentary credit subject to UCP 500 called for Full set of 3/3 clean on board original marine/ocean bills of lading evidencing shipment from Houston to Shanghai made out to order and blank endorsed, marked freight prepaid, notifying applicant. The presented bill of lading, bearing a title of Mermaid Shipping Company S.A., Geneva, was manually signed with a signature chop reading Carrier - Mermaid Shipping Company S.A., Geneva. The Place and Date of Issue box contained a statement: New Orleans - Mermaid Shipping Company (USA) Inc., 17 July 2003 12:12:22 pm. Is this bill of lading acceptable? Please state your reasons. 27、Case Study Upon request by the applicant, the issuing bank finally waived the previously advised valid discrepancy for the first instalment shipment made after the latest shipment date in a DC subject to UCP 500 that clearly stated the shipping period of three instalment shipments. However, the issuing bank did not clarify whether or not the DC was still valid for subsequent instalment shipments. After a period of time, the beneficiary presented compliant documents for the second instalment shipment made according to the shipping schedule stated in the DC. The issuing bank denied payment according to UCP 500 Article 41. The beneficiary sued the issuing bank for payment dishonour and negligence. （1）The experts report from the beneficiary states that the confusion is created by the issuing bank that should have clarified in its waiver notice whether or not the DC is still valid for the second and the third instalment shipments. So the issuing bank should bear the serious consequences for its negligence and should effect payment of the second instalment shipment, since the documents are all compliant. （2）The experts report from the issuing bank states that: a. There is no stipulation in the UCP 500 that requires the issuing bank to state its intention/decision on the validity of the balanced instalment shipments after waiving the discrepancy in the first instalment shipment. b. Discrepancy and waiver are two separate issues. The wavier cannot change the nature of a discrepancy. A discrepancy always remains a discrepancy, whether being waived or not. c. The discrepancy will trigger the following two consequences: 1. To dishonour payment according to UCP 500 Articles 9, 13 & 14, and 2. To make the DC no more available for all future instalment shipments according to UCP 500 Article 41. d. So the wavier only waives the first consequence regarding payment but the second consequence affecting balanced instalment shipments remains unwaived. e. As a result, the issuing bank has no payment obligation for the second and the third instalment shipments. If you were the Judge, what would you adjudicate? Please state the reasons of your judicial decisions. 28、An Insurance Policy Not Indicating Number of Originals Issued A DC subject to UCP 500 calls for full set of insurance policy but is silent on the number of originals issued. The issuing bank refuses to pay due to the insurance policy presented does not indicate number of originals issued. Is the issuing bank correct in naming this as a discrepancy? 29、Port of Loading Different from DC The DC subject to UCP 500 requires port of discharge to be Alexandria (Free Zone) whereas in the port of discharge box in the bill of lading, it states only Alexandria. However, the same bill of lading also has information CFR Alexandria Port Free Zone appearing in other area. Is the bill of lading discrepant? 30、Signature in a Bill of Lading Not In the Signature Box In a bill of lading presented under a DC subject to UCP 500, the signature box is empty. However, in other area of the same bill of lading, there is a signature of the master with the name and capacity of the master given. Is this bill of lading compliant? 31、An insurance policy is issued on 10 January 2004 and the DC specifies the latest shipment date as 15 January 2004. The loaded on bard date in the bill of lading is 9 January 2004. Is the insurance policy discrepant under UCP 500? 32、Partial Shipments The DC subject to UCP 500 called for supply of freshly cut logs and prohibited partial shipments. It specified port of loading Any Malaysian port. Goods were shipped on the same vessel loading at different ports in Malaysia at different time periods under the same voyage number for the same destination. Different sets of bills of lading and related documents (certificates of inspection etc) were presented under the same DC. The issuing bank refused to pay due to following reasons:a. Bills of lading show more than one port of loading whereas the DC calls for only one port of loading, namely Any Malaysia Port and not Any Malaysian portS. Three sets of bills of lading and inspection certificates are presented instead of one set intended in the DC. b. Partial shipments made and this is not allowed in the DC. c. Is the issuing bank correct in its refusal?33、Consignee Different from DC Requirement The DC subject to UCP 500 required the Consignee of a negotiable bill of lading made to the order of Party A but the negotiable bill of lading presented was consigned to the order of Party B. However, there was an endorsement from Party B to the order of Party A on the face of the bill of lading. The issuing bank dishonoured due to name of Consignee in the bill of lading was not meeting the DC requirement. Is this a discrepancy? 34、Reasons for changing the name of consignee as specified in the DC Please state your reasons why the bill of lading is not made out straight to the order of Party A as specified in the DC under the above case Consignee Different from DC Requirement? 35、Reimbursement instructions A DC subject to UCP 500 specified a reimbursement instruction that reads: Upon receipt of full set of documents in conformity with the letter of credit terms and conditions, we will effect payment as per your instructions. Compliant presentation was made to the nominated negotiating bank that had given value to the beneficiary and claimed for reimbursements. The documents were however lost in transit by the courier company. The issuing bank refused reimbursement because reimbursement would only be effective upon receipt of documents as specified in the reimbursement instruction quoted above. Is the issuing bank correct in its refusal decision? 36、DC Number missing A DC subject to UCP 500 specified that the DC number must be quoted in all documents presented. The commercial invoice did not quote the DC No. and the issuing bank refused payment. Is the issuing bank correct in its refusal? 37、Documents not consistent In a DC subject to UCP 500, the issuing bank gave a refusal notice that read: We refuse payment due to following discrepancies: The commercial invoice and the bill of lading are not consistent with each other. Meanwhile we hold documents at your risk and disposal. Is this refusal notice valid? 38、Documents inconsistent In a DC subject to UCP 500, the issuing bank gave a refusal notice that read: We refuse payment due to following discrepancies: The commercial invo