>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Jiangbei Bank of China v. Fandong Agricultural Bank, et al (Dispute over Imprest under Letter of Credit)
江北中行与樊东农行等信用证垫款纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Jiangbei Bank of China v. Fandong Agricultural Bank, et al (Dispute over Imprest under Letter of Credit)
(Dispute over Imprest under Letter of Credit)
江北中行与樊东农行等信用证垫款纠纷案

Jiangbei Bank of China v. Fandong Agricultural Bank, et al
(Dispute over Imprest under Letter of Credit)@#
@#
@#
Administrative Judgment of the Supreme People's Court@#
@#
No. 21 (2005)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Plaintiff in the first instance): Bank of China, Jiangbei Sub-branch of Chongqing, domiciled at No. 66, Jianxin North Road, Jiangbei District, Chongqing City.@#
Person-in-charge: Li Guomo, president of the Sub-branch.@#
Authorized Agent: Gao Aiguo, lawyer of Beijing Bairui Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Defendant in the first instance): Agricultural Bank of China, Fandong Sub-branch of Xiangfan City, domiciled at No. 178, Chunyuan Road, Xiangfan City, Hubei Province.@#
Person-in-charge: Liu Hongdong, president of the Sub-branch.@#
Authorized Agent: Liu Ning, lawyer of Beijing Gongyuan Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Qiao Dong, lawyer of Beijing Gongyuan Law Firm.@#
Defendant in the first instance: Chongqing Yubei Foreign Trade Company, domiciled at No. 44, Lane 1, Yuhang Road, Yubei District, Chongqing City.@#
With regard to the case under the dispute between Bank of China, Jiangbei Sub-branch of Chongqing (hereinafter referred to as Jiangbei Bank of China), Agricultural Bank of China, Fandong Sub-branch of Xiangfan City (hereinafter referred to as Fandong Agricultural Bank), and Chongqing Yubei Foreign Trade Company (hereinafter referred to as Foreign Trade Company) over imprest under letters of credit, the Higher People's Court of Chongqing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Chongqing Higher Court) rendered the No. 12 (1999) civil judgment on May 26, 2000. Fandong Agricultural Bank was dissatisfied with the foregoing judgment, and appealed the present court. The present court remanded the present case to Chongqing Higher Court for retrial by rendering the No. 191 (2000) civil ruling on November 13, 2001 on the ground that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. On August 20, 2003, Chongqing Higher Court rendered the No. 26 (2001) civil judgment after the retrial. Jiangbei Bank of China was dissatisfied with the foregoing judgment, and appealed to the present court. The present court formed a collegial panel according to law, composed of Wang Yun as the presiding judge, Gao Shawei as judge, and Chen Jizhong as acting judge, who participated in the deliberation and then heard the present case publicly on February 10, 2004. Gao Aiguo, authorized agent of Jiangbei Bank of China, Liu Hongdong, person-in-charge of Fandong Agricultural Bank, Liu Ning and Qiao Dong, authorized agents of Fandong Agricultural Bank, appeared in the court and participated the proceedings. Foreign Trade Company, defendant in the first instance, refused to appear in the court to respond to the lawsuit after being legally summoned by the present court. The present case has now been finalized.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
It was verified in the first instance that: on March 20, 1997, Foreign Trade Company and Shanghai Keruide Industry Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as Keruide Company) concluded the No. 97YB-X001, No. 97YB-X002, No. 97YB-X005, No. 97YB-X006, No. 97YB-X008 “Agreements on Agency of Import”. It was agreed upon between both parties that Foreign Trade Company was entrusted by Keruide Company to import nickel plates and aluminum ingots. On the same day, Fandong Agricultural Bank issued to Jiangbei Bank of China a corresponding “Irrevocable Letter of Guaranty” for the No. 97XFNB-001, No. 97XFNB-002, No. 97XFNB-005, No. 97XFNB-006, and No. 97XFNB-008 agreements. It was promised in the letter of guaranty that, according to the applications submitted by Foreign Trade Company to Jiangbei Bank of China for opening the letters of credit and the letters of credit opened by the Jiangbei Bank of China, and on the premise that the contents of the applications submitted by Foreign Trade Company to Jiangbei Bank of China for the letters of credit are consistent with those of the agency agreement concluded with Keruide Company, Fandong Agricultural Bank is willing to provide guaranty for Foreign Trade Company, guaranteeing to bear joint and several liabilities for all payment, repayment or indemnity obligations which Foreign Trade Company shall perform to Jiangbei Bank of China under the above said letters of credit; the scope of guaranty shall cover the principal, interest, interest surcharge and all relevant expenses to be paid by Foreign Trade Company to Jiangbei Bank of China under the above said letters of credit. Fandong Agricultural Bank meanwhile promised that, once the amount of the principal under the letter of credit was not increased, and the scope of guaranty was not changed, the guaranty shall not be affected or invalidated due to any amendment, supplement, deletion or alternative implementation made by the opening bank to the above said letters of credit, or due to any contract concluded between Foreign Trade Company and any other party; the letter of guaranty shall become effective as of issuance, surviving until the applicant or the guarantor has fulfilled all obligations to be borne to Jiangbei Bank of China. Fandong Agricultural Bank meanwhile promised that, in case of any divergence on the understanding of any word or clause of the letter of guaranty for any reason, the opening bank's interpretation of the letter of guaranty shall have final binding force upon the guarantor.@#
......

 

江北中行与樊东农行等信用证垫款纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
因主合同无效而导致担保合同无效,担保人无过错的,不承担民事责任;担保人有过错的,应当依法承担民事责任。所谓担保人的过错,是指担保人明知主合同无效仍为之提供担保,或者明知主合同无效仍促使主合同成立或为主合同的签订作中介等情形。@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
(2005)民四终字第21号@#
@#
上诉人(原审原告):中国银行重庆江北支行。住所地,重庆市江北区建新北路66号。@#
负责人:李国模,该支行行长。@#
委托代理人:高爱国,北京市百瑞律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审被告):中国农业银行襄樊市樊东支行。住所地,湖北省襄樊市春圆路178号。@#
负责人:刘红东,该支行行长。@#
委托代理人:刘宁,北京市公元律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:乔栋,北京市公元律师事务所律师。@#
原审被告:重庆市渝北区对外贸易公司。住所地,重庆市渝北区渝航路一巷44号。@#
中国银行重庆江北支行(以下简称江北中行)诉中国农业银行襄樊市樊东支行(以下简称樊东农行)、重庆市渝北区对外贸易公司(以下简称外贸公司)信用证垫款纠纷一案,重庆市高级人民法院(以下简称原审法院)于2000年5月26日作出(1999)渝高法经二初字第12号民事判决。樊东农行不服上述判决,向本院提起上诉。本院于2001年11月13日作出(2000)经终字第191号民事裁定,以事实不清、证据不足为由将本案发回原审法院重审。2003年8月20日,原审法院经重审作出(2001)渝高法民重字第26号民事判决。江北中行不服上述判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员王玧担任审判长,审判员高莎薇、代理审判员陈纪忠参加评议的合议庭于2004年2月10日公开开庭审理了本案。上诉人江北中行委托代理人高爱国,被上诉人樊东农行负责人刘红东及委托代理人刘宁、乔栋到庭参加了诉讼。原审被告外贸公司经本院合法传唤拒不到庭应诉。本案现已审理终结。@#
@#
原审查明:1997年3月20日,外贸公司与上海科瑞德实业有限公司(以下简称科瑞德公司)签订了97YB-X001号、97YB-X002号、97YB-X005号、97YB-X006号、97YB-X008号《代理进口协议》,双方约定:外贸公司受科瑞德公司委托,代理其进口镍板和铝锭。同日,樊东农行向江北中行出具了相应的97XFNB-001号、97XFNB-002号、97XFNB-005号、97XFNB-006号、97XFNB-008号《不可撤销担保书》,该担保书承诺,根据外贸公司向江北中行提交的开立信用证申请和江北中行开具的信用证,在外贸公司向江北中行提交的开证申请书内容与其和科瑞德公司所签代理协议内容一致的前提下,樊东农行愿为外贸公司提供担保,保证承担在上述信用证项下由外贸公司对江北中行应履行的全部支付、偿还或赔偿义务之连带责任;担保范围包括外贸公司在上述信用证项下应支付江北中行的本金、利息、罚息及全部有关费用。樊东农行同时承诺,只要不增加信用证项下之本金数额,不改变担保范围,该担保不受开证行对上述信用证所作出的任何修改、补充、删除、变通执行或因外贸公司与其他方面订立的任何合同的影响或失效;该担保书自签发之日起生效,至申请人或担保人履行完对江北中行应承担的全部义务时为止。同时承诺,如果出现不论因为何种原因而对该担保书在任何文字或条款的理解歧义时,开证行对该担保书的解释对担保人具有最终约束力。@#
1997年3月12日,外贸公司以履行97YB-I003号铝锭买卖合同为由,向江北中行申请开立不可撤销信用证,其受益人为MARCO INTERNATIONAL(HK)LTD.。同月31日,江北中行为此开立了59BIB059/97号不可撤销信用证,开证金额为399万美元。同年4月16日,外贸公司向江北中行出具信用证付款确认书,确认已收妥该信用证项下所有单据,同意江北中行承兑及付款。同年10月20日,外贸公司向江北中行申请押汇,江北中行同意押汇7天。同年10月21日,江北中行对外付款及扣收电传费共计4195546.34美元。@#
1997年4月10日,外贸公司以履行97YB-I005号镍板买卖合同为由,向江北中行申请开立不可撤销信用证,受益人为GLENWOOD TRADING COMPANY,INC.。同月28日,江北中行为此开立了59BIB066/97号不可撤销信用证,开证金额为360万美元。同年5月14日,外贸公司向江北中行出具了付款确认书。同年10月23日,外贸公司向江北中行申请延期付款181天。1998年8月7日,江北中行对外付款及扣收电传费共计3596625美元。@#
1997年4月14日,外贸公司以履行97YB-1006号铝锭买卖合同为由,向江北中行申请开立不可撤销信用证,受益人为NONFEMET COMMODITY PTE.LTD.。同月30日,江北中行为此开立了59BIB072/97号不可撤销信用证,开证金额为380万美元。同年5月19日,外贸公司向江北中行出具信用证付款确认书。同年10月23日,外贸公司向江北中行申请延期付款182天。1998年5月18日,江北中行对外付款及扣收电传费共计3 781 475美元。@#
1997年4月15日,外贸公司以履行97YB-I007号镍板买卖合同为由,向江北中行申请开立不可撤销信用证,受益人为NONFEMET COMMODITY PTE.LTD.。同月29日,江北中行为此开立了59BIB076/97号不可撤销信用证,开证金额为440万美元。同年5月14日,外贸公司向江北中行出具了信用证付款确认书。1998年5月15日,江北中行对外付款及扣收电传费共计4464000美元。@#
江北中行为上述四单信用证累计垫款金额为16037646.34美元。外贸公司于1998年6月25日、26日,两次共偿还1991000美元,故外贸公司尚欠江北中行垫款14046646.34美元。@#
另查明:樊东农行在江北中行开立上述四笔信用证时,分别对97XFNB-006号、97XFNB-008号、97XFNB-005号、97XFNB-002号担保函以电报的方式予以了确认。1997年4月18日,樊东农行又致函江北中行,确认1997年3月20日签发的5份《不可撤销担保书》合计金额1970万美元的真实性,并愿意为外贸公司提供担保。@#
1997年4月14日和5月9日,外贸公司分别就上述四单信用证向樊东农行发出“已开信用证通知”,声称:外贸公司受科瑞德公司委托进口镍板或铝锭,现已通过江北中行开出信用证。在5月9日所发出的两份“通知”上,盖有江北中行国际结算科的公章。@#
另外,在本案重审中,樊东农行提出本案所涉4笔信用证均办理了押汇,并提交了办理押汇审批手续的证据。同时声称在原审之二审庭审中,江北中行的诉讼代理人对押汇的事实当庭予以了承认。对此,江北中行只承认59BIB059/97号信用证办理了押汇,对其他3笔信用证予以否认。此外,江北中行向原审法院提交了一份《清退保函的协议》,用以证明樊东农行在信用证开立前已知道基础合同发生了变化。由于该协议系复印件,且其内容并不能证明江北中行的主张,故原审法院对该证据不予采信。@#
又查明:根据外贸公司的工商登记材料,该公司于1997年3月12日成立,经济性质为股份制(股份合作),出资人为重庆佳昌实业公司(以下简称佳昌公司)和重庆市渝北区对外贸易进出口公司,法定代表人为陈方伦,注册资金3000万元人民币,其中佳昌公司出资2700万元人民币。@#
重庆笃信审计事务所重笃审事发[1998]第66号审计报告(以下简称《审计报告》)载明,经对佳昌公司下属的重庆佳昌冶金公司和外贸公司的信用证情况进行审计查证,重庆佳昌冶金公司在1995年至1997年期间开立信用证62笔,外贸公司在1997年开立信用证16笔(含本案所涉4笔信用证),共计开立信用证78笔。经查证,该78笔信用证除1笔用于代理进口外,其余77笔均是在国外进行货物提单的买卖。而本案所涉4笔信用证,均系国外货物提单买卖,且均为高价买入低价卖出,买入和卖出均为同一公司。另外,经审查资金流向表明,外贸公司截止1998年1月31日,共收到境外汇款60915746.01美元。截止1998年2月28日,外贸公司将收到的转口贸易货款不是用于归还银行信用证垫款,而是将款划到佳昌公司下属各单位和成都拉萨啤酒代销公司,主要用于归还重庆佳昌冶金公司信用证款,炒作期货、股票等。@#
在原审法院重审中,因认为本案所涉4笔信用证可能涉嫌信用证诈骗犯罪,且外贸公司法定代表人陈方伦涉嫌信用证诈骗罪一案正在补充侦查阶段,故该院于2002年8月23日作出民事裁定,中止审理本案,同时向重庆市公安局提出司法建议。2003年6月,重庆市公安局经侦总队回函称:“我局在侦查中,通过重庆市外管局查明外贸公司所开的信用证已备案,目前还没有充分的证据能证明其犯罪。”鉴于此,该院随即恢复了对本案的审理。@#
1999年9月6日,江北中行向原审法院提起诉讼,请求外贸公司偿付信用证垫款14046646.34美元及利息、罚息和主张债权的费用;樊东农行承担连带责任。@#
原审法院审理认为:外贸公司对于江北中行为其所垫付的信用证项下的款项,应当承担偿付责任。本案为一起因申请开立信用证而引起的信用证项下垫款纠纷,在信用证法律关系中,开证行根据开证申请人的申请开立信用证,并根据《跟单信用证统一惯例》的规定进行承兑、付款,在开证行依照信用证的规定垫付信用证项下款项后,即在开证申请人和开证行之间形成债权债务关系,该法律关系应以《中华人民共和国民法通则》第八十四条第二款即“债权人有权要求债务人按照合同的约定或者依照法律的规定履行义务”以及第一百一十一条即“当事人一方不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定条件的,另一方有权要求履行或者采取补救措施,并有权要求赔偿损失”的规定进行处理。本案中江北中行提交了信用证开证以及垫款14046646.34美元的相关证据,而外贸公司在传票传唤后,无正当理由拒不到庭。故该院认定江北中行主张的垫款事实成立,外贸公司应当偿付上述款项本金及利息。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥1100.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese