问题补充说明：An export company exported the goods as per the L/C issued by Milan Bank, London. The total price of the goods was US28,651,the port of destination was Monrovia. The clauses of L/C were stipulated as follows: “Either 3/3 original negotiable on board marine B/L to order &blank endorsed marked freight paid and notify K.P. & Sons. P.O. Box 1143.Monrovia, Liberia… Or Full set combined transport document evidencing goods addressed to K.P. & Sons. P.***.B***X 1143.Monrovia, Liberia…” After the shipment of the cargo on Oct 26, 2001, the company presented the full set original combined transport document in triplet, together with other required documents to the bank for negotiation. The combined transport document was issued by China Merchants Group. With K.P. &Sons as consignee but without notify party. Bank of China accepted the documents after examination. The issuing bank cabled the Bank of China on Nov 20 , refusing to make the payment. They pointed out the presented documents noted K.P &Sons as consignee but the notify party is void. However, the L/C requested a Blank B/L. Then, the bank of China and the export company checked the correspondent clauses and the file copy of transport document. Later the Bank of China cabled the issuing bank: “the shipping document we presented is a combined transport bill of lading furnished according to the second method provided in your L/C . Please make the payment as soon as possible.” The issuing bank answered in the subsequent cable: “in confirmation of our cable on Nov 20, this is to notify you that the combined transport document we requested should identify two or more than two transportation vehicles applied. The document from you only identities one kind of transportation method（port to port）.
这是一个信用证咋骗，在实际应用中也不少见。开证行给出种种理由拒付，不是真的因为单据有问题，而著南树才是买方不愿支付。这里首先360问答看出该银行的信誉度不高。
卖方认为买方开立信用证的日期晚了，是因为根据合同要求是在7月交货，实际货物是在10月交货，由此看出买方实际是在7月之后开立的信用证。但是，根据你给出的案例，没写明合同上是否有明文规定必须在几号前收到信用证？如果有写明，卖方可以根据此为由要求仲裁。
另外，案例也没说清楚一点，买方去开信用证时是否有向开证行提交此合同为参考开吗错才画财轮立？因为实际操作中不用合同（用PI）也是可以开立信用证的。如果买方没室怀有根据此合同开立的信用证，此合同和信用证就可以看成是独立的两票订单，不存在牵制意义，于是买方占理。如果块末企积培手求死的买方是根据此合同开迅象率并立的信用证，在合同和信用证并行的条件下，以信用证为准，所以依旧是买方占理。
在此案例可以看出，100%L/C存在一定风鱼否犯罪险，不易避免，建议：一，要求TT+L/C的操作方式，至少保证在买方不收货的前提下可以支付足够退运费用。二，要求国际知名银行做担保行，例如：渣打，汇丰，花旗。
后话：的兴革烈地略从确采纳最佳答案并给点悬赏分呗？？
标签：在线翻译
