Page 94 - 進出口貿易與押匯實務疑難問題解析-首篇 (增修訂二版)

78 進出口貿易與押匯實務疑難問題解析 (首篇)

The group of experts has studied the Request for a DOCDEX-decision received
from the Initiator and the Answer received from the Respondent regarding a dispute

over documents presented by the Initiator to the Respondent under three letters of
credit, subject to the UCP500, issued by the Respondent.

The group of experts has made their unanimous decision based on the Request
and the Answer themselves, copies of the three letters of credit in question, copies of

the documents in dispute and on copies of the correspondence between Initiator and
Respondent regarding the case.

Decision on Case (結論)
According to UCP sub-Article 37 (c) the description of the goods in the

commercial invoice must correspond with the description in the credit. According to

official ICC Opinions there is no requirement for a mirror image. That is further
confirmed by paragraph 62 of the ISBP, ICC Publ. 645. In the view of the experts it
is not standard banking practice not to accept invoices on the ground that some extra

information, like in the present case, has been added to the merchandise description

as tasted in the credits. This view is in line with ICC Opinion R.456from May 2000.
Therefore, the group of expert’s decision is that the documents are not

discrepant.
意譯：

根據 UCP600 第 37 條 c 款規定，商業發票上之貨品名稱敘述必須與信用
狀所述相符合，但 ICC 正式所發表之意見則並不要求兩者之間一字不差。

ISBP 第 62 項 (註 2) 以及 ICC 第 645 號出版物也進一步確認了此點。專家的
意見是銀行實務業務並不會拒絕商業發票上之品名多加上信用狀所沒有的敘

述，此意見已列入 2000 年 5 月 ICC 第 456 號出版物中。