【案例主題】

備用信用狀要求受益人銀行證實簽字，能否以面函或SWIFT替代

【案例概要】

一份適用UCP600的備用信用狀要求受益人提交受益人聲明、未付發票與運輸證明，並加註：單據A與B必須附有受益人往來銀行對簽字人具授權的確認。通知行在交單面函做了確認，另以MT799加押訊息再次確認。但開證行以MT734拒付，稱單據A、B未依備用信用狀要求由受益人銀行副簽。爭點在於：信用狀要求的「confirmation」是否必須出現在A、B文件本身，能否以面函或獨立SWIFT訊息取代；以及開證行在拒付通知中對單據處置表述不符規定時，是否喪失主張不符的權利。

【案情介紹】

關於：ISBP681第8段，UCP600第16條c款和第16條f款。

背景：

備用信用證要求單據：

A. Beneficiary's signed certificate stating that company X （the applicant） has failed to fulfil its payment obligations in respect of the supply of windows and doors;

B. Copy of unpaid invoice(s) signed by the beneficiary; and

C. Copy of transport document evidencing dispatch of goods.

附加條件：

“Documents A and B must bear the confirmation of the beneficiary's bankers that signatories thereon are authorised to sign.”

交單時作法：

通知行在交單面函上做了上述確認，並單獨發送一份MT799電報確認單據A和B上的簽字為授權簽字。

開證行以 MT734 拒付，不符點：

“Documents A and B, beneficiary statement and copy invoices have not been countersigned by beneficiary bank as per SBLC requirements.”

並在第77B場表明：

“We have referred to the applicant for their instructions.”

完整問題：