The main legal point established in this judgment is that the refusal to honor a letter of credit can be wrongful if it is against the applicable laws and commercial sense. The court also clarified the interpretation of the phrase 'in duplicate' in the context of the applicable laws of Bangladesh.

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. The plaintiff sold Indian Parboiled Rice (non Basmati) to the Defendant No. 3. The payment was secured by an irrevocable letter of credit. The Defendant No. 3 caused an irrevocable documentary letter of credit dated December 28, 1998 for US$ 22,770/- to be opened by the Defendant No. 1 with the plaintiff being the beneficiary thereof. The letter of credit was advised to the plaintiff by the Defendant No. 2. The plaintiff exported the contracted goods to the Defendant No. 3. The Defendant No. 4 negotiated the letter of credit and presented the documents to the Defendant No. 1.

2. According to the plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 wrong fully dishonoured the letter of credit. Furthermore, according to the plaintiff the Defendant No. 5 wrong fully allowed the Defendant No. 3 to take delivery of the goods. The plaintiff did not receive payment in respect of the goods. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a decree for US dollars 22,770/-against the Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 jointly and severally to whether with interest.

3. The Defendant No. 1 filed written statement. In the written statement it was claimed by the Defendant No. 1 that, the letter of credit negotiated contained an express condition that, the original set of documents including the original radiation certificate issued by a Government approved reputed agency was required to be sent to the Defendant No. 1. According to the Defendant No. 1 the provisions of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 1993 Revision, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500 (UCP 500) were applicable to the letter of credit concerned. On a true construction of the provisions of the UCP 500, the plaintiff was bound and obliged to produce the original of the radiation certificate. The plaintiff not having done so the Defendant No. 1 rightly pointed out such discrepancy and refused to honour the letter of credit. The Defendant No. 1 informed the Defendant No. 4 by telex dated February 15, 1999 about such discrepancy. The validity of the letter of credit expired on March 2, 1999. The Defendant No. 4 by writing dated March 4, 1999 and March 20, 1999 informed the Defendant No. 1 that the Defendant No. 1 did not agree with the discrepancy noted by the Defendant No. 1. In reply the Defendant No. 1 intimated the Defendant No. 4 that the Defendant No. 3 being the importer of the goods did not come forward to accept the documents with discrepancy mentioned. The Defendant No. 1 informed that it would return the documents to the Defendant No. 4. It was claimed by the Defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 4 allowed the Defendant No. 3 to take delivery of the goods mentioned in the letter of credit without negotiation of the documents. In any event it was claimed that, the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 4 acquiesced to the delivery of the goods to the Defendant No. 3. The Defendant No. 1 denied its liability.

4. The plaintiff examined one witness. The plaintiff also produced various documents in support of its claim. The Defendant No. 1 contested the proceedings. No witness was examined on behalf of the Defendant No. 1.

5. On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended that the refusal of the Defendant No. 1 to honour the letter of credit on the ground of the alleged discrepancy was wrongful. The Defendant No. 1 was obliged to honour the letter of credit when the same was presented. There was no discrepancy between the terms and conditions of the letter of credit and the documents accompanying the letter of credit. The radiation certificate accompanying the letter of credit was of the radiation certificate of the goods. The original radiation certificate was submitted by the plaintiff to the Bangladesh Customs as was required by them for the entry of the goods into one this. The duplicate copy of the radiation certificate was supplied to the Defendant No. 1. The refusal on the part of the Defendant No. 1 was wrongful inasmuch as the let