进出口试题.doc

进出口业务综合考试试卷1 某公司有一批出口到比利时客商的季节性货物，共计划10x40柜，价值30万美元。根据与客商签立的合同要求及L/C规定，按时按质交付货物，并制单议付。出货10天后，突然接到客方银行通知，称我方单证有不符点，客方拒付，不符点在于提单上的目的港（Port of destination Antwerp）打在卸货港（Port of discharge）一栏。两天后，受益人又接到客方当地律师行急电通知，称该客户宣布倒闭，资产已被冻结，要求债权人在规定期内提出索赔A company will export a batch of seasonal goods to Belgium , total 10x40 Containers,of value$300,000. The seller should deliver all the goods on time, as the quality stipulated in the contract signed by both parties concerned and L/C , and negotiate against documents . 10 days after delivery ,the issuing bank notified that there are some discrepancies in the documents. Exactly, the problem is that X filled Antwerp, the port of destination, in the wrong blank, port of discharge. As a result, the customer refused to effect the payment. Two days later, the attorney agency in the customers country informed the seller by urgent telex that the customer had announced a bankrupt and his assets had been frozen up. The creditor are supposed to file a claim within the time specified.请将上文译成英文(20分)，并用英文答题，如何处理此案，将损失降低到最少？（20分）2. 我司有一希腊客户订购一批木伞2x40，价值6万多美金，按客户要求我们发了一批样（没有在样上签字），信用证上注明“same as samples”,此L/C为60天远期证。按合同及L/C要求，我司组织生产并按期交付。货到目的港后，客户立即将货物分销了，50天后客户提出我司出的货物有以下瑕疵：霉变，金属件生锈，木伞柜架变型，与原样相比，做工及工艺水平相差甚远。此客户立即请律师提交一份终止付款律师函给开证行（开证行也停止付款开通知我司银行），同时请中国驻雅典商务参赞（未出席）与雅典当地检验机构去现场签订，并出了一份检验报告（请见附件），请问如何处理此案？（注：请将上文译成英文15分, 并用中文答题, 15分）3翻译检验报告（30分）REPUBLIC OF GREECECHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF ATHENSASSESSMENT REPORTNO：1347 The undersigned Charalambos Chr. Chanos, Handicraftsman,of Umbrellas, resident at 112,Thessalonikis str, Moschato, after having been appointed as Assessor by the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Athens(Ref.No:46949/3-6-1994),I went under this qualification on June 10th at 10:30 hrs a.m., to perform assessment of Goods of the company styled “DARCO HELLAS S.A.”, situated at 60,Acklipiou str,11471,Athons,which have been bought from the Chinese Company styled “CHINA NATIONAL AERO-TECHNOLOGY IMPORT EXPORT SHENZHEN CO.” By opening the letter of Credit No.022/033533,dated 17-2-1994 through the Ergo Bank. The aforementioned Goods after having been sold were at the Warehouse of the Company Pavlides Bros. A. E. B. E, in Geraks of Arrica. During the performance of assessment were present, Messrs stylianos Dassouras, Delegate of the Company styled “DARCO HELLAS S.A ”and Georgios Lambrakis, who is in charge of the arbitration department of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The representative of the Financial and Commercial Advisor of the Popular Republic of China, although was officially invited, was not present. The Goods were concerning Garden Parasols, of a quantity of 1140 Pcs of US Dollars 31,000 Value(as per proforma Invoice No.94C030-2/15 Feb1994 and commercial Invoice No.91C067-2/10 March 1994 of the Chinese Company styled “CHINA NATIONAL AERO-TECHNOLOGY IMP& EXP SHENZHEN CO.”26F AVIATION PLAZA SHENNAN ROAD CENTRAL SHENZHEN CHINA) and of total value Greek Drachmas 9,582,036(as per declaration of the Company that demanded the assessment).The Goods were placed each one in sealed carton boxes and marked with the marks of the product and were located in a close storing hall at Geraka of Attica. These carton boxes did not present any lesion, violation (Infringement),corruption from humidity or water. I started my job examining the sample of the parasol, in accordance with the order which was given by the Company “DARCO HELLAS S.A.” to the Chinese Company “China National Aero-technology Imp & Exp. Shenzhen Co” Further to a thorough examination,I have ascertained that ,the sample was a product of high quality and technical specification and in general pattern of its mode of functioning and the wooden parts, whilst the material (Canvas) had undergone the essential waterproofing. Further on and after a Random sample selection I pointed out and opened 20 pieces(Cartons) of each dimension of the imported parasols i.e. a total of 120 Pcs. After having examined these pieces, I have ascertained the following :1. During the opening of the boxes there was a harsh smell of mould.2. None of the parasols was presenting a view relative of the one of the sample, which had been sent by the Chinese Company , “China National Aero-Technology Import Shenzhen Co.”.3. The improvisation and the Botchery of the wooden parts were intensively evident (The poles and the ribs were Awry “CROOCKED” Knotty and cracked).4. Many of the parasols were not functioning due to the intensive deformation.5. The manufacturer had used fresh wood (still with damp) which is unsuitable for the manufacture of wooden parts which are narrow and of large length, such as the poles and the ribs of parasols.6. The coverage of varnish (Varnishing )of the wooden parts , because of the humidity was dissolved and the result was to form patches and mould at the inner part of the material (CANVAS)of the parasols.7. Mould on the wooden parts and corrosion on the metallie parts of the joints and the ribs.8. The “Runner Button” and the “Crown” of the parasols (upon which the ribs are connected)were presenting botcherioc, fact which proves that these parts had not been manufactured for the specified dimensions of these ribs.Further to my abovementioned ascertainments, I hereby adjudge that , the quantity delivered (received) of parasols cannot be marketable for fundamental reasons.In witness whereof, the present protocol (report) was drawn up, being signed by me , acting as assessor ,Mr. Stylienos Dassouras as Delegate of the company, which has requested the assessment and Mr. Georgios