國(guó)際商務(wù)單證雙語(yǔ)教程（第4版）引例和訓(xùn)練案例的分析提示

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】按跟單信用證統(tǒng)一慣例規(guī)定，單據(jù)與信用證必須嚴(yán)格相符。開證行、保兌行(如有保兌)或代理行必須以單據(jù)作為唯一依據(jù)，決定單據(jù)表面是否符合信用條款；如認(rèn)為不符，則可拒絕接受單據(jù)。本案中，受益人如認(rèn)為來證的合約號(hào)數(shù)確實(shí)搞錯(cuò)，則應(yīng)立即提出修改信用證，否則即應(yīng)按信用證所列要求制單交單，以免造成“單證不符”而被拒付。議付行審單時(shí)本應(yīng)對(duì)此項(xiàng)不符點(diǎn)提出修改要求，特別是應(yīng)向開證行提出修改信用證中的錯(cuò)誤合約號(hào)碼，但卻聽從受益人的意見，“以為”開證人會(huì)“誠(chéng)實(shí)”地承認(rèn)將合約號(hào)碼搞錯(cuò)，開證行也會(huì)“誠(chéng)實(shí)”地認(rèn)為所開出信用證的合約號(hào)碼確有不符。但是，實(shí)際業(yè)務(wù)運(yùn)作是對(duì)方抓住跟單信用證統(tǒng)一慣

6、例的規(guī)定，堅(jiān)持予以拒付，并收取了賠付利息6 000余美元。一字之差所造成的6 000多美元損失證明，對(duì)待跟單信用證統(tǒng)一慣例有關(guān)單據(jù)方面的規(guī)定，必須深刻理解其嚴(yán)肅性，才能避免被動(dòng)。訓(xùn)練案例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】在實(shí)踐中，應(yīng)使用嚴(yán)格相符標(biāo)準(zhǔn)還是實(shí)質(zhì)相符標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的問題，一直存在激烈的爭(zhēng)論，甚至存在完全相反的判例。關(guān)于實(shí)質(zhì)相符標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的討論，也是銀行界和法律界爭(zhēng)論最多的問題之一。在采用嚴(yán)格相符標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的同時(shí)，各國(guó)司法系統(tǒng)又不可避免地采用一些比較靈活的態(tài)度，鏡像標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在很多國(guó)家也已被

10、放寬，一些純粹是打印上的錯(cuò)誤已被多數(shù)國(guó)家的司法機(jī)構(gòu)接受。在國(guó)際慣例方面，UCP600審單標(biāo)準(zhǔn)已經(jīng)擺脫了“機(jī)械、刻板”的規(guī)定，放棄了過去強(qiáng)調(diào)的單據(jù)之間以及單證之間完全相符的“鏡像”原則;相反，強(qiáng)調(diào)只要單證的內(nèi)容“不矛盾”或者“不沖突”即可確定單證相符，從而最大限度地杜絕信用證當(dāng)事人因?yàn)榛A(chǔ)交易的糾紛轉(zhuǎn)而以所謂單據(jù)存在不符點(diǎn)為由拒絕承兌或付款的情況隨意發(fā)生。過去銀行根據(jù)所謂“嚴(yán)格相符”的原則大量退單，UCP600相對(duì)更為寬松的審單原則使得銀行在具體業(yè)務(wù)審單時(shí)，更靈活地處理單證、單據(jù)，既體現(xiàn)了保持信用證的高效性、低成本性和迅速性，又顯示了公平性和信譽(yù)度，對(duì)信用證業(yè)務(wù)的開展無疑是有利的。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】本例中的信用證帶有軟條款的性質(zhì)，表現(xiàn)為信用證開出后并不生效，要待開證行另行通知或修改后方可生效。比較典型的帶有未生效條款的軟條款信用證通?？梢杂脦讉€(gè)“不”字來概括：開證行不通知生效、不發(fā)修改書，開證人不出具證書或收據(jù)、不來驗(yàn)貨、不通知船公司船名等，并常常伴有要求出口商提前支付5甚至更高履約金的字樣，其中有不少是在信用證外合同中早就規(guī)定好了的。 因?yàn)樾庞米C不生

16、效，即無法出運(yùn)貨物，而一旦這期間貨物的國(guó)際市場(chǎng)價(jià)格下跌或有其他對(duì)申請(qǐng)人（進(jìn)口商）不利的因素，申請(qǐng)人就會(huì)趁機(jī)拒發(fā)裝運(yùn)通知使信用證無法生效，從而最終使受益人不能及時(shí)提交完整的出口單據(jù)給議付行寄單索匯，也使開證行自行免除跟單信用證項(xiàng)下的付款責(zé)任。而期間那些5甚至更高的履約金及傭金早已進(jìn)入中介人或開證申請(qǐng)人的腰包，一走了之。此時(shí)，作為出口公司則既遭受了損失，又吃了啞巴虧。訓(xùn)練案例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）支付質(zhì)量保證金的做法，不符合國(guó)際貿(mào)易慣例。如果買方對(duì)賣方能否履約沒有把握，可要求賣方開立履約保函，賣方不應(yīng)向買方交質(zhì)保金，更不應(yīng)該匯款給以個(gè)人名義為收款人的中間人，造成匯款無法收回的后果。 （2）此案中銀行與外貿(mào)公司的利益糾紛是由詐騙引起的。銀貿(mào)雙方對(duì)簿公堂，而詐騙分子卻逍遙法外。外貿(mào)公司應(yīng)向公安機(jī)關(guān)報(bào)告，嚴(yán)懲詐騙分子。同時(shí)，銀貿(mào)雙方都應(yīng)增強(qiáng)防范意識(shí)，提高防詐騙能力。此案的詐騙手法有以下特點(diǎn)： 第一，開立帶有軟條款的開證行付款信用證，不把簽字樣本寄給通知行轉(zhuǎn)交受益人，即使申請(qǐng)人在檢驗(yàn)證上

28、簽了字，其簽字與其在開證行留存的簽字樣本也不會(huì)一致。 第二，貨價(jià)高出國(guó)際市場(chǎng)價(jià)格，引誘賣方上當(dāng)。此案中的編織袋每條1 022 美元，而當(dāng)時(shí)國(guó)際市場(chǎng)價(jià)格只有1 008 美元。第三，合同金額較大。此案中的合同金額為220萬美元，此證金額是合同金額的1/10。第四，開證人不是簽約人，此案中的簽約人是中國(guó)香港某公司，此公司根本不存在，經(jīng)過多次轉(zhuǎn)手，開證行不了解業(yè)務(wù)背景，開出了軟條款信用證。 第五，價(jià)格條款為FOB，買方根本不會(huì)派船裝貨。 第六，貨物通常是較易生產(chǎn)的商品，如編織袋、紙制或木制包裝箱等。（3）對(duì)有此類軟條款的信用證，銀行原則上不宜做押匯和打包放款業(yè)務(wù)；如果要做，應(yīng)對(duì)交易情況、買賣雙方資信進(jìn)

29、行全面了解、審查。（4）作為開證行應(yīng)盡量勸阻申請(qǐng)人開立軟條款信用證。對(duì)開立軟條款信用證，應(yīng)進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格審查，以避免詐騙分子利用軟條款進(jìn)行詐騙。申請(qǐng)人的簽字樣本應(yīng)寄給通知行，以便議付行、受益人核對(duì)。（5）此案中，開證行開立的是開證行付款信用證，出口方銀行對(duì)開證行來講只是交單行，不是議付行。對(duì)這種信用證，出口方的銀行也可以根據(jù)受益人的要求，做議付即期押匯，這種議付只是出口方銀行與受益人之間的事，與開證行無關(guān)。（6）出口商在與國(guó)外商人簽訂出口合同時(shí)，對(duì)不了解的進(jìn)口商應(yīng)通過銀行進(jìn)行資信調(diào)查，而不應(yīng)僅憑能否開來信用證決定是否組織生產(chǎn)和發(fā)貨。訓(xùn)練案例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，開證申請(qǐng)人授權(quán)簽發(fā)檢驗(yàn)證這一條款，不僅違反了有關(guān)進(jìn)出口商品檢驗(yàn)需由一個(gè)獨(dú)立貿(mào)易關(guān)系人之外的第三者，一個(gè)有資格、有權(quán)威性的檢驗(yàn)專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)來執(zhí)行的慣例，而且也違背了UCP600規(guī)定：“在信用證業(yè)務(wù)中，各有關(guān)當(dāng)事人處理的是單據(jù)，而不是與單據(jù)有關(guān)的貨物服務(wù)或其他行為。”因此，外國(guó)D公司的做法違背了國(guó)際慣例。 我國(guó)銀行工作人員在通知受益人時(shí)，已經(jīng)指出了該信用證中的軟條款，我國(guó)公司還是接受了這種綿里藏針的“軟條款”，這會(huì)使出口商承擔(dān)很大的收匯風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。在實(shí)務(wù)中如果要求簽字式樣須與開證行的留樣相符，進(jìn)口商可以在開證行留張

40、三的印鑒而派李四去簽單。這樣，如果行情看漲時(shí)他可以簽發(fā)檢驗(yàn)證，而到付款時(shí)萬一行情下跌，可以利用“印鑒不符”拒付。我國(guó)的公司盲目接受“軟條款”信用證，造成收匯的困難。此案例反映的另一個(gè)問題是銀行業(yè)務(wù)人員的警惕性不高。從該筆信用證本身的兩次議付看，頗有可疑之處。這其中有三個(gè)時(shí)間、三個(gè)金額的比較：收到信用證的時(shí)間為2015年12月25日, 金額為USD134 400; 第一次議付時(shí)間為2016年1月29日，金額為USD26 880；第二次議付時(shí)間為2016年2月5日，金額為USD107,520。假如說該公司從收到信用證開始備貨，那么出第一批貨用了近35天，而短短的6天后，又備齊了整整4倍于第一批的貨

41、，而時(shí)間僅用了1/6，難道這不奇怪嗎？由此，貨物存在質(zhì)量和短裝問題也就不奇怪了。同時(shí)，銀行對(duì)客戶銀行的資信、生產(chǎn)能力了解不夠。銀行在處理糾紛過程中了解到，該公司確實(shí)存在著一定欺詐現(xiàn)象。首先，貨物質(zhì)量存在問題；其次，貨物短裝，雖未超過UCP600規(guī)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，卻未相應(yīng)減少貨款，而是依照信用證金額足額索匯；最后，公司不配合銀行工作，迫于無奈方說出事情真相。銀行給客戶做出口押匯，要對(duì)客戶的資信有充分了解，落實(shí)還款保障。從本案例看，銀行業(yè)務(wù)人員忽略了這根本的一點(diǎn)。第3章引例【分析】信用證的內(nèi)容與售貨合同不符之處有：(1)合同規(guī)定允許轉(zhuǎn)運(yùn)，而信用證卻規(guī)定NOT ALLOWED，應(yīng)改為ALLOWED。(2)保

42、險(xiǎn)條款有誤，合同規(guī)定INSURANCE TO BE EFFECTED BY SELLER FOR 110% of CIF INVOICE VALUE COVERING ALL RISKS ONLY AS PER CHINA INSURANCE CLAUSE；而信用證卻規(guī)定為INSURANCE POLICY IN DUPLICATE FOR 120% of INVOICE VALUE COVERING ALL RISKS AND WAR RISK SUBJECT TO CIC DATED JAN 1ST, 1981。信用證保險(xiǎn)條款應(yīng)修改。訓(xùn)練案例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】本案開證行提出的不符點(diǎn)是否成立，可做如下分析：1. 關(guān)于發(fā)票的不符點(diǎn)UCP600規(guī)定：“商業(yè)發(fā)票中的貨物描述必須與信用證中的描述一致。其他一切單據(jù)則可對(duì)貨物的描述使用統(tǒng)稱，但不得與L/C中貨物的描述有抵觸。”國(guó)際商務(wù)ISBP進(jìn)一步規(guī)定：“發(fā)票中的貨物描述必須與信用證一致，但并不要求如同鏡子反射那樣一致。例如貨物細(xì)節(jié)可在發(fā)票中的若干地方不同，當(dāng)合在一起時(shí)與規(guī)定一致即可。”由此可見，UCP對(duì)發(fā)票的貨物描述是有嚴(yán)格規(guī)定的，漏打“AS PER PROFORMA”確實(shí)構(gòu)成不符點(diǎn)。2. 關(guān)于原產(chǎn)地證書的收貨人由于L/C只對(duì)原產(chǎn)地證書的出證人有要求，此外并未規(guī)定其他所需內(nèi)

58、容。根據(jù)UCP規(guī)定“在信用證沒有規(guī)定的情況下，只要提交的單據(jù)項(xiàng)目?jī)?nèi)容與其他任何規(guī)定的單據(jù)不矛盾，銀行將接受此類單據(jù)”，本案中原產(chǎn)地證書中收貨人顯示的是開證申請(qǐng)人，而提單中的收貨人顯示的是憑開證行指示，似乎構(gòu)成了不符點(diǎn)。但是根據(jù)國(guó)際商會(huì)規(guī)定：“收貨人的信息，如果顯示，則不得與運(yùn)輸單據(jù)中的收貨人信息相矛盾。但是，如果信用證要求運(yùn)輸單據(jù)做作成憑指示、憑托運(yùn)人指示、憑開證行指示或貨發(fā)開證行式的抬頭，則原產(chǎn)地證書顯示的申請(qǐng)人或具名的另外一人作為收貨人，也可以接受。如果L/C已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)讓，那么以第一受益人作為收貨人也可以接受。”顯而易見，此不符點(diǎn)不能成立。3.關(guān)于提單簽署本案中提單是由船代代表簽章。根據(jù)國(guó)際商

59、會(huì)ISBP規(guī)定：“如果由代理人代表船長(zhǎng)（或船東）簽署，則必須表明其代理人身份，且必須注明被代理的船長(zhǎng)（或船東）姓名?！庇纱丝梢姡瑹o論是海運(yùn)提單還是租船合約提單，如果是代理人代表船長(zhǎng)簽章的，則必須顯示船長(zhǎng)姓名，漏打船長(zhǎng)姓名確實(shí)構(gòu)成不符點(diǎn)。簽署欄可以顯示如下：AS AGENT FOR THE MASTER CAPT. （船長(zhǎng)名）MASTER OF M.V. (船名）（代理人簽字蓋章）4. 關(guān)于拼寫錯(cuò)誤雖然國(guó)際商會(huì)在UCP600中對(duì)此沒有明確規(guī)定，但是在國(guó)際商會(huì)ISBP中明確規(guī)定：“如果拼寫/打印錯(cuò)誤并不影響單詞或其所在句子的含義，則不構(gòu)成不符。”例如在貨物描述中，MASHINE表示MACHINE,

60、 用FOUNTN PEN 表示FOUNTAIN PEN 鋼筆或用MODLE 表示MODEL型號(hào)都不會(huì)導(dǎo)致單據(jù)不符。因此，本案中CERTIFY被打?yàn)镃ITIFY也不應(yīng)視為不符點(diǎn)。5. 關(guān)于裝船通知已傳真的證據(jù) UCP規(guī)定：“如果信用證中列有一些條件，但并未列明應(yīng)予提交滿足該條件的單據(jù)，銀行將認(rèn)為為未列明這些條件，且對(duì)此不予理會(huì)?！北景钢?，銀行的意思是要受益人提交一份傳真機(jī)打出的“ACTIVITY REPORT”（也稱TRANSMISSION REPORT）來證明“裝運(yùn)通知”確實(shí)已經(jīng)傳真，但是由于其并未列明，因此，此不符點(diǎn)不能成立。 從本案中不難看出，作為一名合格的單證人員，除了在審證制單時(shí)做到認(rèn)