2005 1 Gregorian calendar

The issuing bank will not reimburse the negotiating bank-because the shipment date is 65438+February 30th, that is, the bill of lading or shipment date is 65438+February 30th, and the beneficiary will not deliver the documents until 65438+1October 2nd1day. If the presentation record of the negotiating bank is also 65438+1October 2 1, then the reason is that the delivery date is 2 1 day later than the date of the bill of lading, and it becomes an "old bill of lading". The issuing bank will not accept this "old bill of lading", that is, it is a seriously inconsistent bill of lading-it does not conform to the usual practice of letter of credit settlement, so the issuing bank will not reimburse the negotiating bank.

As for the mistake of mistyping T as J on the shipping mark, it can be counted as discrepancy, but at most, the discrepancy fee will be deducted, which is not the reason for refusing to pay. Therefore, generally speaking, the issuing bank will not refuse to pay because of this discrepancy, but will only deduct the fee-because this is untenable as a reason for refusing to pay, and it will also lose the lawsuit. At that time, it will not only lose time and legal fees, but also lose face (reputation) and pay late fees. However, it is not excluded that some banks refuse to pay for this reason. At this time, it is necessary to test the level and inspection of negotiating banks and beneficiaries. If the negotiating bank and beneficiary are inexperienced and confused by refusal to pay, they will be passively beaten and suffer heavy losses. However, for experienced negotiating banks and beneficiaries, they will refute in time. Then the reputable issuing bank will pay by donkey without pestering, and some banks with bad reputation will pester.

The experience sharing of these cases is to help some operators' actual business, rather than staying in the homework-this is a summary and generalization of the actual experience.