Home About us Pay subscription Contact

Register

News

News Categories
Recent News

News by Month

Summer 2023 Newsletter added to Member Information section

14/07/2023 News from the ICC Banking Commission meeting of 11 July 2023 - Opinion TA927, TA Briefing 7, ISBP 821, eUCP appendix, Dual Use goods and Price Checking of Goods and Services documents released by ICC.

Back to recent news

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 document set presented under the L/C shows the following: The packing List indicates 10 containers. For each container, the net weight (NW) is stated as 19,800 kgs/container, while the gross weight (GW) is stated as 19,100 kgs/container (that is, the GW of each container is less than the NW). However, the total NW is shown as 198.00 metric tons, and the total GW is shown as 199.1 metric tons (in two places). The commodity is Linear Alkyl Benzene. In addition, the bill of lading contains a column that is not clearly identified as NW, GW, or any other category, but it does list each container with a corresponding figure of 19,910 kgs/container. Furthermore, on the upper right-hand side of the bill of lading, under the “Weight” column, it states 199,100.00 kgs (that is, it also does not clearly specify whether this refers to NW or GW, but only states “Weight”). Our questions are whether the issuing bank can refuse to pay with the following discrepancies: 1. The gross weight of each container stated in the packing list is inconsistent with that shown on the bill of lading. 2. The gross weight of each container stated in the packing list is lower than the net weight of each container, which is unreasonable.