Was Global Bank, Pune Branch correct in its argument, as the credit issuing bank?

 

 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

 

 

Case Study 1 - Documentary Credit (Marks -16)

M/S Auto India

Introduction

M/S Auto India is a public limited company; they manufacture SUVs (sports utility

Vehicle), in technical collaboration with General Motors of USA. The company has established their

manufacturing base at Ranjangaon in Pune. They have acquired an area of 250 acres and the total

project cost is estimated at Rs 1500 crores. As per the projections, the company is slated to achieve a

25% market share in the Indian market, within a period of two years.

Out of the total project cost, 49% is brought in by General Motors and the rest is tied up with financial

institutions, international banks and Indian banks. The working capital is financed by a consortium of

banks in which Global bank, Pune branch, is the leader. The company imports many parts of the car

engine in a CKD (completely knocked down) condition from General Motors, Detroit, after establishing

import letters of credit through its main bankers, Global Bank, Pune Branch.

M/S Auto India approached Global Bank, Pune for opening of import letter of credit as per UCP ICC 600

for USD 100,000, on sight basis, in favour of General Motors, Detroit.

Type of credit - Irrevocable negotiable

Application - UCP ICC 600

Applicant - M/S Auto India, Pune, India

Beneficiary - M/S General Motors, Detroit, USA.

Issuing Bank - Global Bank, Pune, India

Advising Bank - The American Bank, New York

Negotiating Bank - The American Bank, New York

Reimbursing Bank - International Bank, New York

Availability - Negotiable at sight

Expiry - At the counters of The American Bank, New York

Amount - USD 100,000

Merchandise - Car engine parts

Quantity and price - 50 units @ USD 2000 per unit

Circumstances

Issuing Bank

Global Bank, Pune issued its irrevocable negotiable credit through its head office in Pune

since Global Bank co-ordinated all its accounting and communication functions at its head office. The

Bank’s head office transmitted the credit through Swift network as

instructed by its Pune branch to General Motors, Detroit, through The American Bank, New

York.

Advising Bank

The American Bank, New York advised the credit to General Motors, Detroit on receipt

of the swift transmission.

Credit

Along with other conditions, the credit clearly stated that the negotiating bank was to

forward the documents directly to Global Bank’s head office at Pune.

Beneficiary

After export of the consignment, General Motors, Detroit presented the documents under

the credit to The American bank, New York.

Negotiating Bank

The American Bank, New York, examined the documents presented by General Motors

and determined that they were in compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit. The

American bank negotiated the documents and forwarded the documents, as per the credit

terms, to the HO of Global Bank in Pune and claimed reimbursement from International

bank, New York.

Reimbursing Bank

International Bank, New York honoured the reimbursement claim by crediting the current

account of the American Bank, New York and debiting the account of Global Bank, Pune, in its

books.

Issuing Bank Head Office

Global Bank’s Head Office, at Pune, received the documents and after internal

registration of the documents, forwarded the documents to its Pune Branch by inter-office

mail.

Issuing Bank Branch

On receipt of the documents by the Pune branch of Global Bank, they examined the

documents and determined that they were discrepant. They were (a) 60 units were

shipped instead of 50 units, thereby overdrawing the credit value by USD 2000 (b)

Inspection certificate by Auto Inspection Council, USA is not submitted, as per credit

terms. Global Bank contacted Auto India for waiver of the discrepancies.

Applicant

Auto India requested for copies of the documents to be forwarded by fax and after

reviewing the same, they refused to waive the discrepancies.

Issuing Bank Branch

Global Bank, Pune Branch instructed its HO to transmit an authenticated swift to The

American Bank, New York stating that Global Bank had rejected the documents for the noted

discrepancies, requesting the American Bank’s instructions as to disposal of the documents,

and demanding a refund of the funds reimbursed.

Issuing Bank Head Office

The HO of the Global Bank sent the authenticated swift message to the American Bank,

New York, as instructed by its Pune Branch.

Negotiating Bank

On receipt of the swift notification advising that Global Bank had rejected the documents

for the stated discrepancies, the American Bank informed Global Bank that it did not accept

the rejection of the drawing since the Global Bank did not comply with UCP 600 sub-article 14

for standard examination of documents. Therefore, Global Bank was said to be stopped from

dishonouring its irrevocable obligation.

Issuing Bank

Global Bank, Pune Branch responded by stating that they acted in accordance with UCP

article 14, since their action did not exceed five banking days following the day of receipt of the

documents at their branch counters after which they scrutinised the documents and

determined to refuse them. They maintained that as per article 14 of UCP 600, they notified

about the rejection of the documents, by swift, not later than the close of the fifth banking day

following the day of receipt of the documents. They had pointed out all the discrepancies and

had informed American Bank, New York that they were holding the documents at the latter’s

disposal.

Negotiating Bank

The American Bank, New York replied as follows:-

We disagree with your position that you acted in accordance with UCP 600 article 14.

Documents were delivered by courier to your HO as per the terms of the credit, on Monday,

January 7, 2008. Your swift notifying rejection of the documents was not sent until

Wednesday, Jan 16, 2008 that is, on the eighth banking day after receipt of the documents

by your bank.

Issuing Bank

Global Bank, Pune Branch, responded by stating that even though its HO received the

documents on January 7,2008; the Global Bank’s Pune Branch did not receive the documents

until the following Thursday, January 10, 2008, and the swift advice rejecting the documents

was sent within the time period permitted in UCP article 14.

Negotiating Bank

The American Bank, New York, replied that it was not their concern how Global Bank’s

operational policy impacted on their inability to comply with UCP. The American Bank, New

York stated that in accordance with the credit terms and conditions, documents were

negotiated by them and forwarded to Global Bank’s HO by courier. The documents were

received by Global Bank on Jan 7, 2008, and any notice of rejection of the documents should have been

given within the close of the fifth banking day following receipt of the documents. Global Bank’s Pune

Branch failed to do so. Therefore, the American Bank, New York’s position was firm relative to UCP 600

article 14 and they would not refund the funds reimbursed.

 

 

Questions

1) Was Global Bank, Pune Branch correct in its argument, as the credit issuing bank?

2) Was the stand taken by The American Bank, New York correct, as the negotiating bank?

 

 

Foreign Trade

M/S Taneja Exports, Mumbai

Introduction

Mr. Gurmeet Taneja and Mr. Rahul Khatri are partners of M/S Taneja exports, Mumbai.

Both of them qualified from IIFT, New Delhi in the year 2002. They declined lucrative

corporate job offers, since they have decided to plunge into the world of international

business.

M/S Taneja Exports is registered as a partnership firm, with Mr. Gurmeet Taneja and Mr. Rahul

Khatri sharing the profits in the ratio of 60: 40.

The partners had conducted in depth market survey in the domestic as well as

international markets regarding the demand of women’s apparels in cotton and hosiery. They

have taken the assistance of Apparel export promotion council and the marketing agencies in

various countries of European Union.

On account of their knowledge in foreign trade, they were able to quickly assess that Indian

exporters have not succeeded in penetrating into the huge apparel market of Europe.

They found out that the main reasons were ineffective marketing, improper quality control and

non adherence to the shipping schedules. Mr. Gurmeet concentrated on marketing of the

cotton and hosiery apparels abroad and Mr. Rahul ensured on the procurement of the raw

materials and timely execution of shipments.

The firm had taken an industrial gala, measuring 700 sq ft, at 501, Mangal Das market, Lower

Parel, Mumbai. They were paying a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- for the office premises and

the stock of garments was kept in a godown in the same gala area, for which the rent

payable was Rs. 15,000/- pm

The firm was sourcing their raw materials from the south Indian towns of Tirupur and

Coimbatore. As per the export orders, they were providing the raw materials for job works

in Mumbai and subject the samples to rigorous quality and specification checks. The firm had

employed 2 accounts staff and 3 contract workers to attend to daily office and godown

activities.

The firm was able to achieve steady improvement in export sales due to the stringent quality

control measures and timely execution of shipment schedules. The following were the credit

facilities enjoyed from M/S International Bank of India, Fort branch, Mumbai.

Facility (Amount in Lakhs) 2003 2004 2005

Fund based

a) Export packing credit 5.00 7.00 10.00

b) Foreign bill purchased/Foreign

bill negotiated

5.00 7.00 10.00

Non Fund based

a) Performance guarantee 2.00 5.00 7.00

Export sales 20.00 30.00 40.00

Towards the security of the credit facilities, the firm had mortgaged the residential house,

valued at Rs 85 lakhs, belonging to Mr. Vikram Taneja, father of Mr. Gurmeet Taneja, and

stocks valued at Rs 15 lakhs was also hypothecated to the Bank. Mr. Vikram Taneja stood

guarantee for the facilities sanctioned to the firm.

M/S Taneja exports used to avail the export packing credit facility from International Bank of

India and adjust the same by purchase or negotiation of the export bills drawn on their

European buyers. Generally the bills carried a tenor period of 60 days. Most of the export bills

were drawn and send for collection through international Bank of India, Mumbai Fort Branch,

to the foreign buyer’s bankers, based on the confirmed purchase order of the buyer. The bills

were paid on the due dates and the conduct of the account on the bank’s books was quite

satisfactory. Based on the past history and the increase in

sales turnover achieved by the firm, the bankers were happy to increase the credit limits

from Rs 7 lakhs in 2003 to Rs 17 lakhs in 2005.

On June 17, 2005, the firm submitted an export document to International Bank of India, Fort

Branch, for Euro 53000.00, drawn on M/S St Laurn Fashions, Paris. The documents were

drawn on 60 days DA terms as per the contract. The merchandise under the export were ladies

garments in cotton and hosiery. In the covering letter of the firm to the bank, they had

instructed the bank to present the documents to St Laurn, Paris, through their bankers viz,

Credit Lyonnais, Paris. The exporter had submitted bills of exchange, bills of lading, commercial

invoice, packing list, inspection certificate, certificate of origin and in the bill of exchange it was

typed as ‘to be co-accepted by credit Lyonnais’.

The International Bank of India took the documents in its books and sent the documents for

collection to Credit Lyonnais, Paris. In due course, they received communication from Credit

Lyonnais that the documents were accepted by St Laurn and due date of the

documents were August 25, 2005.The bankers informed the due date of the bill to Taneja

exports. On August 30, 2005, Taneja Exports informed the bankers that they are yet to receive

the payment of the bill for Euro 53000.00 in their books. The bank sent a swift message

enquiring about the fate and payment of the bill. Two days later the bank received a message

from Credit Lyonnais saying that the importer, St Laurn, had become bankrupt and they were

unable to pay the bill. International Bank of India informed the same to Taneja Exports. They

argued with the bank that they had clearly mentioned in the bills of exchange that the

documents were to be released against the co-acceptance of the

French bank only. Immediately the Indian bank send a message to Credit Lyonnais that

since the bill of exchange contained the co-acceptance clause by the French bank, they

are liable to pay even though the importer had become bankrupt. The French bank refuted the

claim of the Indian Bank and intimated that the bank’s collection instruction did not contain

any co-acceptance clause by the French bank and they had acted as per the provisions in the

uniform rules for collection in the ICC publication No 522.

Since payments were not forthcoming, Taneja Exports filed a suit with the National Consumer

Forum, New Delhi for deficiency of services by International Bank of India, Mumbai, on

November 10, 2005. They put forth the argument that the bank was deficient in not

mentioning about the co-acceptance clause in their covering letter to the French bank and in

case of non-coacceptance by the French bank they would have returned the documents to

India and the exporter could have arranged for an alternate buyer or re- import of the

merchandise. This negligence on the part of the bank had caused them total financial loss.

After hearing the arguments of both the parties, The National Consumer Forum gave the

judgement, on February 6, 2006, that the International Bank of India was deficient and

negligent in their services and ordered them to compensate the value of the export bill of Euro

53000.00 (approx Rs 24 lakhs) along with 15% interest, till the date of payment.

The bank went on appeal against the order of the consumer forum in the Supreme Court on

March 20, 2006. After hearing the counsels of both sides, the Supreme Court gave the

judgement that since the original agreement between the exporter and importer do not have

any co-acceptance clause by the importer’s banker, the co-acceptance clause on the bill of

exchange cannot be binding on the French Bank as well as on the Indian Bank.

The bankruptcy of the importer is the reason for loss to the exporter and not the deficiency of

service by the bank. The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the National consumer

forum and passed the judgement in favour of the bank, with costs, on March 15, 2007.

 

Questions

1) Elaborate the deficiency of service on the part of the bank, pointed out by the National

consumer redressal forum, in the light of the uniform rules for collection ICC publication

No.522.

2) Advise the firm about the precautions they should have taken to avoid such a colossal

business loss.

3) Discuss the remedial measures the bank in India should take to avoid such damaging

judgements by the consumer forums.

4) Elaborate the Supreme Court judgement in the context of the international banking

rules and practises, as guided by the ICC publications.

 

 

Case-3 (Marks -16)

LATE MOVER ADVANTAGE?

Though a late entrant, Toyota is planning to conquer the Indian car market. The Japanese auto major

wants to dispel the notion that the first mover enjoys an edge over the rivals who arrive late into a

market.

Toyota entered the Indian market through the joint venture route, the partner being the Bangalore based

Kirloskar Electric Co. Known as Toyota Kirloskar Motor (TKM), and the plant was set up in 1998 at Bidadi

near Bangalore.

To start with, TKM released its maiden offer— Qualis. Qualis is not a newly conceived, designed, and

brought out vehicle. Rather it is the new avatar of Kijang under which brand the vehicle was sold in

markets like Indonesia.

Qualis virtually had no competition. Telco’s Sumo was not a multi-utility vehicle like Qualis. Rather, it was

a mini-truck converted into a rugged all-purpose van. More importantly, Toyota proved that even its old

offering, but decked up for India, could offer better quality than its competitor. Backed by a carefully

thought out advertising campaign that communicated Toyota’s formidable global reputation, Qualis went

on a roll and overtook Tata Sumo within two years of launch.

Sumo sold 25,706 vehicles during 2000—2001, compared to a 3 per cent growth over the previous year,

compared to 25,373 of Qualis. But during 2001—2002, it was a different story. Qualis had been clocking

more than 40 per cent share of the market. At the end of Sept 2001, Qualis had sold over 25,000 units,

compared to Sumo’s 18000 plus.

The heady initial success has made TKM think of the future with robust confidence. By 2010, TKM wants to

make and sell one million vehicles per year and garner one-third share of the Indian market. The firm is

planning to introduce a wide range of vehicles—a sub-compact, a sedan, a luxury car and a new multiutility

vehicle to replace Qualis. A significant percentage of the vehicles will be exported.

But Toyota is not as lucky in China. Its strategy of ‘late entry’ in China seems to have back fired. In 2005,

it sold just 1, 83, 000 cars in China, the fastest growing auto market in the world. Toyota ranks ninth in

the market, far behind Volkswagen, General Motors, Hyundai and Honda. Toyota delayed producing cars

in China until 2002, when it entered a joint venture with a local company, the First Auto Works Group

(FAW). The first car manufactured by Toyota FAW, the Vios, failed to attract much of a market, as, despite

its unremarkable design, it was three times as expensive as most cars sold in China.

Late start was not the only problem. There were other lapses too. Toyota assumed the Chinese market

would be similar to the Japanese market. But Chinese market, in reality, resembled the American market.

Sales personnel in Japan are paid salaries. They succeeded in building a loyal clientele for Toyota by

providing first-class service to them. Likewise, most Japanese auto dealers sell a single brand, thereby

ensuring their loyalty to it. Japan is a relatively a well-knit country with an ethnically homogeneous

population. Accordingly, Toyota used nationwide advertising to market its products in its home country.

But China is different. Sales people are paid commissions and most dealers sell multiple brands.

Obviously, loyalty plays little role in motivating either the sales staff or the dealers, who will ignore a slow

selling product should a more profitable one turn up. Besides, China is a large, diverse country. A

standardized ad campaign will not do. Luckily, Toyota is learning its lessons. Competition in the Chinese

market is tough, and Toyota’s success in reaching its goal of selling a million cars a year, by 2010, is

uncertain. But, its chances are brighter as the company is able to transfer lessons learned in the American

market to its operations in China.

 

Questions:-

1. Why has the late corner’s strategy’ of Toyota failed in China, though it succeeded in India?

2. Why has Toyota failed to capture the Chinese market? Why is it trailing behind its rivals?

 

 

 

 

THE EU’S LAGGING COMPETITIVENESS

In a report produced for the European Commission, published in November 1998, it was argued that the

EU lags behind the USA and Japan on most measures of international competitiveness. Gross domestic

product per capita, sometimes used as an indicator of international competitiveness at the country level,

was 33 per cent lower in the EU as a whole than in the USA and 13 per cent lower than in Japan. The EU’s

poor record in creating employment was singled out for particular criticism. As this appeared to apply

across 2. the board in most industrial sectors, it suggested that the EU’s poor performance related to the

business environment in general and, in particular, to the flexibility of Europe’s labor markets and

excessive regulation in markets for goods and 3. Services. A shortage of risk capital for advanced

technological development and high cost and 4. Inefficiency of Europe’s financial services was also

highlighted by the report. For one reason or another, European industries generally lag behind in

technology industries. If measured by the number 5. of inventions patented in at least two countries, the

USA is well ahead of most European countries, as well as Japan. Despite these shortcomings, the report’s

authors focus attention on flexible markets, market liberalization, and the creation of a competitive

business environment rather than on targeted intervention by the EU or national authorities.

 

 

Questions:-

1) Is gross domestic product per capita a useful indicator of international competitiveness in the EU?

2) Is it fair to point the blame for the EU’s poor international competitiveness at inflexible labor markets,

regulated goods and services markets, and a general lack of competition? What alternative explanations

might be suggested? What appears to be the problem with the EU’s banking sector?

3) Is the number of patents registered a useful indicator of superior international competitiveness? Why

do you think the USA does well in this area?

4) Should the EU consider more targeted intervention in the form of subsidies or strategic trade policy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case-5 (Marks-16)

AT THE RECEIVING END

Spread over 121 countries with 30,000 restaurants, and serving 46 million customers each day with the

help of more than 400,000 employees, the reach of McDonald’s is amazing. It all started in 1948 when

two brothers, Richard and Maurice ‘Mac’ McDonald, built several hamburger stands, with golden arches in

southern California. One day a travelling salesman, Ray Kroc, came to sell milkshake mixers. The

popularity of their $0.15 hamburgers impressed him, so he bought the world franchise rights from them

and spread the golden arches around the globe.

McDonald’s depends on its overseas restaurants for revenue. In fact, 60 per cent of its revenues are

generated outside of the United States. The key to the company’s success is its ability to standardize the

formula of quality, service, cleanliness and value, and apply it everywhere.

The company, well known for its golden arches, is not the world’s largest company. Its system wide sales

are only about one-fifth of Exxon Mobil or Wal-Mart stores. However, it owns one of the world’s best

known brands, and the golden arches are familiar to more people than the Christian cross. This

prominence, and its conquest of global markets, makes the company a focal point for inquiry and

criticism.

McDonald’s is a frequent target of criticism by anti-globalization protesters. In France, a pipes moking

sheep farmer named Jose Bove shot to fame by leading a campaign against the fast-food chain.

McDonald’s is a symbol of American trade hegemony and economic globalization. Jose Bove organized

fellow sheep farmers in France, and the group led by him drove tractors to the construction site of a new

McDonald’s restaurant and ransacked it. Bove was jailed for 20 days, and almost overnight an

international anti-globalization star was borne. Bove, who resembles the irrelevant French comic book

hero Asterix, travelled to Seattle in 1999, as part of the French delegation to lead the protest against

commercialization of food crops promoted by the WTO. Food, according to him, is too vital a part of life to

be trusted to the vagaries of the world trade. In Seattle, he led a demonstration in which some skimasked

protestors trashed at McDonald’s. As Bove explained, his movement was for small farmers against

industrial farming, brought about by globalization. For them, McDonald’s was a symbol of globalization

implying the standardization of food through industrial farming. If this was allowed to go on, he said,

there would no longer be need for farmers. “For us,” he declared, “McDonald’s is a symbol of what WTO

and the big companies want to do with the world.” lroncally, for all of Bove’s fulminations against

McDonald’s, the fast food chain counts its French operations among its most profitable in 121 countries.

As employer of about 35,000 workers, in 2006, McDonald’s was also one of France’s biggest foreign

employers.

Bove’s and his followers are not the only critics of McDonald’s. Leftists, anarchists, nationalists, farmers,

labor unions, environmentalists, consumer advocates, protectors of animal rights, religious orders and

intellectuals are equally critical of the fast food chain. For these and others, McDonald’s represents an evil

America. Within hours after US bombers began to pound Afghanistan in 2001, angry Pakistanis damaged

McDonald’s restaurants in Islamabad and an Indonesian mob burned an American flag.

McDonald’s entered India in the late 1990s. On its entry, the company encountered a unique situation.

Majority of the Indians did not eat beef but the company’s preparations contained cow’s meat. Nor could

the company use pork as Muslims were against eating it. This left chicken and mutton. McDonald’s came

out with ‘Maharaja Mac’, which is made from mutton and ‘McAloo Tikki Burger’ with chicken potato as the

main input. Food items were segregated into vegetarian and non-vegetarian categories.

Though it worked for sometime, this arrangement did not last long. In 2001, three Indian businessmen

settled in Seattle sued McDonald’s for fraudulently concealing the existence of beef in its French fries. The

company admitted its guilt of mixing miniscule quantity of beef extract in the oil. The company settled the

suit for $10 million and tendered an apology too. Further, the company pledged to label the ingredients of

its food items, and to find a substitute for the beef extract used in its oil.

McDonald’s succeeded in spreading American culture in the East Asian countries. In Hong Kong and

Taiwan, the company’s clean restrooms and kitchens set a new standard that elevated expectations

throughout those countries. In Hong Kong, children’s birthdays had traditionally gone unrecognized, but

McDonald’s introduced the practice of birthday parties in its restaurants, and now such parties have

become popular among the public. A journalist set forth a ‘Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention’

based on the notion that countries with McDonald’s restaurants do not go to war with each other. A British

magazine, The Economist, prints an yearly ‘Big Mac Index’ that uses the price of a Big Mac in different

foreign currencies to assess exchange rate distortions.

 

 

Questions:-

1. What lessons can other MNCs learn from the experience of McDonald’s?

2. Aware of the food habits of Indians, why did McDonald’s err in mixing beef extract in the oil used for

fries?

3. How far has McDonald’s succeeded in strategizing and meeting local cultures and needs?