In response to our call for “Dumber Discrepancies” in the November/December issue of DCW, the readers have responded. The best of the worst include:

• “The document X not as per contract terms”, cited by an Asian bank.  (The LC stated the document to be “as per the contract”. When the bank was questioned, no reply was given.)

• “Late presentation”, cited by a major Western European bank on documents under an LC available (and expiring) at our counters where our covering letter expressly confirmed timely presentation. 

• “CMR not as per LC terms”, cited by the same major Western European bank on the same credit where the CMR (an European-type road waybill) was strictly as per LC, but the format was a country-specific one which has a slightly different layout from the Western European-styled one. When clarification was sought, the bank informally said that they always refused CMRs if they look differently from what they are used to.

 Have a candidate for “Dumber Discrepancies”? Post it here in the comments!