On 2 January 2021 Sunny Toys Australia contracted to sell to Taipei Tinny World (TTW), a childrens toys store in the city of Taipei, Taiwan, 250 solar-powered walking crocodile toys. The price was AUD 5,000 for delivery FOB any port in Australia. Since TTW was the first-time customer, payment would be by letter of credit. On 9 January, Sunny Toys Australia received an advice from Austral Bank that China Bank in Taiwan had issued a letter of credit in favour of Solar Toys as beneficiary. The letter of credit was payable upon presentation of the beneficiarys bill of exchange drawn on China Bank together with the following documents: - Commercial Invoice; - Full set of clean on board negotiable marine bills of lading consigned to order blank endorsed marked freight pre-paid; - Certificate of origin signed by Australian Customs or its authorized agency; - Certificate of quality issued by local authority; - Packing list in duplicate. Austral bank has been authorized to act as advising and negotiating bank. On 10 January, the goods were loaded on board the ship and a clean bill of lading was issued. The shipping documents together with a bill of exchange drawn on China Bank were presented to Austral Bank on 14 January. The beneficiary presented documents within the expiry date of the L/C but they contain discrepancies. The beneficiary collected the offending documents for correction (leaving the rest with the bank) and then in due course presented correct documents, however, in the interim the L/C had expired. On 20 January Austral Bank indicated that it refused to pay because the documents presented did not conform to the requirements of the letter of credit.

Question: It appears that the problem with the documents is that the bill of lading presented by Sunny Toys is marked Freight to be Collected instead of Freight Prepaid as required under the terms of the letter of credit. Is this a discrepancy?