Page 198 - A Banker Down the Rabbit Hole
P. 198

was mentioned "Sulphur-only traces found" in Certificate of Analysis of
           Quality.


           We had studied and had been taught in training as well as in the field
           operations that we had to strictly match the documents as per terms of
           LC and could not presume something like the 'traces of Sulphur' in the
           quality certificate to be upto 0.2% unless it is specified to be "0.2%" or
           less. I tried to check from various online resources whether "Traces" had
           been defined equivalent to some specific percentage range or some other
           equivalent. I could not find that. Moreover, while studying my 'M. Sc.-
           Chemistry' also I did not have any such learning.


           Going by what was considered above, I decided to point this as a
           discrepancy in the 'Certificate of Analysis of Quality' and hence
           documents not as per LC. I kept awake for major part of the night but
           was very satisfied on the result of my thorough checking of the LC
           documents. I was sure that there was some dispute between the buyer
           and seller resulting into such extra caution on part of the buyer, our
           customer. Had I not double checked the documents, the customer would
           have pointed this as a discrepancy and refused documents repudiating
           their liability for the amount paid by us to the negotiating bank through
           TT reimbursement as per LC.


           Now after one sleepless night, I was waiting eagerly to meet my
           colleagues for other round of consultations to confirm my view of the
           discrepancy. We met and discussed and unanimously agreed to point this
           out as a discrepancy in documents and inform the negotiating bank about
           the same. However, we advised the applicant of LC, our customer about
           the state of discrepancy found and requested them to decide to accept
           or reject the documents. They immediately conveyed the rejection and
           we in turn advised the Negotiating Bank in India, a very big bank in India
           within the stipulated period of seven working days from the day of receipt
           of documents that the documents were discrepant.



                                         A Banker down the Rabbit Hole | 195
   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203