国际商务单证双语教程（第4版）引例和训练案例的分析提示

1、第1章引例AnalysisAccording to the provisions of the uniform customs and practice for L/C, documents and the L/C must strictly conform. For the issuing bank, the confirming bank (if any) confirming or agents bank, documents must be the only basis, to determine whether documents on the surface conform to

2、the terms of the credit. If that did not conform to, you can refuse to accept the documents.When the negotiating bank checking documents, they should put forward the amendment demand of discrepancies, especially the wrong number. But unfortunately they listened to the opinions of the beneficiary; th

3、ought that the applicant would be “honest” to admit that they made wrong the contract number, the issuing bank would be “honest” to regard that there was discrepancy of the contract number. However, in the actual business operation, the other party insisted on the provisions of the uniform customs a

4、nd practice of the L/C and refused to pay, and charged interest paid for more than 6,000 dollars.Losses of more than $6,000 caused by the change of one word proved that we must understand its seriousness of the regulations of the treatment of uniform customs and practice for the relevant documents t

5、o avoid passive.【分析】按跟单信用证统一惯例规定，单据与信用证必须严格相符。开证行、保兑行(如有保兑)或代理行必须以单据作为唯一依据，决定单据表面是否符合信用条款；如认为不符，则可拒绝接受单据。本案中，受益人如认为来证的合约号数确实搞错，则应立即提出修改信用证，否则即应按信用证所列要求制单交单，以免造成“单证不符”而被拒付。议付行审单时本应对此项不符点提出修改要求，特别是应向开证行提出修改信用证中的错误合约号码，但却听从受益人的意见，“以为”开证人会“诚实”地承认将合约号码搞错，开证行也会“诚实”地认为所开出信用证的合约号码确有不符。但是，实际业务运作是对方抓住跟单信用证统一惯

6、例的规定，坚持予以拒付，并收取了赔付利息6 000余美元。一字之差所造成的6 000多美元损失证明，对待跟单信用证统一惯例有关单据方面的规定，必须深刻理解其严肃性，才能避免被动。训练案例1-1AnalyzeIn international practice, UCP600 examination standard has shrugged off mechanical, rigid regulations and gave up the past emphasis mirror principle of complete consistence between documents. On th

7、e contrary, it stresses that as long as “no contradict” or no conflict in the content of the documents can be determined that the documents are in compliance with L/C terms, so as to maximize put an end to the parties in the L/C to refuse to make any acceptance or payment because of the underlying t

8、ransaction disputes and the so-called documents discrepancies. Banks made a large number of retreats according to the principle of strict compliance. UCP600 is a relatively looser document examination principle, which make an issuing bank deal with documents and receipts more flexibility in specific

9、 business. It not only reflects the high efficiency, low cost and swiftness, but also shows the fairness and credibility, which is advantageous to develop L/C business.【分析】在实践中，应使用严格相符标准还是实质相符标准的问题，一直存在激烈的争论，甚至存在完全相反的判例。关于实质相符标准的讨论，也是银行界和法律界争论最多的问题之一。在采用严格相符标准的同时，各国司法系统又不可避免地采用一些比较灵活的态度，镜像标准在很多国家也已被

10、放宽，一些纯粹是打印上的错误已被多数国家的司法机构接受。在国际惯例方面，UCP600审单标准已经摆脱了“机械、刻板”的规定，放弃了过去强调的单据之间以及单证之间完全相符的“镜像”原则;相反，强调只要单证的内容“不矛盾”或者“不冲突”即可确定单证相符，从而最大限度地杜绝信用证当事人因为基础交易的纠纷转而以所谓单据存在不符点为由拒绝承兑或付款的情况随意发生。过去银行根据所谓“严格相符”的原则大量退单，UCP600相对更为宽松的审单原则使得银行在具体业务审单时，更灵活地处理单证、单据，既体现了保持信用证的高效性、低成本性和迅速性，又显示了公平性和信誉度，对信用证业务的开展无疑是有利的。第2章引例An

11、alysisThe L/C in the above case with soft clauses showed that the L/C is not effective unless the issuing bank notice or modify priorly.That typical letter of credit with inactive the soft clause can usually be summed up in a few no words. Namely no notice, no the amendment, no certificate or receip

12、t issued by the applicant, no the inspection of the goods, not inform the ship company the name of vessel, etc. no effect. And words that exporters should pay 5% or more were often accompanied, many of which were outside the provisions in the contract early.Because the L/C was not effective, namely

13、goods couldnt be shipped. And once the international market prices fell down, there were other factors adverse to the applicant (importer) during the period, the applicant would refuse to deliver the shipping advice which eventually made the beneficiary not timely submit complete export documents to

14、 the negotiating bank for reimbursement. Also this would make the exemption responsibility of payment under a documentary letter of credit by the issuing bank. And during the performance, 5% of those or even higher and commission had already entered into the intermediaries or the the applicants pock

15、ets and then shrugged and walked away. At this point, the export companies have suffered losses and eaten dummy Kui.【分析】本例中的信用证带有软条款的性质，表现为信用证开出后并不生效，要待开证行另行通知或修改后方可生效。比较典型的带有未生效条款的软条款信用证通常可以用几个“不”字来概括：开证行不通知生效、不发修改书，开证人不出具证书或收据、不来验货、不通知船公司船名等，并常常伴有要求出口商提前支付5甚至更高履约金的字样，其中有不少是在信用证外合同中早就规定好了的。 因为信用证不生

16、效，即无法出运货物，而一旦这期间货物的国际市场价格下跌或有其他对申请人（进口商）不利的因素，申请人就会趁机拒发装运通知使信用证无法生效，从而最终使受益人不能及时提交完整的出口单据给议付行寄单索汇，也使开证行自行免除跟单信用证项下的付款责任。而期间那些5甚至更高的履约金及佣金早已进入中介人或开证申请人的腰包，一走了之。此时，作为出口公司则既遭受了损失，又吃了哑巴亏。训练案例2-1Analysis（1）It did not conform to the international trade practice to pay the practice of quality margin. If th

17、e buyer was not sure whether the seller could honour an agreement, the buyer may require the seller to open HYPERLINK javascript:void(0); performance HYPERLINK javascript:void(0); guarantee. The seller should not pay the quality retention money to the buyer. Moreover the buyer should not make remitt

18、ance to the middleman in favour of the payee personally, which caused the consequences that the remittance would not be repaid.(2) The case in the cause of banks and the interests of the foreign trade disputes are caused by fraud. Yinmao both in court, and the swindlers is at large. Foreign trade co

19、mpany shall report to public security organs, punish fraudsters.At the same time, YinMao both sides should enhance awareness, improve the ability of fraud.The case of fraud technique has the following features:First, open a soft terms of L/C opening bank, dont send the specimen signature to the advi

20、sing bank to the beneficiary, even if the applicant has signed the inspection certificate, its sign and its remaining in the specimen signature of the issuing bank will not consistent.Second, the cost is higher than international market prices, baiting a trap for the seller.The case of woven bag $10

21、22 each, at a time when the international market price of only $1,008. Third, the contract amount is larger, the case of the contract value of $2.2 million, Nov. 17 amount is 1/10 of the total contract value. Fourth, the applicant is not the contractor, in the case the contractor is a company in Hon

22、g Kong, the company does not exist, after many hands, who dont understand the business background, on the soft clause of the L/C. Fifth, terms and conditions for the FOB price, the buyer does not send the ship loading.Sixth, goods are often more easily produce the goods, such as woven bag, paper, or

23、 the wooden packing, etc.(3) There is this kind of soft clause of letter of credit, bank in principle should not be suitable to do trade and lending business, if it is suitable to do deal with trade, buyers and sellers credit to conduct a comprehensive understanding, review.(4) As the issuing bank s

24、hould be discouraged as far as possible the applicant to open L/C soft clause. To open L/C soft clause, should be strict censorship, in order to avoid fraud molecules using soft terms for fraud.The signature of the applicant, the samples should be sent to the advising bank, so that the negotiating b

25、ank and the beneficiary.(5) In the case, the issuing bank to open the L/C opening bank, the exporter bank he speaking, the opening bank is the presenter, is not the negotiating bank.In this L/C, the exporters bank can also according to the requirements of the beneficiary for negotiation at sight doc

26、umentary, the negotiation is only exporter between bank and the beneficiary, has nothing to do with the issuing bank.(6) Exporters in signing export contracts with foreign businessmen, importers should be dont understand by bank credit investigation, and should not be alone can open the L/C to decid

27、e whether to organize production and shipment.【分析】 （1）支付质量保证金的做法，不符合国际贸易惯例。如果买方对卖方能否履约没有把握，可要求卖方开立履约保函，卖方不应向买方交质保金，更不应该汇款给以个人名义为收款人的中间人，造成汇款无法收回的后果。 （2）此案中银行与外贸公司的利益纠纷是由诈骗引起的。银贸双方对簿公堂，而诈骗分子却逍遥法外。外贸公司应向公安机关报告，严惩诈骗分子。同时，银贸双方都应增强防范意识，提高防诈骗能力。此案的诈骗手法有以下特点： 第一，开立带有软条款的开证行付款信用证，不把签字样本寄给通知行转交受益人，即使申请人在检验证上

28、签了字，其签字与其在开证行留存的签字样本也不会一致。 第二，货价高出国际市场价格，引诱卖方上当。此案中的编织袋每条1 022 美元，而当时国际市场价格只有1 008 美元。第三，合同金额较大。此案中的合同金额为220万美元，此证金额是合同金额的1/10。第四，开证人不是签约人，此案中的签约人是中国香港某公司，此公司根本不存在，经过多次转手，开证行不了解业务背景，开出了软条款信用证。 第五，价格条款为FOB，买方根本不会派船装货。 第六，货物通常是较易生产的商品，如编织袋、纸制或木制包装箱等。（3）对有此类软条款的信用证，银行原则上不宜做押汇和打包放款业务；如果要做，应对交易情况、买卖双方资信进

29、行全面了解、审查。（4）作为开证行应尽量劝阻申请人开立软条款信用证。对开立软条款信用证，应进行严格审查，以避免诈骗分子利用软条款进行诈骗。申请人的签字样本应寄给通知行，以便议付行、受益人核对。（5）此案中，开证行开立的是开证行付款信用证，出口方银行对开证行来讲只是交单行，不是议付行。对这种信用证，出口方的银行也可以根据受益人的要求，做议付即期押汇，这种议付只是出口方银行与受益人之间的事，与开证行无关。（6）出口商在与国外商人签订出口合同时，对不了解的进口商应通过银行进行资信调查，而不应仅凭能否开来信用证决定是否组织生产和发货。训练案例2-2AnalysisIn this case, the a

30、pplicant was authorized to issue the inspection certificate clause. It not only violated the practice that the relevant import and export commodity inspection was required to carry out by a third party, independent trade party, a qualified, authoritative professional inspection institutions, but als

31、o violated the (UCP600) stipulation: “in the L/C business, all parties concerned deal with documents, not goods services or other activities related to the documents.” Therefore, the practice of foreign company D has violated the international practice.Staffs of Bank A in our country already informe

32、d the beneficiary that there was has soft clauses in the L/C, but company C in our country still received the veiled soft clause. It made exporters bear a lot of foreign exchange risk. In practice, if specimen signature required must be in conformity with the issuing banks retention samples, the imp

33、orter could remain Zhang Sans signature in issuing bank and send Li Si to sign the bill so that he could issue the inspection certificate when the bullish, while they could use the signature to refuse payment at the time of payment in case that prices fell down. Our company C blindly accepted soft t

34、erms of L/C, which caused the difficulty of Exchange collection.This case reflected another problem that the bank staffs vigilance was not high. From the L/C twice negotiations, it was quite suspicious. There were three times and three amount which could be compared: time for receipt of L/C was on D

35、ecember 25, 2015, the amount was $134,400; First time negotiation was on January 29, 2016, the amount was $26,880; The second time negotiation was on February 5, 2016, the amount was $107,520. If the company prepared the goods from the receipt of the L/C, the first shipment took nearly 35 days, and

36、just six days later,they could dispose four times of the first batch of goods, and cost only about one sixth time, wasnt that strange? As a result, it was not surprising that there were goods quality and shortage problems.At the same time, bank A didnt understand Bank C credit and production capacit

37、y enough. In the process of handling disputes, Bank A learned that certain fraud really existed in the company. First of all, there was goods quality problems; secondly, shortage, although did not exceed standard (UCP600) regulation, but without corresponding decrease, and made full specified amount

38、 of reimbursement according to the amount of L/C; thirdly, company C didnt work with banks and was compelled to tell the truth against ones will. When banks did export trade for customers, they should fully understood the customers credit, carry out the payment guarantee. From this case, staffs of b

39、ank A ignored this fundamental point.【分析】 本案例中，开证申请人授权签发检验证这一条款，不仅违反了有关进出口商品检验需由一个独立贸易关系人之外的第三者，一个有资格、有权威性的检验专业机构来执行的惯例，而且也违背了UCP600规定：“在信用证业务中，各有关当事人处理的是单据，而不是与单据有关的货物服务或其他行为。”因此，外国D公司的做法违背了国际惯例。 我国银行工作人员在通知受益人时，已经指出了该信用证中的软条款，我国公司还是接受了这种绵里藏针的“软条款”，这会使出口商承担很大的收汇风险。在实务中如果要求签字式样须与开证行的留样相符，进口商可以在开证行留张

40、三的印鉴而派李四去签单。这样，如果行情看涨时他可以签发检验证，而到付款时万一行情下跌，可以利用“印鉴不符”拒付。我国的公司盲目接受“软条款”信用证，造成收汇的困难。此案例反映的另一个问题是银行业务人员的警惕性不高。从该笔信用证本身的两次议付看，颇有可疑之处。这其中有三个时间、三个金额的比较：收到信用证的时间为2015年12月25日, 金额为USD134 400; 第一次议付时间为2016年1月29日，金额为USD26 880；第二次议付时间为2016年2月5日，金额为USD107,520。假如说该公司从收到信用证开始备货，那么出第一批货用了近35天，而短短的6天后，又备齐了整整4倍于第一批的货

41、，而时间仅用了1/6，难道这不奇怪吗？由此，货物存在质量和短装问题也就不奇怪了。同时，银行对客户银行的资信、生产能力了解不够。银行在处理纠纷过程中了解到，该公司确实存在着一定欺诈现象。首先，货物质量存在问题；其次，货物短装，虽未超过UCP600规定标准，却未相应减少货款，而是依照信用证金额足额索汇；最后，公司不配合银行工作，迫于无奈方说出事情真相。银行给客户做出口押汇，要对客户的资信有充分了解，落实还款保障。从本案例看，银行业务人员忽略了这根本的一点。第3章引例【分析】信用证的内容与售货合同不符之处有：(1)合同规定允许转运，而信用证却规定NOT ALLOWED，应改为ALLOWED。(2)保

42、险条款有误，合同规定INSURANCE TO BE EFFECTED BY SELLER FOR 110% of CIF INVOICE VALUE COVERING ALL RISKS ONLY AS PER CHINA INSURANCE CLAUSE；而信用证却规定为INSURANCE POLICY IN DUPLICATE FOR 120% of INVOICE VALUE COVERING ALL RISKS AND WAR RISK SUBJECT TO CIC DATED JAN 1ST, 1981。信用证保险条款应修改。训练案例3-1Analysis Whether the d

43、iscrepancies put forward by the issuing bank in this case can be established, we will analyze as the followings:1. About the invoice discrepancies, UCP600 regulates: “description of goods in the commercial invoice must be consistent with the description of the L/C. the description of the goods in al

44、l other documents can use general terms, but is not inconsistent with the description of the goods in the L/C.” International business ISBP further regulates that description of goods in the invoice must be consistent with the L/C, but does not require as consistent as mirror. The details of goods i

45、n the invoice may be different from in several parts, but they must be consistent with the regulations when they are combined with. This shows that UCP strictly regulates the description of goods in invoice. Without “AS PER PROFORMA.” it makes up discrepancies indeed. 2. About the the consignee of c

46、ertificate of origin. Since the L/C only has requirements for the issuer of certificate of origin, and not other content required. According to the regulations of the UCP “without rules in the L/C, as long as the content of the documents submitted is not contradictory with any other stipulated docum

47、ent, banks will accept such documents.” In this case, the consignee shown in the certificate of origin is the applicant, and the consignee shown in the bill of lading is instructed by the issuing bank, which seems to constitute such discrepancies. But according to the regulations of the internationa

48、l chamber of commerce: consignee information, if shown, must not be inconsistent with the consignee information in the transport document. However, if a credit requires a transport document made to order , by shipper, by the issuing bank instructions or goods type, the applicant shown in the certifi

49、cate of origin or another person named as consignee, can also be accepted. If L/C has been transferred, then the first beneficiary as consignee is also acceptable. It is obvious that this discrepancy cannot be established.3. About the signature of bill of lading. In this case, the bill of lading is

50、signed by ship agency on behalf of the captain. According to the international chamber of commerce ISBP regulation “if signed by the agent on behalf of the captain (or owner), you must show its agent identity, and must indicate the name of the captain (or owner) assigned.” Thus, Whether it is marine

51、 bill of lading or charter contract bill of lading, if is the agent on behalf of the captains signature, you must show the captains last name. Missing the captains name does constitute a discrepancy.Signed bar can be displayed as follows:AS AGENT FOR THE MASTER CAPT. （captains name）MASTER OF M.V. （s

52、hips name）（signature and stamp by AGENT）4. About spelling errors. Although no explicit stipulation in the international chamber of commerce in UCP600, it is stipulated explicitly in the international chamber of commerce ISBP: “if the spelling/print error does not affect the meaning of words or their

53、 sentences, it does not constitute a discrepancy.” For example, in the description of goods, put the MACHINE represented by MASHINE, put the FOUNTAIN PEN represented by FOUNTN PEN or put the MODEL represented by MODLE, all these will not lead to discrepancy. Therefore, in this case CERTIFY typed to

54、CITIFY also should not be regarded as discrepancies.5. About the evidence of shipping advice fax. UCP regulates that: if there are some conditions in the L/C, but no documents listed which shall be submitted to satisfy the conditions, the bank will regard that these conditions are not listed, and th

55、ey will be dismissed. In this case, The meaning of the bank is to making the beneficiary to submit a fax ACTIVITY REPORT (also known as TRANSMISSION REPORT) to prove that the shipping advice has indeed faxed, but due to its no list in the in, as a result, this discrepancies cannot be established. It

56、 is not hard to learn from the case, as a qualified documentation clerk, it is not enough to know the basic principles of consistent documents with documents or L/C in addition to the careful examination to documentations.They must also grasp the international chamber of commerce UCP600 and the rule

57、s of the ISBP.【分析】本案开证行提出的不符点是否成立，可做如下分析：1. 关于发票的不符点UCP600规定：“商业发票中的货物描述必须与信用证中的描述一致。其他一切单据则可对货物的描述使用统称，但不得与L/C中货物的描述有抵触。”国际商务ISBP进一步规定：“发票中的货物描述必须与信用证一致，但并不要求如同镜子反射那样一致。例如货物细节可在发票中的若干地方不同，当合在一起时与规定一致即可。”由此可见，UCP对发票的货物描述是有严格规定的，漏打“AS PER PROFORMA”确实构成不符点。2. 关于原产地证书的收货人由于L/C只对原产地证书的出证人有要求，此外并未规定其他所需内

58、容。根据UCP规定“在信用证没有规定的情况下，只要提交的单据项目内容与其他任何规定的单据不矛盾，银行将接受此类单据”，本案中原产地证书中收货人显示的是开证申请人，而提单中的收货人显示的是凭开证行指示，似乎构成了不符点。但是根据国际商会规定：“收货人的信息，如果显示，则不得与运输单据中的收货人信息相矛盾。但是，如果信用证要求运输单据做作成凭指示、凭托运人指示、凭开证行指示或货发开证行式的抬头，则原产地证书显示的申请人或具名的另外一人作为收货人，也可以接受。如果L/C已经转让，那么以第一受益人作为收货人也可以接受。”显而易见，此不符点不能成立。3.关于提单签署本案中提单是由船代代表签章。根据国际商

59、会ISBP规定：“如果由代理人代表船长（或船东）签署，则必须表明其代理人身份，且必须注明被代理的船长（或船东）姓名。”由此可见，无论是海运提单还是租船合约提单，如果是代理人代表船长签章的，则必须显示船长姓名，漏打船长姓名确实构成不符点。签署栏可以显示如下：AS AGENT FOR THE MASTER CAPT. （船长名）MASTER OF M.V. (船名）（代理人签字盖章）4. 关于拼写错误虽然国际商会在UCP600中对此没有明确规定，但是在国际商会ISBP中明确规定：“如果拼写/打印错误并不影响单词或其所在句子的含义，则不构成不符。”例如在货物描述中，MASHINE表示MACHINE,

60、 用FOUNTN PEN 表示FOUNTAIN PEN 钢笔或用MODLE 表示MODEL型号都不会导致单据不符。因此，本案中CERTIFY被打为CITIFY也不应视为不符点。5. 关于装船通知已传真的证据 UCP规定：“如果信用证中列有一些条件，但并未列明应予提交满足该条件的单据，银行将认为为未列明这些条件，且对此不予理会。”本案中，银行的意思是要受益人提交一份传真机打出的“ACTIVITY REPORT”（也称TRANSMISSION REPORT）来证明“装运通知”确实已经传真，但是由于其并未列明，因此，此不符点不能成立。 从本案中不难看出，作为一名合格的单证人员，除了在审证制单时做到认