• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.433-456
• /
• 2012

The confirming bank undertakes to make payment to the beneficiary, provided that a complying presentation is made and complies with its confirmation. In case L/C fraud is evident, though, the confirming bank as well as the issuing bank does not have the obligation to make payment. That is, the confirming bank does not take the risks involving documentary fraud. The confirming bank cannot exercise the right to recourse toward the beneficiary or the nominated bank when the issuing bank finds the discrepancies which the confirming bank has not noticed. This is because under UCP600, the issuing bank or the confirming bank cannot refuse to make payment with the cause of documentary discrepancy after 5 banking days following the presentation of documents. Even if the issuing bank accepts the discrepant documents following the confirming bank's request to do so, the confirming bank does not have the responsibility for the confirmation. When under Usance Negotiation Credit, the confirming bank acts as the nominated bank, the confirming bank should make payment in no time if the beneficiary presents complying documents. Therefore, unless the confirming bank intends to make immediate payment, they should consider using Deferred Payment or Acceptance L/C in Usance Credit. It is also safer for the beneficiary to have the reimbursing bank's undertaking to the reimbursement than just have confirmation of the credit because in the latter case they may not have full payment due to disputes regarding discrepancies of the documents even if they have confirmation of the credit.

• Journal of Veterinary Clinics
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.369-375
• /
• 2003

The ultrasonography was performed in 77,924 subestrous dairy cows from 680 dairy farms at 57 districts. The cows were examined for confirmation of resumption of ovaries and uterus after 30 days postpartum, for early pregnancy diagnosis after 30 days post-insemination, confirmation of pregnancy at 8 month post-insemination, and for diagnosis of reproductive dysfunctions, respectively. The results of reproductive examination by ultrasonography in 77,924 dairy cows were ovarian disorders 35,452 (46.8%), uterine disorders 10,721 (13.8%), pregnancy and pregnant failure 24,044 (30.8%), adhesion of reproductive tracts 167 (0.2%), freematins 13 (0.01%) and others 6,527 (8.4%) cows, respectively. The 13,732 (49.6%) cows out of 27,694 cows were treated for silent heat or error of estrus detection, 3,473 (12.5%) cows for follicular cysts, 815 (3.0%) cows for luteal cysts, 606 (2.2%) cows for inactive ovaries, 4 (0.01%) cows for granulosa cell tumors, and 6,455 (23.3%) cows for endometritis, respectively. The indices of reproductive efficiencies before (2001-08-10) and after (2003-07-20) periodical examination of reproductive status were as follows; the mean intercalving interval were shortened from 471 days to 383 days, the mean interval calving to conception were shortened from 187 days to 99 days, the mean interval calving to first service were shortened from 105 days to 67 days, the mean cows showing heat by 60 days postpartum were increased from 33% to 89%, the mean conception rate to first service were increased from 43% to 68%, and the mean service per conception were shortened from 2.6 times to 1.8 times, respectively. These results suggest that periodical examination of reproductive status would be useful for the improvement of the reproductive performance in dairy cows.