In this case, the letter of credit stipulated "third-class" jujube, and the invoice submitted by the beneficiary stated that the price of second-class jujube was charged according to the third-class goods.
That is, the documents submitted by the beneficiary are inconsistent with the description of the goods stipulated in the letter of credit. Therefore, it is justified for the issuing bank to refuse to pay on the grounds of "inconsistent documents", which is in line with the norms and practices of letter of credit operation.
Therefore, in this case, it is not that the issuing bank "refused to pay on the grounds of' inconsistent documents'", but that the issuing bank acted properly in accordance with the norms and practices of the letter of credit. It is no exaggeration for the applicant to lodge a claim with the exporter. On the contrary, the beneficiary did not deliver the goods according to the requirements of the contract and the letter of credit, and thought that it was no problem to ship the goods with "second-class goods" and indicate on the invoice that the price of second-class red dates was charged as third-class goods-this is because the beneficiary did not understand or misunderstand that the letter of credit is the essence of conditional payment commitment.
Therefore, this case should sum up the experience and lessons of beneficiary certification and truly understand the definition of letter of credit.
In fact, in practice, even if the goods are shipped as "second-class goods" and the price is charged as "third-class goods", then the invoice must be marked with "third-class red dates", that is, it must be consistent with the description of the goods in the letter of credit, so that this operation will not lead to the end of this case, and the beneficiary of this case will achieve the purpose of shipping with second-class red dates instead of third-class red dates and using this letter of credit to collect foreign exchange safely.