32个信用证案例（英汉对照）.doc

案例一：信用证不可撤消性受到约束的案例 （答案在73页） (UCP500第4条款和第9条款a分条)Case Number 1 The Case of the Contingent Irrevocability of the CreditUCP500 Article 4 and sub-article 8(a)BackgroundType of Credit: IrrevocableApplication:UCP500Issuing Bank: Bank IAdvising Bank: Bank AAvailability: At sight with the Issuing BankExpiry: At the counters of the Issuing BankCircumstancesIssuing Bank: Bank I issued its irrevocable Credit and advised it to the Beneficiary through Bank A.Advising Bank: Bank A advised the Credit to the BeneficiaryCredit: Among the terms and conditions, the Credit asked for:1. Sight draft on the issuing bank2. Bills of lading issued to order of Bank I for account of the Applicant3. Special Conditions:(a) Payment of drafts drawn hereunder will be made only after the realization of the re-export proceeds program.Beneficiary: The Beneficiary shipped the goods and presented the documents required by the Credit to Bank A.Advising Bank: Bank A informed the Beneficiary that in view of the special conditions related to payment and because the Credit expired at the counters of the Issuing Bank, Bank A would only forward the documents to Bank I for their action.Beneficiary: After determining that Bank A had no obligation to negotiate, relying upon the standing of the Issuing Bank as a premier financial institution, and being comfortable that the Credit was subject to UCP500, the Beneficiary instructed Bank A to forward the documents to Bank I.Issuing Bank: Informed Bank A that while the documents presented under the Credit were compliant, they were not in a position to honor the drawing, as the necessary funds had not been made available to them from the “re-export proceeds program”. If and when such proceeds were made available, they would pay the drawing under their credit.Beneficiary: The Beneficiary never received payment for the goods shipped, even though the documents presented under the Credit complied fully with the terms and conditions of the Credit. Bank I stated that while their Credit was irrevocable, it contained special conditions stating that irrevocability was subject to receipt of the necessary funds from the “re-export proceeds program”. Since such proceeds were not received, Bank I had no obligation to honor the drawing. Bank I suggested that the Beneficiary try to recover directly from the Applicant.Queries: Please review, analyze the queries, give your opinion and be prepared to answer each query(1) Would your Bank have issued or confirmed such an Irrevocable Credit?(2) If your bank advised such a Credit to the Beneficiary, would it have warned the Beneficiary about its special conditions?(3) Is it correct for Bank I to have issued this Credit subject to UCP500?(参考教材第3/24 -5页回答上述问题)供参考用翻译1. 背景：信用证种类：不可撤消应用规则：UCP500开证行：I行通知行：A行结算方式：在开证行即期付款到期地点：在开证行柜台2. 案情：开证行：开证行开立不可撤消信用证并由通知行通知受益人。通知行：通知行将信用证通知受益人。信用证：信用证条款要求： 1开给开证行的即期汇票 2提单抬头是按照I行指令，通知申请人 3特别条款是：信用证汇票的支付只能在“实现再出口收款计划”之后进行。受益人：受益人装运货物后向A行提交信用证要求的单据。通知行：A行告诉收益人：鉴于付款的特别条款和信用证在开证行柜台到期，A行只能寄单给I行。受益人：A行决定没有议付义务后，由于开证行是一家大的金融机构，受益人信任开证行信誉并对信用证受UCP500管辖感到放心，受益人指示A行寄单给I行。开证行：开证行通知A行：虽然信用证下提交的单据符合要求，开证行不能付款，因为开证行未从“再出口得款计划”下获得所需资金。待到开证行获得这笔资金后才能支付信用证款项。受益人：虽然提交的单据完全符合信用证条款，受益人一直没有收到装运货物的款项。I行声称虽然信用证是不可撤消的，但它含有特别条款。特别条款规定不可撤消性受“再出口得款计划”的约束。由于I行未收到这笔钱，I行无付款义务。I行建议受益人直接从申请人那里收回此款。3. 问题： 1你的银行是否会开出这种不可撤消信用证并对它加保兑？ 2当通知行将此种信用证通知受益人时，通知行是否会警告受益人特别条款之事？ 3I行开立的这种信用证是否受UCP500管辖？案例二：产地国规定不明确的信用证 (UCP500第5条款a分条)Case Number 2 The Case of the Unspecified Country of OriginUCP500 sub-Article 5(a)BackgroundType of Credit: Irrevocable NegotiableApplication:UCP500Issuing Bank: Bank IAdvising Bank: Bank ANegotiating Bank: Bank AAvailability: Negotiable at sightExpiry: At the counters of Bank ACircumstancesIssuing Bank: Bank I issued its irrevocable Credit and advised it to the Beneficiary through Bank A.Advising Bank: Bank A advised the Credit to the Beneficiary. Credit: Among the terms and conditions, the Credit asked for:1. Certificate of Origin: E.E.C Countries.(Note: the reader should be aware that the normal usage is EEC and not E.E.C., as a matter of interest. However, the case was presented as stated E.E.C.)Beneficiary: The Beneficiary presented the documents required by the Credit including the commercial invoice and the certificate of origin, which showed:1. The commercial invoice showed:“ Country of Origin: E.E.C.”2. The Certificate of Origin indicated:“Country of Origin: E.E.C. Countries”.Negotiating Bank: Bank A examined the documents presented by the Beneficiary and determined they were in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit. Bank A negotiated the documents and forwarded the documents to and claimed reimbursement from Bank I.Issuing Bank: Upon receipt of the documents, Bank I examined the documents and determined that they were discrepant. Bank I immediately notified Bank A by teletransmission that it rejected the documents for the following discrepancies:1. The phrase on the commercial invoice “ Country of Origin: E.E.C.” does not appear on its face to be in accordance with terms and conditions of the Credit, which states “Country of Origin: E. E. C. Countries.”2. The declaration of origin on the commercial Invoice is inconsistent with the declaration appearing on the Certificate of origin as “ Country of Origin: E. E. C. Countries.”Negotiating Bank: Upon receipt of the notice of rejection, Bank A replied by telex as follows: “ We consider the documents negotiated by us as conforming to the documentary credit for the following reasons: “1. There is no requirement in the Credit for a statement relating to the origin of the goods. Moreover, the Country of origin was indicated in the certificate of origin as required by the Credit, that is , Country of Origin: E.E.C Countries. “2. The declaration or statement of origin on the commercial invoice as to Country of Origin: E.E.C is not inconsistent with the statement made in the certificate of origin. “We do not accept your rejection of the documents as non-compliant and demand immediate reimbursement of the amount negotiated and our charges.”Queries: Please review, analysis the queries, give your opinion and be prepared to answer each query.(1) Did Bank I reject the certificate of origin as presented? (根据案例内容回答1-3问题)(2) Did Bank I reject the documents based on the Inconsistencies between the commercial invoice and the certificate of origin?(3) Did Bank I reject the documents based on the inconsistency between the words “ Country” and “Countries”?(4) Could an argument be made by Bank A that Bank I violated UCP500 Article 5, relative to the Instructions to Issue Credits in a complete and precise manner?(参考教材第5/4-5, 4/12页)供参考用的翻译1. 背景：信用证种类：不可撤消议付信用证应用规则：UCP500开证行：I行通知行和议付行：A行结算方式：即期议付到期地点：A行柜台2. 案情：开证行：I行开出不可撤消议付信用证并由A行通知受益人。通知行：A行将信用证通知受益人。信用证：在信用证的条款中，信用证要求：1 产地证书：欧洲共同体国家E.E.C Countries.(注意：读者应该知道正确的写法是EEC，不是本案例中的E.E.C.，受益人：受益人提交信用证要求的单据，包括商业发票和产地证书，这些单据上显示： 1商业发票：“产地国家：E.E.C.” 2产地证上显示：“产地国家：E. E. C. Countries”议付行：A行审核受益人提交的单据后确定单据符合信用证条款，然后议付单据，并寄单给I行索汇。开证行：开证行收到和审单后确定单证不符，并立即电告A行根据下述不符点拒绝单据： 1商业发票表面的“产地国家：E.E.C.”不符合信用证规定的“产地国家：E. E. C. Countries”。2商业发票上的产地声明与产地证书上的产地国家写法 “Country of Origin: E. E.C.Country”不一致。I行通知A行代为保管单据，听候处理。议付行：收到拒绝通知时，A行回电如下； “我行认为议付单据与信用证相符，理由如下； 1信用证对商品产地国陈述未提出要求。另外，产地证书按照信用证要求显示产地国，即E. E. C. Countries。 2商业发票上的产地写法是：E.E.C.，与产地证声明没有不一致之处。“我行不能接受贵行以单据不符为由拒绝单据，并要求贵行立即偿付我行议付金额和有关费用。”3.问题： 1）I行是否拒绝了所提交的产地证书？ 2）I行可否根据商业发票和产地证书不一致拒收单据？ 3）I行可否根据“Country”与“Countries”的不一致拒绝接受单据？ 4）A行可否认为I行违反了UCP500第5条款(关于未用完整和明确的指示开立信用证)？案例三：备用信用证与声称的欺诈违约声明案例 (UCP500第9条款a分条和第13条a分条)Case Number 3 The Case of the Standby Credit and the Alleged Fraudulent Statement of Default UCP500 sub-Article 9(a)and 13(a)BackgroundType of Credit: Irrevocable standbyApplication: UCP500Issuing Bank: Bank IAdvising Bank: Bank AAvailability: At sight with the Issuing BankExpiry: At the counters of the Issuing BankCircumstancesIssuing Bank: Bank I issued its irrevocable standby Credit in favor of the Beneficiary and advised it through Bank A.Advising Bank: Bank A advised the Credit to the Beneficiary, informing him that the Credit was available with Bank I and that it expired at the counters of Bank I. Credit: The Credit required the following documents:1. Sight draft on Bank I2. Copy of the unpaid commercial invoice3. Statement from the Beneficiarys authorized representative certifying that the enclosed invoices were at 30 days past due and that payment had been demanded from the Applicant. Applicant: Five days before the standby Credit expired, the Applicant informed Bank I that no outstanding invoices were due to the Beneficiary and therefore Bank I should not pay any drawings made under the standby Credit.Advising Bank: The day before the Standby Credit expired, Bank A presented via courier, on behalf of the Beneficiary, the following documents:1. Sight draft on Bank I2. Copy of the unpaid commercial invoice, undated and listing delivery date of goods within 15 days of their presentation.Issuing Bank: After examination of the documents, Bank I paid the drawing under the Credit by crediting the account of Bank A and debiting the account of the Applicant. Applicant: The applicant objected to the debit of his account even though he had already taken possession of the goods. The Applicant stated that:1. Bank I had previously been informed by the Applicant that no outstanding invoices were due to the Beneficiary and that Bank I should not honor any drawings under the Credit.2. Bank I should have realized that, despite the fact that the statement of default as required by the Credit declared that a default condition by the Applicant existed, it was clear that the delivery dates on the invoices signaled that there was no amount 30 days past due.3. the invoices stated that delivery had been effected only 15 days prior to the presentation of the documents and, therefore, there was a misrepresentation of fact in which the Beneficiary could not have declared a 30-days past-due period when only 15 days had elapsed prior to the presentation.4. the Applicant demanded immediate re-credit to their account.Issuing Bank: Bank I refused to re-credit the Applicants account, stating that the terms and conditions of the Credit had been fully complied with.Queries: Please review, analyze the queries, give your opinion and be prepared to answer each query.(1) Would your bank have issued such a Standby Credit? If not, why and what would have changed? （参考教材第3/44,46或3/47,3/7- 8, 3/15 16, 4/11-12页回答）(2) Was there any importance in the fact that the invoices were undated? (参考教材第3/15页回答)(3) Was Bank I correct in paying the drawing despite the allegation by the Applicant that there was no default by him (the Applicant)? (参考教材第3/8页回答)(4) What course of action should Bank I have considered in view of the Applicants statement made prior to the drawing that there were no invoice past due? (参考教材第8/21, 3/8页回答)供参考用的翻译1.背景：信用证种类：不可撤消备用信用证应用规则：UCP500开证行：I行通知行：A行 结算方式：开证行即期付款到期地点：A行柜台2.案情：开证行：I行开立不可撤消备用信用证，并通过A行通知受益人。通知行：A行将信用证通知受益人，告知信用证在I行付款和在I行柜台到期。信用证：信用证要求以下单据； 1开给I行的即期汇票 2未付款的商业发票副本2 由受益人授权代表发出声明书，证明随附发票至少过期30天，并已向申请人提出付款要求。申请人：备用信用证到期前5天，申请人通知I行说没有任何欠受益人的未付发票，因此I行不应支付备用信用证款。通知行：备用信用证到期前一天，A行代表受益人通过快递提交以下单据；1 开给I行的即期汇票2 未付商业发票副本，未注明日期，列明交货日发生在交单前15天之内。 3备用信用证要求的违约声明。开证行：I行审单后支付信用证款项；贷记A行账户和借记申请人账户。申请人：虽然申请人已经拿到货物，但是他反对银行借记其账户。申请人声称： 1申请人已经提前通知I行没有欠受益人的未付发票，I行不应该兑现信用证的任何汇票。 2I行应该认识到，尽管信用证要求的违约声明宣称存在申请人违约情况，但是发票上的交货日期显然表明没有过期30天的金额。 3发票注明交单据前15天交货，因此存在歪曲事实，即，交单据前只过去了15天，不可能是受益人称的30天。 4申请人要求立即贷记回其账户。开证行：开证行拒绝贷记回申请人账户，声称完全符合信用证条款。3.问题： 1）你行是否开过这种信用证？如果没有，为什么？你认为要更改什么？ 2）发票未注明日期是否很重要？ 3）申请人提出没有违约，I行支付款项是否正确？ 4）在开证行支付前，申请人声明不欠任何未付发票。对此，I行应该采取什么行动？案例四：信用证保兑的自动展期 (UCP500第9条款6分条)Case Number 4 The Case of the Automatic Extension of a Confirmation to a CreditUCP500 sub-Article 9(b)BackgroundType of Credit: Irrevocable ConfirmedApplication: UCP500Issuing Bank: Bank IAdvising Bank: Bank AConfirming Bank: Bank AAvailability: At sight with the Confirming BankExpiry: At the counter of the Confirming BankCircumstancesIssuing Bank: Bank I issued its Irrevocable Documentary Credit in favor of the Beneficiary and advised it through Bank A with a request that Bank A add its confirmation.Confirming Bank: Bank A advised the Credit to the Beneficiary adding its confirmation.Beneficiary: The Beneficiary shipped the merchandise and presented the relevant documents with a value of USD110,000 two days prior to the expiry date of the Credit.Confirming Bank: Upon receipt of the documents, Bank A examined them and determined that they were not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit for the following reasons:1. Bills of lading were issued to order of the shipper and endorsed in blank instead of to the order of the buyers.2. The Credit was overdrawn by USD10,000In view of the fact that the Credit was about to expire, Bank A telephoned the Beneficiary advising him of the discrepancies.Beneficiary: Upon receipt of the notice of rejection and prior to the expiry date of the Credit, the Beneficiary requested Bank A to telex the Issuing Bank requesting approval to pay despite the discrepant documents.Confirming Bank: Immediately, upon receipt of such telephone authorization, Bank A telexed Bank I requesting authority to pay the documents as presented.Issuing Bank: After conferring with Applicant, Bank I authorized Bank A to pay the documents as presented.Confirming Bank: By the time Bank I had telexed authorization for Bank A to pay the discrepant documents, the political and economic conditions in Bank Is country had deteriorated, with a military and political upheaval in the country about to topple the government. As a result of this uncertainty, the business in the country of Bank I had been officially closed. For this reason, Bank A informed the Beneficiary that, although approval had been received to pay the documents as presented, Bank A was not in a position to honor those instructions inasmuch as the assets of Bank I had been frozen in Bank As country and no funds were available in Bank Is account. If Bank A paid the Beneficiary, Bank A did not have means of obtaining reimbursement from Bank I.Beneficiary: The Beneficiary immediately contacted his lawyers to determine the position he should take to protect his interest. The lawyers contacted Bank A and informed them that the withholding of the payment was unwarranted and reminded Bank A that they had confirmed the Credit. As such, under UCP500, the confirmer of a Credit could not withdraw their confirmation of the Credit without the Beneficiarys consent.Confirming Bank: Bank A countered with the statement that their confirmation was valid provided only that the terms and conditions of the Credit were complied with. In view of the fact the documents presented did not comply with the terms and conditions of the Credit, Bank As confirmation was null and void.Beneficiary: The lawyers for the Beneficiary responded that Bank A did agree unconditionally to telex Bank I for permission to pay despite the discrepant documents. That course of action was said to constitute consent by Bank A to effect payment upon a positive response from Bank I. Furthermore, the Beneficiary was making a formal demand for payment of USD110,000, plus interest from the date of the telex approving payment until the actual date of payment by Bank A, plus legal fees associated with the issue.Queries: Please review, analyze the queries, give your opinion and be prepared to answer each query.(1) Do you agree with the position taken by Bank A that their confirmation was only valid for the original Credit terms, even though they had agreed to telex Bank I for permission to pay, and that it should not imply their concurrence to pay if such authority to pay was given by Bank I ?(参考教材第4/22，4/24，4/26-27页)(2) What was the position taken by the ICC Banking Commission on a similar case?Answer: ICCs Publication No.371 Decisions (1975-1979) of the ICC Banking Commission Case No. R 14: Refusal to extend confirmation after submitting irregular documents to the issuing bank for approval generalizes the Banking Commissions position in this case as follows:“ The Commission was asked to consider a specific case as follows:An issuing bank opened an irrevocable credit providing for payment at the counters of the advising bank in the country of the beneficiary, giving instructions for it to be advised to the latter, with the confirmation of the advising bank (paying bank).This bank duly advised the credit, adding its confirmation.During the validity of the credit, presentation of documents was made to the paying bank and payment was refused on account of discrepancies. However, by arrangement with the beneficiary, the bank sent the documents to the issuing bank, asking for its approval of the discrepancies, and its authority to effect payment.A few days later, the paying bank received the issuing banks agreement for payment, but by then the credit had expired, and it refused to pay the beneficiary.The Commission was asked to decide whether the paying bank was justified in its refusal”After various discussions and points of view, the Commission position was stated as follows:“ The Commission decided that where