LC document checker (Pro, full UCP 600 and ISBP)
Catch the discrepancy before the issuing bank refuses presentation.
Preview · example result
1 discrepancy flagged under UCP 600 Article 14(c) / ISBP 745 paragraph A19.
Late shipment
UCP 600 Art 14(c)Pro members only
Subscribe to Sourzi Pro to check your actual LCs
The LC document checker is on the Pro tier. Pro is USD 59 per month and unlocks the raw MT700 paste path (every UCP 600 article + ISBP 745 paragraph), alongside the DFAT sanctions screener, the FX converter, and the rest of the Pro catalogue.
The free structured-input LC checker at /tools/documentation/lc-document-checker-rule-based stays open access. It is the right tool for a one-off check. The Pro tool here is the right tool for the procurement or trade-finance team running an LC every week.
Worked example: a deliberately-flawed LC text
You have a USD 124,500 LC for titanium dioxide bound for Melbourne. The buyer's bank issued the LC on 2026-04-10 with expiry 2026-08-15 in Shanghai. Latest shipment on field 44C is 2026-07-15. Partial shipments not allowed on 43P. Transhipment not allowed on 43T. The B/L is dated 2026-07-20 on-board (five days late), the commercial invoice is unsigned, and the insurance certificate is for USD 130,000 against a CIF base of USD 124,500. The goods description on the invoice reads "TiO2 R-902" while LC field 45A reads "Titanium Dioxide Pigment Grade R-902".
Press Load worked example above to drop these values into the form (LC text + document-set fields). Run the check. The tool returns four discrepancies. Critical: B/L on-board 2026-07-20 is after the LC latest shipment 2026-07-15 (article 20(a)(ii) plus article 14). Critical: insurance USD 130,000 is below 110 percent of CIF USD 124,500, which is USD 136,950 (article 28(f)(ii)). Major: invoice goods description "TiO2 R-902" does not match LC 45A character-for-character (article 18(c)). Major: invoice marked unsigned (ISBP 745 paragraph C2 where the LC requires a signed invoice).
The fix is one of two things, in this order. Re-cut the documents on the seller's side: top up the insurance to USD 137,000 plus, sign the invoice, change the goods description to match LC 45A verbatim. Then approach the buyer for an LC amendment to extend latest shipment by one week (article 10 covers amendments). If the buyer refuses the amendment, present with a buyer-side waiver letter committing to honour despite the discrepancy. Either way, the conversation happens before the documents leave the seller's desk, not after the bank's discrepancy notice lands.
Frequently asked
What does this tool catch?
Twelve high-frequency UCP 600 and ISBP discrepancy patterns: expired LC (article 6), late presentation (article 14(c)), B/L on-board date after latest shipment (article 20(a)(ii)), partial shipment when not allowed (article 31), transhipment when not allowed (articles 19 to 22 with the container carve-out flagged), insurance below 110 percent CIF (article 28(f)(ii)), goods description mismatch on commercial invoice (article 18(c)), weight or quantity tolerance breach (article 30), wrong consignee (article 14(j)), missing freight prepaid/collect notation on B/L (article 26(b)), required documents missing (article 14), and missing signature on commercial invoice (ISBP 745). The tool reports rule id, severity, the UCP article reference, and a suggested fix for each hit.
What does it not catch?
Language-sensitive and subjective discrepancies: charterparty B/L acceptability, third-party documents acceptable per LC field 47A clauses, SBLC versus commercial LC special clauses, bill-of-exchange tenor on usance LCs, and fraud-rule exceptions (the autonomy principle under UCP 600 article 4 versus the courts). For high-value LCs run a full documentary-credit professional review (DOCDEX, ICC Banking Commission, your bank trade-finance desk) at LC issuance and again on the document set before presentation.
Where does the LC text go?
Nowhere. Pure client-side logic. No fetch, no upload, no analytics on the LC body. The whole tool runs in the browser tab. Close the tab and the text is gone.
Can I paste a non-SWIFT LC text?
Yes. The parser looks for MT700 field tags (e.g. :31D:, :44C:, :43P:, :43T:, :32B:, :45A:, :46A:, :48:) and falls back to keyword detection when tags are absent. The structured document-set fields are the second input source; together they cover the working cases for chemical-trade LCs.
How does the Pro version differ from the free LC document checker?
The free tool at /tools/documentation/lc-document-checker-rule-based uses structured field-by-field input with 17 UCP 600 rule heuristics, suited to a one-off check on a small LC. This Pro version takes a raw pasted MT700 (the format your bank actually sends), runs the same UCP 600 article references plus the ISBP 745 layer (signature, freight prepaid/collect notation, insurance amount, description-correspondence, weight-tolerance), and is built for the procurement team that runs an LC every week.
Related tools
Need a structured-input version for a one-off check? The free LC document checker (rule-based) takes field-by-field input and runs the same UCP 600 article references. For the SWIFT field reference, the LC terms decoder walks through the common MT700 fields with their UCP 600 article mapping.