Page 59 - 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

第一章 信用狀與信用狀統一慣例

the Respondent is an obvious typo graphical error that does not
justify the rejection of the documents. Indeed, because the

amount four hundred forty seventy
considered as meaning four hundred forty seven, which does not exist, it should be

conforms to the amount in figu res and to the amount indicated
on the remaining documents pr esented under the documentary
credit. ”

2. 爰 用 UCP500 第 21 條 ，專家 小 組 一致之意見，以 產 地 證 明
之 手 簽簽 字 與 由受 益人 簽 發之其他 單據上 之 手 簽簽 字 不 同為

理 由 ， 拒 絕產 地 證 明 並 不合 理，與相對人之爭論相 反 ， 依據
信用狀 統 一 慣例 絕 第 13 並 條 a 理。 “In the application of UCP 單據 ) 間之 差 異 並 不 是 不
(
項，
單據
拒
不合
一致，以此
Article21, the experts are of the
certificate of origin might be
that the manual signature on the unanimous opinion that the fact
different from the manual signature appearing on other
documents produced by the bene ficiary does not justify the
rejection of the certificate of or igin. Contrary to the contention

of the Respondent, the difference between signatures is not an
inconsistency that would justify the rejection of the documents

in accordance with UCP sub-Article 13(a). ”

49