Letter of credit discrepancy examples: 10 worked cases with the actual document text

Not another abstract list. Each example shows the credit's field, the document's exact wording, the verdict under UCP 600 / ISBP 821, and whether it can be fixed before presentation.

Search for "LC discrepancy examples" and you will find the same list everywhere: late shipment, expired credit, description differs, inconsistent documents. True, and almost useless. A discrepancy is never an abstraction — it is a specific line of text on a specific document that fails against a specific line of the credit. Until you have seen the two lines side by side, "description of goods differs from the credit" tells you nothing about whether your invoice will pass.

Document examiners work exactly that way: field 45A of the credit on one side of the desk, your invoice on the other, comparing text against text under UCP 600 and ISBP 821. So this guide does the same. Below are ten worked examples — the most common refusal grounds in commercial LC practice — each showing what the credit required, what the presented document actually said, the verdict with the governing rule, and the fix.

One note before the gallery: every document extract here is illustrative. The company names — Meridian Textiles Ltd, Nordhaven Trading GmbH and the rest — are invented, and the wording is typical of real presentations without reproducing any real one.

The example gallery

Example 1 — Goods description on the invoice conflicts with the credit

The single most-quoted refusal ground: "description of goods differs from L/C".
What the LC required (field 45A)
45A: 100% COTTON MENS T-SHIRTS, 160 GSM, CIF HAMBURG INCOTERMS 2020
What the commercial invoice said
DESCRIPTION: MENS T-SHIRTS, COTTON/POLYESTER 90/10, 160 GSM
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 18(c)

Article 18(c) requires the invoice's goods description to correspond with the credit's. "Cotton/polyester 90/10" does not merely rephrase "100% cotton" — it describes different goods, so the data conflict is unarguable. Contrast the harmless version:

Same invoice, different wording — not a discrepancy
DESCRIPTION: 100 PCT COTTON MENS T-SHIRTS, 160 GSM, CIF HAMBURG INCOTERMS 2020
COMPLIANT ISBP 821, para. A21

ISBP 821 accepts generally accepted abbreviations that do not change meaning — "PCT" for "%", "Ltd" for "Limited", "Int'l" for "International". Abbreviation is tolerated; substitution is not.

The fix: reissue the invoice reproducing field 45A verbatim — it is your own document and costs nothing to reprint. If the goods genuinely differ from 45A, the paper cannot fix that: seek an amendment before shipment.

Example 2 — Late shipment: on-board date after the latest shipment date

The bill of lading's on-board date is the date of shipment, whatever the issue date says.
What the LC required (field 44C)
44C: LATEST DATE OF SHIPMENT: 260615
What the bill of lading said
SHIPPED ON BOARD MV NORTHERN CREST DATE: 18 JUNE 2026 PORT OF LOADING: KARACHI
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 20(a)(ii); field 44C

Under Article 20(a)(ii) the on-board date is the date of shipment. 18 June is after the 15 June deadline: "late shipment". Note the trap in reverse — a B/L issued 18 June with an on-board notation dated 14 June is fine, because the notation controls.

The fix: none on the documents — the on-board date is a fact, and retyping it is fraud, not correction. Before shipment: get field 44C amended. After shipment: present anyway and ask the applicant to waive (UCP 600 Art. 16(b) lets the issuing bank approach the applicant), knowing waiver is the applicant's choice, not your right.

Example 3 — Credit expired before presentation

Expiry kills the presentation regardless of every other date being perfect.
What the LC required (field 31D)
31D: DATE AND PLACE OF EXPIRY: 260630 KARACHI
What happened
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AT COUNTERS OF PRESENTING BANK, KARACHI: 02 JULY 2026
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 6(d)

Article 6(d)(i): a credit must state an expiry date for presentation, and a presentation after it is "credit expired" — one of the few discrepancies with no argument on either side. The only relief is Article 29(a): if 30 June fell on a day the bank was closed, expiry rolls to the next banking day.

The fix: none after the date has passed. Before it passes: request an extension amendment the moment you see the timeline compressing — carriers, chambers and insurers all issue paper slower than exporters plan for. Diarise expiry the day the credit arrives, not the week the vessel sails.

Example 4 — Presentation outside the 21-day rule

The credit had weeks left to run. The presentation was still late.
What the rules required
UCP 600 ART. 14(c): PRESENTATION INCLUDING AN ORIGINAL TRANSPORT DOCUMENT — NOT LATER THAN 21 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SHIPMENT B/L ON-BOARD DATE: 01 JUNE 2026 → LAST DAY: 22 JUNE 2026
What happened
DOCUMENTS PRESENTED: 25 JUNE 2026 (CREDIT EXPIRY 31D: 260731 — STILL VALID)
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 14(c)

"Late presentation" is independent of expiry: Article 14(c) runs 21 calendar days from shipment even when the credit itself has weeks left. And check field 48 first — credits frequently shorten the period to 15 or 10 days, which overrides the default.

The fix: none once the window closes — only applicant waiver. Prevention is scheduling: the day the goods ship, count 21 days (or the field 48 period), subtract courier time and document turnaround, and set the internal presentation deadline a week earlier than the rule's.

Example 5 — Invoice amount exceeds the credit, no tolerance stated

A quantity tolerance never stretches the money.
What the LC required (fields 32B / 39A)
32B: CURRENCY CODE, AMOUNT: USD 84,000.00 39A: PERCENTAGE CREDIT AMOUNT TOLERANCE: (ABSENT)
What the commercial invoice said
TOTAL CIF HAMBURG: USD 86,240.00 DRAWING UNDER DC NO. NHB-4471: USD 86,240.00
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 18(b); Art. 30(b)

The drawing overdraws the credit by USD 2,240. Article 30(b) does allow a ±5% quantity variance where quantity is not stated in packing units — but expressly "provided ... the total amount of the drawings does not exceed the amount of the credit". Money has no default tolerance unless field 39A grants one or the amount is qualified "about" (Art. 30(a), ±10%). Under Article 18(b) a bank may accept an invoice exceeding the credit if it honours no more than the credit permits — a discretion, never a plan.

The fix: before presentation, yes — restrict the drawing to USD 84,000 and settle the balance outside the credit as agreed with the buyer, or request an amendment increasing field 32B. Never round the invoice down below the goods' true value to squeeze under the cap.

Would your set survive this examination?

These ten cases are the common ones — an examiner checks dozens more points across your documents. Run your full set through an automated UCP 600 / ISBP 821 check: $25, plain-English report in ~10 minutes. Rules-grounded review, never a guarantee of acceptance.

Run a document check
Pay per check · no subscription · re-run free after you fix issues

Example 6 — No "freight prepaid" notation under a CFR sale

The trade term in the credit reaches into the bill of lading's freight box.
What the LC required (field 45A)
45A: POLISHED GRANITE SLABS, GRADE A, CFR SINGAPORE INCOTERMS 2020
What the bill of lading said
FREIGHT: COLLECT
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 14(d); ISBP 821 transport-document practice

Under CFR the seller pays the freight, so a B/L marked "freight collect" states data that conflicts with the credit — Article 14(d)'s "must not conflict" test. Standard banking practice expects the transport document to be consistent with the freight-payment side of the stated trade term; where the credit's term is C&F/CFR or CIF, examiners look for "freight prepaid" or equivalent.

The fix: yes — once freight is actually paid, the carrier or its agent adds a "FREIGHT PREPAID" notation or reissues the B/L. Ask at booking, not after the original set has been couriered to you.

Example 7 — Certificate of origin consignee conflicts with the bill of lading

Inconsistent data between documents — the classic Article 14(d) case.
What the bill of lading said (matching the credit)
CONSIGNEE: TO ORDER OF NORDHAVEN BANK AG, HAMBURG NOTIFY: NORDHAVEN TRADING GMBH, HAMBURG
What the certificate of origin said
CONSIGNEE: BALTICA IMPORTS OY, HELSINKI
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 14(d); ISBP 821 certificate-of-origin practice

Baltica Imports appears nowhere in the credit or the rest of the set — data on one stipulated document conflicting with another. The nuance exporters miss: where the transport document is consigned "to order" or to the order of a bank, standard practice accepts a certificate of origin naming the applicant (here, Nordhaven Trading) as consignee. Naming the applicant is fine; naming a stranger is a conflict.

The fix: yes — have the chamber reissue or correct the certificate before presentation. This error usually enters through a freight forwarder's template carrying a consignee from someone else's shipment; check the certificate the day it arrives.

Example 8 — Insurance document dated after shipment

Cover that begins after the goods are on the water is cover with a gap.
What the bill of lading said
SHIPPED ON BOARD: 10 JUNE 2026
What the insurance certificate said
CRESCENT MARINE INSURANCE CO. CERTIFICATE NO. CM-88412 DATE OF ISSUE: 12 JUNE 2026 (NO EFFECTIVE-DATE CLAUSE SHOWN)
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 28(e)

Article 28(e): the insurance document must be dated no later than the date of shipment — unless it shows on its face that cover is effective from a date no later than shipment. Issued 12 June against a 10 June on-board date, with no retroactive wording, this fails.

The fix: yes, if cover truly ran from shipment — the insurer adds wording such as "cover effective from 10 June 2026" or reissues under an open policy showing attachment from the shipment date. If cover genuinely began on 12 June, the goods sailed uninsured for two days and no wording should paper over it.

Example 9 — Insurance cover below 110% of the CIF value

The credit was silent on percentage. Silence has a number.
What the LC required
46A: ... INSURANCE POLICY OR CERTIFICATE IN 2 ORIGINALS, COVERING INSTITUTE CARGO CLAUSES (A) (NO PERCENTAGE OF COVER STATED) INVOICE CIF VALUE: USD 55,000.00
What the insurance certificate said
SUM INSURED: USD 57,750.00 (105% OF CIF VALUE)
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 28(f)(ii)

Where the credit gives no indication of required cover, Article 28(f)(ii) sets the floor at 110% of the CIF or CIP value — here USD 60,500. A 105% certificate is USD 2,750 short: "insufficient insurance cover". The document must also be in the credit's currency (Art. 28(f)(i)).

The fix: yes — an endorsement from the insurer increasing the sum insured to at least USD 60,500, issued before you present. Standing instruction worth giving your insurer: every LC shipment at 110% of CIF unless the credit says more.

Example 10 — A copy presented where the credit required an original

"Original" is a term of art, and Article 17 defines who wins.
What the LC required (field 46A)
46A: ... CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS IN 1 ORIGINAL, ISSUED AND SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT LABORATORY
What was presented
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS — VERITON LABS PVT LTD [PLAIN PHOTOCOPY — SIGNATURE REPRODUCED, NO ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, STAMP OR MARK]
DISCREPANCY UCP 600 Art. 17

Article 17(a) requires at least one original of each stipulated document. Under Article 17(b) a bank treats as original a document bearing an apparently original signature, mark, stamp or label of the issuer, unless the document itself says otherwise — and 17(c) extends this to documents that appear written or typed by the issuer, on the issuer's letterhead, or stated to be original. A flat photocopy with a photocopied signature meets none of these. A copy freshly stamped and signed as true and correct, by contrast, can qualify.

The fix: yes — obtain the originally signed certificate, or have the issuer stamp and countersign the copy in original ink. Do this the day you assemble the set; a laboratory across a border is a slow place to send a courier during a presentation window.

All ten at a glance

DiscrepancyGoverning ruleFixable before presentation?
Goods description on invoice conflicts with creditUCP 600 Art. 18(c)Yes — reissue the invoice
Late shipment (on-board date after 44C)Art. 20(a)(ii); field 44CNo — amendment or waiver only
Credit expired before presentationArt. 6(d)No — extend before expiry or nothing
Presentation after 21-day periodArt. 14(c)No — prevention only
Invoice amount overdraws creditArt. 18(b); Art. 30(b)Yes — restrict drawing or amend
Missing "freight prepaid" under CFRArt. 14(d); ISBP 821Yes — carrier adds notation
Cert. of origin consignee conflicts with B/LArt. 14(d); ISBP 821Yes — chamber corrects certificate
Insurance dated after shipmentArt. 28(e)Yes — if cover truly ran from shipment
Insurance cover below 110% CIFArt. 28(f)(ii)Yes — insurer endorsement
Copy presented where original requiredArt. 17Yes — obtain the original

Read the pattern in the third column. Seven of the ten are curable paperwork problems — if you find them while the documents are still on your desk. The three that are not curable are all dates. Which points directly at how to spend your checking time.

The three habits that prevent most of these

1. Build a cross-document data matrix

Take one sheet. Down the side: every data point the credit fixes — parties, ports, goods description, marks, quantities, weights, currency, amounts, LC number. Across the top: credit, invoice, B/L, packing list, certificate of origin, insurance. Fill every cell from the documents themselves, not from memory, and read across each row for conflict. This is Article 14(d) turned into a table — it catches Examples 1, 6, 7 and every "inconsistent data" refusal in one pass. Remember the asymmetry: only the invoice must correspond with the credit's goods description (Art. 18(c)); other documents may use general terms so long as nothing conflicts (Art. 14(e)).

2. Draw the dates triangle before the vessel is booked

Latest shipment (44C), presentation period (Art. 14(c) or field 48), expiry (31D). The three interact: expiry overrides the 21 days, and the shipment date starts the clock. Work backwards from expiry, subtract real courier and issuance time, and treat the result as your true latest shipment date. The three incurable discrepancies in the table — Examples 2, 3 and 4 — all die here, weeks before any document exists.

3. Read 46A and 47A twice — once when the credit arrives, once with documents in hand

Field 46A lists the documents; field 47A holds the additional conditions where issuing banks hide the sharp edges — a shortened presentation period, a required legalization, a specific issuer for the certificate of origin, an insurance percentage above 110%. The first reading tells you what to order from carriers, chambers, labs and insurers. The second reading, set in hand, is where you catch that the credit said "2 originals" and the insurer sent one. Most "surprise" discrepancies were printed in the credit all along.

Ten examples down. Now check your actual documents.

Upload your credit and your document set and get every issue flagged with the UCP 600 / ISBP 821 rule it fails and what to correct — $25, report in ~10 minutes. A rules-grounded pre-check, never a guarantee of any bank's decision.

Run your document check
No subscription · re-run included free after fixes

All document extracts, company names and figures on this page are illustrative examples created for instruction; they do not depict any real firm, shipment or presentation. This guide is general information, not legal or financial advice, and does not predict or guarantee any bank's examination decision — always read your credit's own terms, which override the defaults described here. UCP 600 and ISBP 821 are ICC publications; OpenLC is not affiliated with or endorsed by the ICC. Incoterms® is a registered trademark of the ICC.