Page 86 - 信用狀交易糾紛解析暨最新案例研討
P. 86
76
(但以受益人無法在信用狀有效期間內更正瑕疵為條件，亦即瑕疵之主張成
立)。
倘單據隨後依據提示人 (受益人或其往來銀行) 之指示再寄送開狀銀行請
求確認，且瑕疵已被開狀銀行接受，然保兌銀行仍無義務付款，除非其於拒
付通知上表明此等付款之意願，對保兌銀行提示瑕疵單據，將終止信用狀項
下保兌銀行之義務，除非信用狀另有規定；至於開狀銀行接受瑕疵之事實，
亦不恢復保兌銀行之義務。
“…Where documents are presented to the confirming bank, within the
validity of their undertaking, and found to be discrepant, and the confirming bank
provides a notice of refusal in accordance with the UCP, its undertaking would
no longer exist in respect of that presentation---.
If the documents are subsequently, on instructions of the beneficiary, sent to
the issuing bank on an approval basis and the discrepancies are waived, the
confirming bank has no obligation to make payment unless it has indicated its
9
willingness to do so at the time of providing its notice of refusal.---”
註：依據本問題之決議，保兌銀行對不符合之提示，已依 UCP 之規定主張拒付，則
其保兌義務終止，縱開狀銀行隨後接受單據亦然。因此受益人應注意，在要求信
用狀加保兌前，先衡量未來能否為符合之提示，如無法做成，則宜尋求其他出口
保險措施，以免白繳保兌費；另對於保兌銀行藉拒付以規避其保兌義務，亦應評
估其拒付主張之合理性，據理抗辯。
9 ICC Banking Commission Unpublished Opinions 1995-2004, ICC Banking Commission
Opinion no.R.520(TA543REV2), ICC Publication No.660, p.95-96
