Page 184 - 信用狀交易糾紛解析-信用狀理論及UCP在信用狀作業之應用

信用狀交易糾紛解析

( 前述 ) 此種狀況，並不 構成 拒付之理由或要求須經確認， 反
之，提單之 增 加處， 諸 如：裝運港、 船 名、 貨物 之 描 述等，將

發生 與 銀行相關之要項，因此，對此等 資料 ( 之變 更 或 更 改處 )
要求須經確認，應 屬 合理；以不同字型或字 號 事 先 印 妥 之單

據，對此不同字型或字
遺憾 的，對此問題並無明確之 號 並不 構成 拒付之理由。 案，其 答 案須視提示單據
答
之內容及 格式 而定。

“Paragraph 11 of ISBP does not specifically state that a
document completed in differen t type styles, font sizes or

handwriting will automatically
that the occurrence of such an
quite specific in that it indicates be acceptable. The wording is
event does not by itself signif y a correction or alteration. The

acceptance of a document issued
to the type and manner of the in such a way would be subject
added data. For example, in a
beneficiary-issued document, such occurrences would not
constitute reason for refusal or a request for authentication.
However, additions to a bill of lading — such as the ports of

loading, vessel, goods description, etc. — should give cause for
concern to a bank, and it wo uld be justified in seeking

authentication of this data. Use of different font sizes or styles
within a document that has been printed with such differing font

174