請問何種情況下客戶會要求由TT改開LC? - 國貿工作討論
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/535d7/535d70b61695b796f8125d1d1119ff9f22688c2f" alt="Delia avatar"
By Delia
at 2008-10-19T13:06
at 2008-10-19T13:06
Table of Contents
最近,一個合作多年原本付款條件是TT 30天的法國客戶主動要求想改做LC
詢問我司的意見,雖然已經回覆可以做LC,但就是想不透為啥該客戶會要求做LC,
版上各位大大有人知道原因嗎?
客人給的草稿LC:
1. LC的票期也是30天
2. Consignee同做TT時一樣是秀法國客人
3. 正本Invoice、Packing list 及 全套正本提單快遞到法國
(做TT時提單是做電放,整套文件快遞到法國)
4. 押匯文件:copy Invoice + copy BL
就我的認知來說,這份LC對我司並沒增加任何保障,反而銀行費用會增加
(前提:一定會有瑕疵下)會多了瑕疵費用及押匯托收費用,不知這樣對不對?
如何開對我司比較有保障? (下方 2 或 1+2 嗎?)
1. Consignee:to order of XXX bank 對我司會比較有保障嗎?
2. "全套"正本提單送銀行押匯
另外,因為該客戶有透過貿易商,貿易商告訴我押匯是用copy的文件
銀行不會抓瑕疵,這是真的嗎? (跟我的認知不同)
PS:客戶開的LC是直接對我司,出貨文件也是我司直接給客戶
客戶直接付款給我司,貿易商再跟我司算佣金費用
--
Tags:
國貿
All Comments
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f13ec/f13ecbe3f1d4c518b8e4296aac798ce31c9754d3" alt="Doris avatar"
By Doris
at 2008-10-20T13:48
at 2008-10-20T13:48
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3878b/3878b3c13070f138dc791cb08f0942b142ad93bd" alt="Isabella avatar"
By Isabella
at 2008-10-21T14:31
at 2008-10-21T14:31
Related Posts
產証上的公司名稱
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf1e7/bf1e721890dbb1d7129370e2c09f45a041885746" alt="Enid avatar"
By Enid
at 2008-10-19T01:39
at 2008-10-19T01:39
產証上的公司名稱
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/828c5/828c518b5be7450169c1b6291b44b3f76565d887" alt="Mary avatar"
By Mary
at 2008-10-18T20:25
at 2008-10-18T20:25
綜合下最近的問題
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68b12/68b126aff41d450248f8487746644f9db7cc3c94" alt="Frederic avatar"
By Frederic
at 2008-10-18T14:26
at 2008-10-18T14:26
綜合下最近的問題
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0e44/a0e446f0ea6268ff35877dc0ef9e5277c5e9e16f" alt="Genevieve avatar"
By Genevieve
at 2008-10-17T21:20
at 2008-10-17T21:20
報價問題
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/89f80/89f80945188a514f7f619a9a0048ae3aef0e6306" alt="Odelette avatar"
By Odelette
at 2008-10-17T19:29
at 2008-10-17T19:29