News

News Categories
Recent News

News by Month

November 2025

Recent News

Letters of Credit Are Not Disappearing; They Are Evolving! 24/09/2026

1...more

Lloyds, SocGen turn to eUCP for digital letters of credit 18/09/2026

Société Générale and Lloyds have completed a fully digital trade transaction between the UK and France, using Enigio’s technology, in what the French lender describes as a first-of-its-kind deal...more

Latest Question

The credit stipulates: Field 44E: Karachi, Pakistan Field 44F: Cagliari, Italy Field 43T: Transhipment Allowed Field 46A: Full set 3/3 original clean on board Bills of Lading made out to the order of the applicant. The bill of lading presented shows: Port of Loading: Muhammad Bin Qasim, Pakistan Port of Discharge: La Spezia, Italy Place of Delivery: Cagliari Carriers CY20, Italy The issuing bank raised a discrepancy stating that both the Port of Loading and the Port of Discharge shown on the bill of lading do not comply with the locations stipulated in fields 44E and 44F of the credit. My questions are as follows: 1. Considering that Port Muhammad Bin Qasim is located within the Karachi port area, would a bill of lading showing "Muhammad Bin Qasim" instead of "Karachi" be regarded as conflicting data under UCP 600 sub-article 14(d)? 2. Given that the transport document shows: Port of Discharge: La Spezia, Italy Place of Delivery: Cagliari, Italy and that transhipment is expressly allowed under the credit, can the requirement in field 44F for "Cagliari, Italy" be considered satisfied? 3. Would your answer differ if the presented transport document is a multimodal bill of lading evidencing onward inland transportation from La Spezia to Cagliari? 4. In light of UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a)(ii), sub-article 14(d), ISBP 821 paragraphs E8(a) and E8(b), and ICC Opinion TA935rev2, would the discrepancy be considered valid where the location required in field 44F appears as Place of Delivery rather than as Port of Discharge? Any references to ICC Opinions, DOCDEX decisions, Banking Commission Opinions, or relevant ISBP practice would be greatly appreciated.