瑪雅公主的異想世界

Attached please find the Change Order No. 1 for the delivery extension, kindly confirm.

If you accept scanned copy, please just sign on one copy and scan to us through email. 

But if you need one original to be kept in file, please sign two originals and courier to us and we will return one original to you after signing.

Attached is the Change Order No. 1 for delayed delivery, please confirm.

If you accept scanned copies, please sign and email a scanned copy to us.

But if you need one original for archiving, please sign on both originals and send them to us by courier, we will return one original to you after signing.  

Reference is made to the subject mentioned Purchase Order. 

According to the Purchase Order, we have the following things to do.

1.     a commercial invoice covering the 1st payment (20% of the PO value) after signing a contract in 15 days

2.     an advance payment bond after 1st payment in four weeks

3.     a Letter of Credit covering the rest of the payment (80% of the PO value).

We have attached the Application for L/C in this email, please fill in the document and send it to us.

Thank you very much.

Reference is made to the subject mentioned Purchase Order.

According to the Purchase Order, we still have the following work to do.

1. Commercial invoice for the 1^st payment (20% of PO value) within 15 days of signing the contract.
2. Advance Payment Bond after the first payment within four weeks.
3. Letter of Credit covering remaining payment (80% of PO value).

We have attached a letter of credit application form to this email, please complete and send it to us.

Thank you very much.

However, accordingly to my colleague, the Vietnam tax authority has announced, from July 30, 2023, the % of VAT in Vietnam reduced to 8%. Please confirm. 

As for the 1st shipment, firstly please finish the attached packing list so as to notify our client.

Gentle reminder that please correct the invoice enclosed to this email so that we be able to arrange payment as requested time.

However, according to my colleague, the Vietnamese tax authorities have announced that starting from July 31, 2023 the VAT rate will be reduced to 8%.

For the first shipment in August, please fill out the enclosed packing list first so that we can notify the customer.

As a gentle reminder, please correct the invoice attached to this email so we can schedule a payment on the requested timeline. 

For this case, there are two possible suppliers, one is TNH, and the other is a Chinese supplier.  

The client still insists on the cable tray being Hot dip galvanized and then Epoxy or PVC cover on top of the Hot dip galvanized coat, resulting in your price of 45% more than that of this Chinese supplier.

The gap between two potential suppliers is really big and the answer is so obvious.  Anyway, our budget target is USD 815,000, please check how much you can do.

For this case, there are two possible suppliers, one is TNH and the other is a Chinese supplier.

The customer still insists on hot-dip galvanizing the cable tray and then coating epoxy or PVC on the hot-dip galvanized layer, causing your price to be 45% higher than this Chinese supplier.

The gap between the two possible suppliers is indeed large, and the answer is very obvious.  Our budget goal is US$ 815, 000, see how much you can do.  

According to the contract, the Advance Payment SBLC shall be valid for one month after the date of the last shipment.  Since the delivery date has been extended to 15 October 2023, accordingly, the said SBLC shall extend to November 15, 2023.  Kindly confirm the attached L/C and amend the date of expiration. 

According to the contract, the advance payment SBLC is valid for one month after the last shipment date.  Since the delivery date has been extended to October 15, 2023, the SBLC should therefore be extended to November 15, 2023.  Please confirm the attached letter of credit and amend the expiration date. 

I am sorry for making you misunderstood.  This email is not acknowledging anything in relation to the contractual delivery time.  This email is simply to reflect reality and to remind you to furnish your obligations indicated in the contract.

According to the contract, the requested last delivery date is on October 25, 2023.  If you think the action of extending the SBLC is connected to delivery, please disregard our request for extending the SBLC.

The delivery schedule will strictly refer to Appendix B. Delivery Schedule unless our engineering department agrees to extend.

Thank you very much.

We apologize for any misunderstanding. This e-mail is not a confirmation of the contractual delivery time. It is simply to reflect the reality of the situation and to remind you of your obligations under the contract.

The final delivery date is October 25, 2023, according to the contract. If you think that the extension of the SBLC is related to delivery, please disregard our request to extend the SBLC.

The delivery schedule will strictly refer to Appendix B, "Delivery Schedule", unless our engineering department agrees to an extension.

Thank you very much.

Doosan would like to know how much the increasing cost of adding Epoxy coating on top of the Hot dip galvanized coat is.  So please prepare quotations for the Hot dip galvanized coat and the Epoxy coating on top of the Hot dip galvanized coat respectively so that we can forward them to Doosan.

Doosan wanted to know how much it would cost to add an epoxy coating on top of a hot-dip galvanized coating. Therefore, please prepare separate quotations for hot dip galvanized coating and epoxy coating on top of hot dip galvanized coating so that we can forward them to Doosan.

Thank you and there is one to be revised which please see the attachment. J.A.T. has a dot after each letter, kindly modify accordingly.

Thank you. There is one thing that needs to be modified, please see the attachment. J.A.T. has a dot after each letter, please modify it accordingly.

Your claim is not true.

Please be reminded that we have discussed this issue with you many times via WhatsApp as well as during the team meetings.  And for the L/C for items despatch in Sept-23, the amount shown on the PI was not actually the one previously fixed on Aug. 8, 2023.  We indeed have discussed the revised PI value, but not yet concluded because FAM again changed the shipment sequence.  If we had issued the L/C at that time, FAM might want to cancel this L/C again now.

Unstable shipment time is the first problem.

The second problem is the document required in L/C.  We have finished one L/C payment, but the documents did not comply with the L/C requirements, causing a discrepancy.   We accepted the discrepancy for that L/C.  But for the next L/C, we are not going to accept any discrepancy.

Enclosed are two documents, one is the Payment Time Table the version we discussed on August 30, 2023, and the other is the PI you sent to us on August 23, 2023.  The amount shown on the PI is USD 837,060 and the one shown on the Payment table is USD 825, 160 (group J-column by number 2).  See, this is the problem.

Please revise your PI for us if you insist on L/C payment.

Thank you very much.

Your statement is not true.

Please note that we have discussed this issue with you several times via WhatsApp and team meetings. Regarding the shipment in 9-23 of the letter of credit, the amount shown on the PI is not actually the amount previously determined on 8/8/2023. We discussed the revised PI value but did not come to a conclusion because FAM changed the shipping order again. If we had issued the letter of credit at that time, FAM may now want to cancel it.

The erratic shipping schedule is the first problem.

The second problem is the documentation required by the letter of credit. We made a payment on a letter of credit once, but the documentation did not meet the letter of credit requirements, resulting in a discrepancy.  We accepted the discrepancy for that letter of credit. However, we will not accept the discrepancy for the next letter of credits.

Enclosed are two documents, a payment schedule that we discussed on August 30, 2023, and a PI that you sent to us on August 23, 2023. The amount shown on the PI is $837,060, while the amount shown on the payment schedule is $825,160 (Column J of Group 2). See, this is the problem.

If you insist on paying by L/C, please revise your PI for us.

Thank you very much.

At previous meetings with FAM discussing the shipping arrangement, FAM was requested to provide the cargo value for each shipment in Column M of the latest Delivery Schedule in the attachment. Please FAM furnish the Column M and return it to us by the end of this week.

In addition, we would like to repeat our suggestion of changing the payment method from L/C to T/T as I saw emails between Mr. Subrata and Ms. Chelsea regarding issuing the 1st BL for LC negotiation.

We learned that Doosan’s designated local forwarder won’t issue another BL for India’s cargoes because there were some arguments with India’s other suppliers before. In other words, the forwarder will only issue the BL instructed by Doosan. There will be no 1st BL, only 2nd BL.

However, BL is a key document for LC negotiation, without it, FAM might not be able to get paid by the bank. 

Thus, we would like to suggest FAM again change the payment method from LC 60-day to TT 60-day.  We believe, in this way, BL won’t be a problem, because for TT payment, JAT accepts the 2nd BL as the delivery supporting document.  Besides, you don't have to follow LC requirements to show LC numbers on every document or else. 

Therefore, as long as FAM presents the required document(LC negotiation document) to JAT, FAM will get paid by JAT 60 days after the BL FOB date.

This is JAT’s sincere suggestion, please FAM think about it.

At prior meetings with FAM discussing the shipping arrangement, we requested that FAM provide the cargo values for each shipment in Column M of the latest Delivery Schedule in the attachment. Kindly furnish Column M and return it to us by the end of this week.

Additionally, we would like to reiterate our suggestion of changing the payment method from L/C to T/T as I have seen emails between Mr. Subrata and Ms. Chelsea regarding the issuance of the 1st BL for LC negotiation.

We have learned that Doosan's designated local forwarder will not issue another Bill of Lading (BL) for India's cargoes due to past disputes with India's other suppliers. Therefore, the forwarder will only release the BL as instructed by Doosan, with no 1st BL available, only a 2nd BL.

It's important to note that the BL is a crucial document for Letter of Credit (LC) negotiation, and without it, FAM may not receive payment from the bank. 

As a result, we strongly suggest that FAM considers changing the payment method from LC 60-day to TT 60-day.  We believe that using the second BL as the delivery supporting document for TT payment will avoid any issues with BL.  Additionally, there is no requirement to show LC numbers on every document. 

As long as FAM provides the necessary LC negotiation document to JAT, payment will be made 60 days after the BL FOB date.

This is a genuine suggestion from JAT and we ask FAM to consider it.

Reference is made to FAM's letter, ref, no: FAM/JAT/147628/2013/NOV/001, dated November 10, 3033 Please find our comments below

1. FAM should clearly indicate 1AT/Doosan the esporting port in the Delivery Schedule Ust, as the Katupally port has never mentioned in the Delivery Schedule List

At later time we confirmed again with FAM which ports for #3105 & #3170, FAM Informed JAT/Doosan the export port for 3165 was Chennai(Katupally), while 3170 was Chennal, it seems that Kalupally is the other name of Chennal, thus Doosan booked vessel to Chennai pick up your two shipments #3105 & #3170. Even so, at the time when FAM received the vessel information, FAM didn't inform JAT that the port for #3165 should be moved to Katupally in prompt manner

2. Clause 3.2 in the FAM/IAT's contract is correct. The Supplier shall promptly inform the Purchaser of the details of the location and conditions of the port of export. However, it mentions only one Chennal port for #3165 & #3170. Thus, FAM shall be responsible for delay of #3165 & #3170 due to the wrong port information,

3. In addition, no one knows Katupally port is near to Diamond and ease of access route, non-requirement of Survey of the route, capability of Bulk Cargo Vessel, non requirement of any permission for the movement of bulk cargo and shorter time of transit from Diamond. FAM should Inform JAT/Doosan the important information of this kind in advance.

4. As for the freight forwarder for #3165 & #3170, JAT never mentioned LX Pantos would be the freight forwarder. In fact, JAT informed FAM on November 11 that the freight forwarder was Parekh Marine and Mr. Sebastian is the PIC in Miranda Marine. We emailed the same information to FAM again respectively on October 12 & 13 to avoid miscommunication.

5. The poor quality in FAM's documentation is also a reason to delay nominating the vessel for FAM Please understand Doosan won't arrange vessel only when FAM document like: PKL, OCR, PIR&PCP get approved by Doosan. Take #3165 & #3170 as examples, FAM document (PKL, CCR, PIR&PCP) esisted so many mistakes, and Doosan refused to accept them until September 13. Until then, Doosan started to book the suitable vessel for #3165 & #3170

6. We immediately forwarded the vessel details to FAM upon receipt of Doosan's vessel notice on October 6 with ETA Chennal port on October 17. Unfortunately, the vessel delayed for two days, ETA Chennal port changed to October 19.

Even though there was two days behind the expected ETA on October 17, FAM was still able to work for pre-customs arrangement and port formalities before ETA, as well as trucking arrangement. In addition, FAM was already aware of a coming long holidays, FAM should also take it into account and start to work for the pre-customs arrangement and port formalities much earlier.

7. We don't agree with FAM mentioning about the change the nature of shipment from Container Cargo to Bulk cargo was the major reason contributed for the delay transit of #3170. #3170 contents small packages cargo, there was no transit problem like #3765.

8. Due to FAM's wrong information of port, all of the things mentioned in FAM's statement shall be borne by FAM itself.

9. If FAM think JAT has wronged with FAM, JAT is open for any clarification meeting on this issue.

Dear Sir,

Reference is made to FAM's letter, ref. no.: FAM/JAT/147628/2023/NOV/001, dated November 10, 2023. Our comments on the matter are as follows:

Firstly, FAM must clearly specify Katupally as the exporting port in the Delivery Schedule List, as it has never been mentioned before.

Afterwards, we reached out to FAM to confirm the ports for #3165 and #3170. FAM informed JAT/Doosan that the export port for 3165 was Chennai (Katupally), while the export port for 3170 was Chennai. It appears that Katupally is synonymous with Chennai. Therefore, Doosan scheduled a vessel to collect your two shipments, #3165 and #3170, from Chennai. Despite this, FAM neglected to promptly notify JAT that the port location for shipment 3165 had been changed to Katupally upon receiving the updated vessel information.

As per Clause 3.2 in the contract between FAM and JAT, the Supplier must expeditiously inform the Purchaser of the export port's location and conditions.  However, FAM only lists one Chennai port for #3165 & #3170 in the Delivery List, thus FAM shall be responsible for the delay of #3165 & #3170 due to incorrect export port information.

As per Clause 3.2 of the contract between FAM and JAT, the Supplier must promptly inform the Purchaser of the location and conditions of the export port.  However, FAM has only listed one Chennai port for #3165 & #3170 in the Delivery List, making FAM responsible for the delay of #3165 & #3170 due to incorrect export port information.

Additionally, Katupally port is conveniently located near Diamond with easy access, no survey requirement for the route, support for Bulk Cargo Vessel, no permission needed for bulk cargo movement, and shorter transit time from Diamond.  FAM should provide important information to JAT/Doosan beforehand. 

Regarding #3165 & #3170, JAT did not disclose that LX Pantos would be the freight forwarder.  JAT informed FAM that Parekh Marine was the freight forwarder and Mr. Sebastian was the PIC at Miranda Marine on October 11. To avoid any misunderstandings, we sent the same information to FAM again on October 12 & 13. 

The poor quality of FAM's documentation is another reason that caused Doosan to delay nominating the vessel.  Please understand that Doosan will not arrange vessels until all necessary documentation is in order.

Upon receipt of Doosan's vessel notice on October 6th indicating ETA at Chennai port on October 17th, we promptly shared the vessel details with FAM.  Regrettably, the vessel's arrival was postponed for two days, with the actual arrival on October 19th.

Despite being delayed by two days from the expected ETA of October 17th, FAM should also can work on pre-customs arrangements, port formalities, and trucking arrangements before the ETA. Additionally, FAM should have taken into account the upcoming extended holidays and started working on pre-customs arrangements and port formalities earlier.

We disagree with FAM's assertion that the change from Container Cargo to Bulk cargo was the primary cause of the transit delay of #3170.

Unlike #3765, #3170 contains small cargo packages and experienced no transit issues.

The major reason contributed for the delay in transit #3165 & 3170 is attributed to FAM for the wrong export information and late action on applying the permission in transit the goods to port and customs formality.

If FAM believes that JAT has done something wrong, JAT is willing to hold a meeting to clarify any misunderstandings regarding this matter.

Sincerely yours,