Fortis Bank SA/NV and another v Indian Overseas Bank [2011] EWCA Civ 58, [2011] All ER (D) 233 (Jan)
As a matter of construction, Art 16(c) of the Uniform Customs Practice of Documentary Credits 600 had to be read as expressing an obligation that the issuing bank would act in accordance with the notice. Accordingly, where a bank had elected to return the documents, it was required to return the documents with reasonable promptness.
It was fundamental to the operation of letters of credit that, when the issuing bank determined that the documents did not conform, it might reject them. If it did, then it could not be entitled to retain the documents, as it was implicit in rejection that it had refused to accept them. It had to either hold them at the disposal of, or in accordance with, the instructions of the presenter or return them. Therefore, once the issuing bank had rejected the documents, it could not do anything else but act in accordance with its chosen option.
Thus, it was not necessary to spell out in the sub-article the issuing bank’s obligation to act
