【摘要】：受益人提交的單據(jù)中,原產(chǎn)地證上的FOB價(jià)與發(fā)票顯示的CIF價(jià)相等,開(kāi)證行以此為不符點(diǎn),拒付了受益人信用證項(xiàng)下款項(xiàng)。受益人不服并上訴,江蘇高院根據(jù)UCP600第14條d款推定CIF和FOB為不同類型的數(shù)據(jù),判決不符點(diǎn)不成立。論文從三個(gè)方面論質(zhì)疑了江蘇高院的結(jié)論,并結(jié)合本案對(duì)受益人、交單行和開(kāi)證行提出了相關(guān)建議。
[Abstract]:In the documents submitted by the beneficiary, the FOB price on the certificate of origin was equal to the CIF price shown in the invoice, and the issuing bank rejected the payment under the beneficiary's letter of credit as a discrepancy. The beneficiary refused to appeal and the Jiangsu Supreme Court presumed CIF and FOB to be different types of data according to section 14d of UCP600. The paper questions the conclusion of Jiangsu High Court from three aspects, and puts forward some suggestions on beneficiary, single bank and issuing bank.
【作者單位】： 江蘇工程職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院;
【分類號(hào)】：D996.1
，

本文編號(hào)：2357372