Canara Bank, a scheduled Bank, which was the opposite party before the State Commission, has filed the present appeal. Respondent/complainant is an exporter of sea food. He had sent a shipment from Madras to Quingdao, China under Invoice No.004/96-97 dated 4.6.1996 and FDR No.83/96 dated 2.6.1996 for US $ 59,400 and deposited the documents pertaining to the said -2- shipment with the appellant. After sending the shipment, complainant was contacting the appellant to know whether the letter of credit given by the foreign bank with regard to the said consignment was honored, but the appellant withheld the information regarding the consignment documents for about three months and finally, in the last week of September, 1996 informed the complainant that the foreign Bank did not honor the letter of credit; that it did not make the payment due to some discrepancies in export documents and did not take delivery of the consignment. Being aggrieved, complainant filed complaint against the appellant alleging that the appellant was made aware of the said discrepancies by the Bank of Communication, Quingdao, China on 27.6.1996 itself but the appellant did not inform the same to the complainant in the time, due to which the complainant could not take steps to correct the discrepancies or make any other alternative arrangements either to find a different buyer or to ask for rebooking of goods. Respondent had claimed a compensation of Rs.25,27,605/- which was later on restricted to the shipment value of the consignment of Rs.20 Lacs. -3- State Commission allowed the complaint holding the appellant to be deficient of service in not informing the respondent of the discrepancies which had been conveyed to it by the foreign bank vide its letter dated 27th June, 1996 for a period of three months and directed the appellant to pay Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. There are regulations framed by Reserve Bank of India concerning export of goods to foreign countries and the procedure to be followed. Usually, when a contract is entered into between the customer and the importer, the foreign importer has to open a letter of credit which is forwarded to the internal customer bank. The appellant was informed by the foreign bank on 27.6.1996 that the goods received were unacceptable due to following discrepancies: “1) Description of Goods, Differs 2) Weight Memo not presented 3) Beneficiary’s Certified Copy of Telex/Care not present 4) Alteration not corrected -4- The Appellant, for the first time, informed the respondent/complainant in writing on 19.9.1996 that it had not received the realization proceeds inspite of the negotiations held by it with the corresponding foreign bank. The letter of the appellant reads as follows: “The subject bill was negotiated by us on 07.6.1996. Even though 3 months have gone we have not yet received the realization proceeds. Now we come to know from our Foreign Department, Madras that the buyer is not willing to make payment of the subject bill. For the past 1½ months, we have been requesting you about the fate of the subject bill. Please note that the bill is to be de-linked positively on 23.9.1996. Also please note that if the bill is de-linked we may have to recover the entire liability along with interest from you. Please look into the matter immediately and do the needful. If you know that the bill is already paid, kindly produce the necessary evidence immediately.” to which the complainant responded by writing a letter on 27.9.1996 in the following terms: -5- “With reference to the above letter No. cited, we would like to inform that we are constantly having contact with our Foreign buyer to honour the Bill amount. Till date the buyer is reluctant to honour the Bill. The buyer’s Agent name M/s SHENZHEN BOZHOU TRADE COMPANY, SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA needs 20% cut on the Invoice amount excluding the Port charges and Steamer Agents storage charges for 3 months. As the Foreign Exchange is likely to forego more than 30% of the Invoice value, we are in need of R.B.I. permission to settle the issue and we are propose to go personnely for negotiation with the buyer. Hence we request you to kindly be obtain necessary permission from RBI, the relevant records pertaining to this subject is enclose herewith for your kind perusal”. It is not disputed before us that the appellant did not inform in writing to the respondent/complainant about the discrepancies pointed out by the foreign Bank resulting in non-acceptance of the consignment. The plea of the appellant that it had informed the respondent orally, has rightly been rejected by the State Commission. -6- Counsel for the appellant relying upon the letter written by respondent dated 27.9.1996 (reproduced above) contends that the respondent was in the know of everything right from the beginning as he was in constant touch with the buyer. From this, he wants to infer that the respondent had been informed orally regarding the discrepancies pointed out by the foreign bank. We are unable to accept this submission. Nowhere in the letter dated 19.9.1996 written by the appellant to the respondent the discrepancies pointed out by the foreign bank had been referred to. It has also not been stated that the respondent had been orally informed about the discrepancies pointed out by the foreign bank. Counsel for the appellant then relied upon the application filed by the respondent with the Reserve Bank of India for permission to extend the period of realization of export proceeds in which it is mentioned that the goods still remained refrigerated. According to him, this shows that the goods had not been damaged. From this application, it cannot be inferred that the respondent had received -7- either the payment or the goods. It also does not show that the goods were not damaged. For the reason stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. There is no infirmity in the order passed. Dismissed. No costs.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
