Water Ingress Test Methods for Soft Goods

Defining Ingress for Soft Goods

Ingress on a rigid enclosure is a binary event: water either crosses the gasket or it does not. Ingress on a soft bag is a continuum. Water can pass through the face fabric, through a seam, along a zipper tape by capillary action, through a needle hole, or around a closure. It can also arrive as vapor, as condensation from a wet load inside the bag, or as a damp patch on the outside that a customer reads as leakage. Before you choose a test, decide which of those you are testing for, because the methods do not overlap.

This is the root of most disputes between a buyer and a supplier. A buyer reports that a bag leaked. A supplier reports that the fabric passed a hydrostatic test at 10,000 mm. Both are right, because the water almost certainly did not come through the face fabric at all. It came through the closure or through a seam, which is a different test with a different result. If your specification only names a fabric test, you have specified the one failure mode that is least likely to occur.

The five ingress paths on a soft bag

• Through the face fabric, governed by coating integrity and measured by hydrostatic head
• Through a seam, governed by weld integrity or tape adhesion rather than by the fabric
• Through a closure, governed by zipper class, flap geometry and closing force
• Along a tape or webbing by capillary action, which no standard spray test captures well
• Through needle holes from branding, label attachment or a repair, which are invisible until tested

A useful way to frame it is by energy. A spray test applies low energy over a large area. A shower test applies moderate energy over a long duration. A hydrostatic test applies no kinetic energy but a sustained pressure differential. A submersion test applies a modest pressure differential from all directions at once, plus the handling that goes with immersion and retrieval. Each method finds a different subset of the five paths above. No single method finds all of them.

Read that table as a coverage map rather than a ranking. A programme that claims shower resistance can be specified with a spray method and a fabric hydrostatic result, and that is a defensible, economical protocol. A programme that claims immersion needs submersion testing, and no amount of spray testing will substitute for it. The single most expensive mistake in this category is a marketing claim that outruns the test protocol behind it. Start from the claim and work backwards, and review the ingress and seam test protocol before you write the spec.

One more definition matters: the difference between a material test and a product test. Hydrostatic head to ISO 811 is a material test on a flat swatch. It tells you about the coating. It tells you nothing about the seam, the closure, or the geometry of the finished bag. Product-level testing is where the returns come from, and it is what a buyer should be specifying alongside the material result.

Spray, Rain and Shower Methods

Spray methods are the cheapest and fastest ingress tests, and they are the correct choice whenever the product promise is about rain or splash rather than immersion. The family includes the AATCC 22 spray test, which is a small-scale laboratory method on a flat specimen, and larger rain tower or shower apparatus that directs water at a finished product.

AATCC 22 and its scope

AATCC 22 is a water repellency test for fabrics. A specimen is mounted at 45 degrees, sprayed with a defined volume of water from a defined height through a defined nozzle, and the resulting wetting pattern is compared against a standard rating scale from 0 to 100. It is a surface wetting assessment, not an ingress test in the strict sense, and it is most often used to qualify a durable water repellent finish. It does not measure how much water crosses the fabric.

That distinction is worth stating in your own documentation, because a spray rating of 100 is frequently misquoted as a waterproof result. It is not. A fabric can repel surface water perfectly and still pass water under sustained pressure, and AATCC 22 applies no pressure at all. Use it to qualify a finish, and pair it with a hydrostatic result to qualify the barrier.

AATCC 35 and rain towers

AATCC 35, the water resistance test by rain test, is the step up. It subjects a specimen backed by a blotter to a controlled shower under a defined spray head and pressure, and the result is expressed as the mass of water that has penetrated. Because it measures mass gain rather than a visual pattern, it produces a number you can write a tolerance around, which makes it far more useful in a purchase specification than a 0 to 100 rating.

• Spray methods find closure and flap failures well, because water runs down the face and collects at the zip line
• They are fast: a typical run is minutes per specimen, so sample sizes can be larger
• They are gentle on the product, so the same unit can be shipped after testing
• They do not detect capillary wicking well, because the exposure is short
• They are sensitive to operator technique, particularly nozzle distance and spray angle

For finished bags, a rain tower or a shower cabinet is the practical implementation. Water is delivered through nozzles at a defined flow rate and pressure, the bag is mounted in its normal carrying orientation, and the exposure runs for a defined duration, commonly 5 to 60 minutes. Define all three parameters in your protocol: flow, duration and orientation. A bag tested lying flat and a bag tested standing upright will give different results, because water pools differently.

MIL-STD-810 includes a rain procedure that is often referenced for equipment testing, and JIS L 1092 and ISO 811 both include spray-related methods for textiles. When you reference any of them, reference the method and the parameter set together, because most of these standards offer several optional conditions. A bare standard number on a tech pack is not a specification; it is a starting point for an argument. Our IPX rating explainer covers how enclosure codes relate, and more importantly where they do not.

Our practical recommendation: run a spray or shower method on every finished bag design at the prototype stage, because it is cheap and it finds the closure problems that generate the majority of field complaints. Then decide whether the claim needs anything more.

Static Head and Hydrostatic Methods

Hydrostatic head testing measures the pressure at which water first penetrates a fabric. A specimen is clamped over an orifice, water pressure is raised at a defined rate, and the result is recorded in millimeters of water column. ISO 811 is the most widely referenced method for textiles, AATCC 127 is the common North American equivalent, and JIS L 1092 covers similar ground in Japan.

The number is intuitive and useful. A result of 10,000 mm means the fabric withstood a column of water 10,000 mm high before the third drop penetrated, by the usual endpoint definition. For reference, kneeling on a wet surface generates pressure equivalent to a few thousand millimeters, and a bag sitting in a puddle generates almost none. That is why a 10,000 mm fabric is more than adequate for a rain-resistant bag and is the standard grade we build to, with 20,000 mm and above available for technical programmes.

What hydrostatic testing does not tell you

• It says nothing about seams: a welded seam is tested separately, usually by a bend and pressure cycle
• It says nothing about closures: a zipper cannot be tested this way
• It is a flat-specimen test, so it misses any failure caused by curvature or by a fold
• It is sensitive to clamping: a specimen clamped too tightly can fail prematurely at the clamp edge
• Results drift with water temperature, which affects surface tension, so specify the test temperature

Rate of pressure increase matters and is defined in the method, so do not let a laboratory use a faster ramp to save time. A faster ramp gives a higher apparent result, sometimes by 10 to 20 percent, which is enough to move a fabric across a threshold you have written into a specification. State the ramp rate alongside the method reference if your protocol depends on a threshold value.

Hydrostatic results also decline with use. Abrasion, flexing, UV and contamination all reduce the effective head over time, and a fabric tested at 10,000 mm new may test significantly lower after a season. If your warranty period is long, either specify a higher starting value to allow for degradation, or add an abraded-and-flexed retest to your protocol. We recommend the retest, because it reflects how the bag actually ages.

Finally, note that a hydrostatic result is a material property, not a product guarantee. It belongs on the material line of a tech pack, alongside the denier and the coating type, and it should be verified per production lot rather than once at the start of a programme. A coating formulation change at the mill will move the number, and you will not see it unless you test each lot.

Submersion and Immersion Methods

Submersion is the only method that supports an immersion claim, and it is the most demanding of the common tests because water attacks from every direction simultaneously and the product is handled while wet. It is also the method most likely to produce a result the buyer does not expect, because it finds failures that spray testing cannot.

The basic procedure is simple: close the bag as a user would, submerge it to a defined depth for a defined duration, retrieve it, dry the exterior, and inspect the interior for water. The parameters that must be stated are depth, duration, water temperature, whether the bag is empty or loaded, and what counts as a failure. Without those five, a submersion result is meaningless.

Parameter choices that change the outcome

• Depth: 1 meter for a splash-level claim, 1 meter for 30 minutes is the common reference point for an IPX7-style claim
• Duration: 30 minutes is standard; shorter exposures miss slow capillary paths
• Load: an empty bag floats and behaves differently from one weighted to sink
• Closure state: define how many roll turns, or whether the zipper is fully seated
• Retrieval: describe how the bag is lifted, because a bag lifted by one handle stresses the closure differently

The failure criterion deserves care. The strictest useful definition is no visible water inside. A more practical commercial definition allows a small measured quantity, for example less than 5 milliliters, because condensation from a humid interior can produce droplets that are not leakage at all. Whichever you choose, write it down, and require the inspector to photograph the interior before and after.

IEC 60529 defines the IP code and its test sequence for enclosures, and IPX7 and IPX8 are the immersion grades most often borrowed into bag marketing. It is important to be honest about scope: IEC 60529 was written for rigid electrical enclosures, and applying it to a soft bag involves interpretation, particularly around how the sample is supported. Many in the industry use the depth and duration from the standard as a reference while testing a soft good. Say so explicitly rather than printing a bare IPX7 badge you cannot defend.

Submersion testing is destructive in commercial terms: a tested unit usually cannot be sold as new. Budget for it. At a typical sampling rate, the units consumed by submersion testing over a programme are a real line item, and pretending otherwise leads to under-tested shipments. On our production lines, submersion units are drawn from the same lot as the shipment and are recorded in the test file.

One practical caution: submersion finds closure failures ruthlessly, and a design that passes at first article can fail at bulk if the closure supplier changes or the assembly tension drifts. Test at first article and again at pre-shipment, on production units rather than on retained prototypes. The comparison between the two results is one of the most valuable quality signals available to a buyer.

Air-Pressure and Vacuum Decay Methods

Air methods test a sealed volume by pressurizing it slightly or by drawing a partial vacuum and measuring whether the pressure holds. They are fast, dry, non-destructive, and very sensitive to small leaks. They are the standard approach in medical and packaging inspection and are increasingly used for dry bags and welded chambers.

The principle is straightforward. The bag is sealed, a small positive pressure is introduced through a port, and the decay in pressure over a fixed period is measured. A bag that holds pressure is intact. A bag that decays has a leak, and the rate of decay is a proxy for the leak size. Because air has far lower viscosity than water, a leak that water would take minutes to traverse can be detected in seconds.

Where air methods win and where they mislead

• Win: speed. A cycle is measured in seconds, so 100 percent testing becomes economically possible
• Win: sensitivity. Small pinholes and weld voids are found reliably
• Win: the product stays dry, so a tested unit can still be shipped
• Mislead: a closure that seals under internal pressure may not seal under external water pressure
• Mislead: air does not replicate capillary wicking, so a wicking tape can pass an air test and fail in water

That second point is the important one. Internal pressurization pushes the closure elements together in a way that external water pressure does not, so an air test is optimistic about closures. Use air methods for seam and weld integrity on a sealed chamber, where the physics is comparable, and do not use them as a substitute for a water test on a zipper or a roll-top closure.

Practical implementation needs a port. Either the bag design includes a valve or a test port, or the fixture seals around an opening such as the mouth of a roll-top. The second approach requires a custom fixture per size, which is a cost and a lead time to plan for. If you intend to run 100 percent air testing, design the port into the product from the start.

Set the acceptance threshold empirically rather than by theory. Run a batch of known-good units and a batch with deliberate defects, measure the decay distribution of each, and set the threshold between them with a margin. A threshold picked from a datasheet will either reject good product or pass bad product, and you will not know which until the field tells you.

For buyers, the value proposition is simple: air decay is the only method here that can plausibly be applied to every unit in a shipment rather than to a sample. That changes the shape of your quality risk. A sampling plan protects you statistically; a 100 percent air test protects you individually. When the consequence of a leak is high, ask for it, and note it in the RFQ as a distinct line with its own cost.

Loaded vs Unloaded Test Fixtures

Most ingress testing is done on empty bags, and most field failures happen in loaded bags. That gap explains a large share of the leak reports that a supplier cannot reproduce. A load changes the geometry of every panel, pulls on seams, distorts the closure line, and holds the bag in a shape it does not take when empty.

What a load changes

• Panel curvature increases, which puts a welded seam under peel rather than shear load
• The closure line is pulled, which opens a zipper coil slightly and reduces contact pressure
• The base takes the full mass, so a base weld is stressed differently from a side weld
• The bag sinks rather than floats in a submersion test, changing the pressure distribution
• Fabric tension reduces the effective pore size in some constructions and increases it in others

The standard fixture is a defined mass of a defined material, distributed in a defined way. Our internal protocol uses a load calculated from the rated capacity of the bag, placed to simulate a realistic pack, with the heaviest items low. Document the mass, the material and the distribution in your protocol, because a 5 kg steel block and 5 kg of textile behave completely differently in a submersion tank.

Use the wet-load fixture for any swim or gym programme, because it reproduces the two things that actually happen: the load is damp and the bag is closed while damp. It is slower and it needs a drying step between cycles, but it is the only fixture that represents the product in service. If you can only afford one loaded test, make it this one.

There is a commercial angle too. A bag that passes unloaded and fails loaded is a design problem, and it is far cheaper to find at the prototype stage than after tooling. Build the loaded fixture into the prototype test plan, not into the pre-shipment plan, and give yourself room for one design iteration. Our sampling cycle of 6 to 10 working days for a standard construction is designed to allow exactly that loop.

Finally, be consistent between the prototype test and the production test. A programme that validates a loaded design and then inspects empty units at pre-shipment has a protocol hole, and the hole is where a bad lot will slip through. Whatever fixture validated the design should be the fixture that inspects the production.

Conditioning Before Testing

Conditioning is the step most often skipped and the one that causes the most irreproducible results. Textiles and coatings change with moisture content and temperature, and a specimen tested straight off a dry shelf behaves differently from one that has equilibrated at a standard atmosphere.

The standard textile conditioning atmosphere is 20 plus or minus 2 degrees C at 65 plus or minus 4 percent relative humidity, held long enough for the specimen to reach equilibrium, commonly 24 hours. Stating this in a protocol costs one line and removes a large category of arguments about why a result moved between two laboratories.

Conditioning variables worth controlling

• Moisture equilibrium: condition at a standard atmosphere before any water test
• Temperature: water and specimen temperature affect surface tension and coating stiffness
• Prior flexing: a bag that has been folded in transit tests differently from one that has not
• Contamination: fingerprints, mold release and dust all change wetting behavior
• Wash or abrasion history: test the state you are claiming, whether that is new or aged

Low-temperature conditioning is a separate and important case. A coating that is flexible at 20 degrees C can craze at minus 20 degrees C, and a bag sold into a cold market will be folded and handled cold. If your distribution or end use includes cold, add a conditioned flex and retest step at the low temperature. This is where polycarbonate and some polyurethane coatings are most vulnerable.

Aging conditioning is the other case worth specifying. UV exposure, abrasion and repeated flexing all degrade a coating, and a protocol that only tests new material is testing the product on its best day. An accelerated UV exposure followed by a hydrostatic retest is a reasonable and inexpensive addition for any outdoor programme, and it gives you a defensible basis for a warranty period.

Keep the conditioning record in the test file. Date, time, temperature, humidity and duration cost nothing to log and turn a test report into an auditable document. When a dispute arises, the laboratory that can produce its conditioning log is the one whose result carries weight.

One caution about water temperature specifically: hydrostatic results are sensitive to it because surface tension changes with temperature. A test run at 20 degrees C and the same test run at 27 degrees C will not give identical numbers. Specify the water temperature in your protocol, and treat any result quoted without it as indicative only.

Choosing a Method per Product Tier

The right protocol is a function of the claim and the price band, not of how rigorous you would like to be. Over-testing an entry-tier promotional bag costs margin and buys nothing; under-testing a technical dry bag costs warranty claims and reputation. Match the protocol to the promise.

Apply one rule across every tier: the claim on the hangtag must be supported by the method in the file. If the hangtag says waterproof, the file needs a submersion result. If it says water resistant, a spray and hydrostatic protocol is sufficient. If it says submersible, you need submersion plus a closure-specific test, because closures are where submersible products fail.

There is also a channel dimension. Marketplaces and large retail buyers increasingly ask for evidence, and a test report with a named method, a stated parameter set and a dated result is the document that answers that request. A generic certificate without parameters is not. Build the evidence file as you go rather than assembling it when a buyer asks.

Cost-wise, the incremental jump from an entry protocol to a mid protocol is small, because both are laboratory tests on existing equipment. The jump to a submersion protocol is larger in labor, and 100 percent air decay is the largest because it needs a fixture and an operator at the line. Price them as separate lines so you can decide with real numbers rather than by assumption.

Our recommendation for a new programme is to specify one tier higher than the claim strictly requires on the first run, then relax if the data supports it. It is much easier to remove a test from an approved protocol than to add one after a season of complaints, and the first run is when you can still change the design in response to what the test finds.

Sample Size and Pass/Fail Rules

Sample size is where statistics meets budget. Too small and you learn nothing; too large and you destroy margin. The standard tool for incoming and pre-shipment inspection is ISO 2859-1, which defines sampling plans indexed by acceptable quality level, and AQL 2.5 is the conventional level for consumer soft goods.

An AQL 2.5 plan on a 500 piece lot gives a defined sample size and a defined accept and reject number, and it is the same framework whether you are inspecting stitching, welds or water resistance. The point of using the standard is that both sides agree in advance on what a failed lot looks like, which removes the negotiation from a difficult conversation.

Defect classification for ingress testing

• Critical: water inside the bag above the stated failure threshold, or any closure failure
• Major: seam weld void, tape lift at a corner, or a coating defect visible without magnification
• Minor: cosmetic water spotting on the exterior, or a spray rating one grade below target
• Critical defects have an accept number of zero in almost every sensible plan
• Define the threshold numerically, for example 5 milliliters of water, rather than as visible moisture

For destructive tests such as submersion, note that the sample is consumed, so the plan has to account for it. Our practice is to draw the destructive sample from the lot separately from the AQL visual sample, and to record both in the same report. If your supplier draws submersion units from the visual sample, the two sampling plans interfere with each other and neither is valid.

Pass and fail rules need a re-test clause. State in advance whether a failed unit triggers a retest, a doubled sample, or a lot rejection, and under what conditions. Without that clause, every failure becomes a negotiation, and a supplier under pressure will always argue for the interpretation that saves the shipment.

Those figures are the standard general inspection level II single sampling plan. Verify them against the current edition of ISO 2859-1 before you write them into a contract, because sample size codes and switching rules are revised from time to time and a procurement document should cite the edition it used.

Finally, decide who owns the sample. If the supplier selects the units, the sample is not random in any meaningful sense. Require the inspector to draw units from sealed cartons chosen after the lot is packed, and record the carton numbers. This costs nothing and it is the difference between a sampling plan and a formality.

Documenting Results for Buyers

A test result that is not documented in a form a buyer can act on is a cost with no return. The document has to answer four questions: what was tested, how, against what criterion, and when. Everything else is context.

Minimum content of an ingress test report

• Product identity: style number, colorway, lot or production order, and date of manufacture
• Method: the named standard plus the full parameter set, including duration, depth, flow and temperature
• Fixture: loaded or unloaded, and if loaded, the mass, material and distribution
• Conditioning: atmosphere, temperature, duration, and any aging or flexing applied beforehand
• Result: a number with units, not a pass or fail comment, plus photographs of each unit
• Criterion: the stated pass threshold, quoted alongside the result so the margin is visible
• Sampling: sample size, the plan used, and the carton numbers sampled

Photographs matter more than most reports allow for. A photograph of the interior of each tested unit, taken before and after opening under consistent lighting, converts a subjective claim into evidence. Require it, and require the photographs to be identifiable to the unit, with the unit number in frame.

Structure the file so a procurement team can audit it. One report per lot, indexed by production order, with the material certificate, the conditioning log and the inspection report attached in a fixed order. When a marketplace or a large retail buyer asks for evidence, you send one file per lot rather than assembling a response under time pressure.

Then close the loop back into the specification. Every test result is a data point about whether the specification was right. If a product passes comfortably every time, the specification may be over-tight and costing money. If it fails occasionally, the specification may be under-defined. Review the results at the end of each season and adjust the numbers rather than leaving them frozen.

The commercial terms should sit in the same document set. Bulk production runs 35 to 50 days after sample approval, quoted FOB Xiamen with T/T 30/70 payment terms, and the inspection report is issued before the balance payment is due, so the buyer has evidence before releasing funds. Ask for that linkage explicitly in the purchase order; it is the most effective quality lever a buyer has.

If you take one action from this article, make it this: rewrite the testing section of your next RFQ so that every requirement names a method, a parameter set and a criterion. Waterproof is not a test. AATCC 22 at a stated rating, ISO 811 at 10,000 mm, and submersion at 1 meter for 30 minutes with a 5 milliliter failure threshold are tests. Start from the waterproof bag product range, pair your protocol with the production and inspection workflow, and confirm the custom programme path that fits your volume. Programme options start from our OEM waterproof bag programmes and the custom dry bag manufacturing line.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is the difference between a spray test and a submersion test?

A: A spray test delivers low-energy water to one face of a product for a short period, so it finds closure and flap failures but applies almost no pressure. A submersion test surrounds the product with water at depth for a sustained period, which applies pressure from all directions and finds seam and pinhole failures. Passing spray does not imply passing submersion.

Q2: Does a hydrostatic head of 10,000 mm mean a bag is waterproof?

A: It means the flat fabric resisted a 10,000 mm water column under ISO 811 before penetration. It says nothing about seams, closures or needle holes, which are where most real leaks occur. A 10,000 mm fabric is excellent for rain resistance, but an immersion claim needs a submersion test on the finished product as well.

Q3: Which standard should I reference for fabric water resistance?

A: ISO 811 is the most widely referenced hydrostatic method for textiles, AATCC 127 is the common North American equivalent, and JIS L 1092 is used in Japan. For surface repellency rather than penetration, reference AATCC 22. Always state the parameter set alongside the standard, because most methods allow several optional conditions.

Q4: What is AQL 2.5 and how does it apply to water testing?

A: AQL 2.5 is an acceptable quality level under ISO 2859-1, which defines the sample size and the accept and reject numbers for a given lot size. It gives both sides an agreed definition of a failed lot. For destructive ingress tests, draw a separate sample from the lot so the two sampling plans do not interfere.

Q5: How many units should be submersion tested?

A: Draw a destructive sub-sample in addition to the AQL visual sample, typically 2 to 3 units on a 500 piece lot and 5 to 8 on larger lots. Submersion consumes the unit, so it cannot be part of the shippable sample. Require units to be drawn from sealed cartons chosen after packing, with carton numbers recorded.

Q6: Should bags be tested empty or loaded?

A: Test loaded whenever the product will be used loaded, which is always. A load curves the panels, pulls the closure line and stresses the base welds in ways an empty bag does not reproduce. Validate the design with the loaded fixture at prototype stage and inspect production with the same fixture.

Q7: What conditioning is required before a water test?

A: Condition specimens at 20 plus or minus 2 degrees C and 65 plus or minus 4 percent relative humidity, typically for 24 hours, and state the water temperature in the protocol. Textile coatings change with moisture and temperature, and surface tension changes with water temperature, so unconditioned results are not reproducible between laboratories.

Q8: Can an air decay test replace a water test?

A: Not entirely. Air decay is fast, dry and sensitive to pinholes and weld voids, so it is excellent for a sealed welded chamber and can even be run at 100 percent. But internal pressure pushes closure elements together, so it is optimistic about zippers, and air does not replicate capillary wicking. Use both where the claim is serious.

Q9: What is a sensible failure threshold for a submersion test?

A: The strictest useful definition is no visible water inside, but a more practical commercial rule allows a small measured quantity such as less than 5 milliliters, because condensation inside a humid bag can form droplets that are not leakage. State the threshold numerically and require interior photographs before and after opening.

Q10: How long should a submersion test run?

A: Thirty minutes at one meter is the common reference point for an immersion-grade claim, and it is long enough for slow capillary paths to show. Shorter exposures miss those paths, and a five-minute dip is a screening tool rather than a qualification. State depth, duration and water temperature together.

Q11: Is IEC 60529 applicable to soft bags?

A: IEC 60529 defines the IP code and its test sequence for rigid enclosures, so applying it to a soft bag involves interpretation, particularly around sample support. Many in the industry use the depth and duration from the standard as a reference when testing soft goods. Be explicit about that in your documentation rather than printing a bare rating.

Q12: Why do two laboratories report different hydrostatic results?

A: Most often because of a different rate of pressure increase, a different water temperature, a different clamping force, or a lack of conditioning. A faster ramp can raise the apparent result by 10 to 20 percent. Specify the ramp rate, the water temperature and the conditioning atmosphere, and the two results should converge.

Q13: What should an ingress test report contain?

A: It must answer what was tested, how, against what criterion and when. That means product and lot identity, the named method with its full parameter set, the fixture description, the conditioning record, a numeric result with units, the stated pass threshold, the sampling plan used, and dated photographs of each unit.

Q14: How does testing fit into the production schedule?

A: Sampling runs 6 to 10 working days for a standard construction and 12 to 15 working days when the build is complex, and bulk production runs 35 to 50 days after sample approval. Ingress testing happens at first article and at pre-shipment, and the report is issued before the balance payment is due under T/T 30/70 terms.

People Also Ask