1282rev Consolidated Final Opinions - April 2019 - Beijing PDF

Finance for Development
Banking Commission
Final Opinions of the Banking Commission, April 2019 – Beijing
Attached are the following Opinions as discussed at the April 2019 Banking Commission
Annual Meeting in Beijing:
470/TA886rev
470/TA887
470/TA888rev
470/TA889rev
470/TA890
Banking Commission
Mr Timo Vuori
ICC Finland
WTC Helsinki
Aleksanterinkatu 17
Box 1000
FI 00101 Helsinki
Finland
29 April 2019
Subject: Document 470/TA.886rev
Dear Timo,
Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the opinion of the ICC
Banking Commission.
QUOTE
A documentary credit (issued via SWIFT MT700) included the following requirements:
46A: Documents Required
COMMERCIAL INVOICE IN 1 ORIGINAL(S) AND 3 COPY(IES)
47A: Additional Conditions
UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN THIS DOCUMENTARY CREDIT, ALL DOCUMENTS

MUST BE ISSUED IN ENGLISH. HOWEVER, DOCUMENTS IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN
ENGLISH ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED THEY ALSO BEAR THE TEXT IN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
The presented invoice included, among others, the following information: “Sold to
Messrs”, “Invoice No.”, “Date”, “Description” and “Amount”. The field headings were both in
English and Chinese language. The invoice had no letterhead or other designated field
indicating the name of the issuer of the invoice.
At the bottom of the invoice a stamp bearing Chinese characters (only) was visible.
The nominated bank found the documents (including the invoice) to be complying and
negotiated accordingly.
After receipt of the documents, the issuing bank refused the presentation citing the
following discrepancy:
“INV. NOT APPEARING TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY BENEF. AS PER UCP ART.18 A
I/ISBP ART.A21A,C.I”
The nominated bank did not agree with the refusal, claiming that the invoice was fully
complying and arguing that the name of the beneficiary was indicated in the stamp of the
invoice (in Chinese language). Therefore, indicating that the beneficiary had issued the
invoice. The nominated bank referred to ISBP 745 paragraph A21 (e), to the effect that any
stamps may be in a language other than that required in the credit.
The issuing bank maintained its stand arguing:
(i) According to UCP 600 sub-article 14 (a), banks must examine a presentation to
determine, on the basis of the documents alone, whether the documents appear on their face
to constitute a complying presentation, and (ii) regardless of ISBP 745 paragraph A21 (e),
banks must be able to determine whether the invoice appears to have been issued by the
beneficiary (UCP 600 sub-article 18 (a) (i)). Further, they pointed out that the credit included a
clause restricting the language of the presented documents to English.
The nominated bank further argued, referring to ISBP 745 paragraph A21 (e), that a
requirement in the credit that all documents should be issued in English does not preclude a
document from being stamped in another language. And since, in the role of the nominated
bank, it was able to determine the issuer of the invoice, the issuing bank is bound to do the
same.
We kindly seek your opinion on whether, following UCP 600 and international standard
banking practice, the discrepancy stated by the issuing bank is valid.
UNQUOTE
ANALYSIS
The credit stated that all documents must be issued in English, with the proviso that
documents in languages other than English would be acceptable provided that the text of the
document was also in English language.
Whilst the nominated bank found the documents to be complying, the issuing bank cited
a discrepancy: “INV. NOT APPEARING TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY BENEF. AS PER UCP
ART.18 A I/ISBP ART.A21A,C.I”. According to the nominated bank, the name of the
beneficiary was indicated in the stamp of the invoice, albeit in Chinese language, which is in
accordance with ISBP 745 paragraph A21 (e) i.e., allowing both the name of an entity and any
stamps to be in a language other than that stated in the credit.
However, it had been made clear within the terms and conditions of the credit that any
non-English text within a document must also be written in English language, thereby, in this
case, allowing non-Chinese speakers to be in a position to identify whether or not the
documents had been issued correctly. The wording in the credit modified the practice as
described in ISBP 745 paragraph A21 (e).
According to UCP 600 sub-article 18 (a) (i), a commercial invoice must appear to have
been issued by the beneficiary. If the issuing bank is unable to identify such issuance, due to
the absence of English text, then it is within its rights to raise an appropriate discrepancy. The
fact that the nominated bank can determine the issuer of the invoice on the basis of the
Chinese text does not imply that the issuing bank can do the same, nor does it bind the issuing
bank into so doing.
Document No. 470/1282rev

International Chamber of Commerce | 2
CONCLUSION
In the absence of a letterhead or any other indication, in English, of the name of the
issuer of the invoice, the discrepancy raised by the issuing bank is valid.
The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the opinion of the ICC Banking
Commission based on the facts under “QUOTE” above.
The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of
guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered.
If this query relates to a matter currently under consideration by the courts, the ICC
Banking Commission will refrain from considering it for adoption as an opinion.
Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking
Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Advisers shall be
liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in
connection with the rendered opinion(s).
Yours Sincerely,
Olivier Paul
Director, Finance for Development

Banking Commission
Mr Timo Vuori
ICC Finland
WTC Helsinki
Aleksanterinkatu 17
Box 1000
00101 Helsinki
Finland
29 April 2019
Subject: Document 470/TA.887
Dear Timo,
Banking Commission.
QUOTE
A letter of credit required, among others, the presentation of the following document:
The presented guarantee was issued via SWIFT message by a bank in London, which
has a branch in Vietnam, in favour of the applicant and was notified locally by the issuing bank
of the credit in Vietnam, without any commitment from them.
We have differing views internally and seek the opinion of the ICC Banking Commission
as to whether the document presented constitutes a discrepancy or not.
The argument for acceptance of the presented document is:
The credit requires a guarantee issued by a bank having a branch in Vietnam and that it
is indeed the case of the issuing bank of the guarantee, as it has a branch office in Vietnam.
This position can be supported by the following opinion given by the ICC in document No.
470/1261 dated 24/05/2016 titled “Notes on the principle of strict compliance” wherein it is
stated “Checking documents, at least in the paper world, is not a matter of applying a computer
algorithm or mathematical formula. It goes beyond strict compliance and, in certain
circumstances, requires judgment based on experience. Applying common sense is an
essential factor in protecting the integrity of the documentary credit”.

The argument for not accepting the presented document is:
From a strict letter of credit viewpoint, the presented guarantee does not clearly comply
with the requirement, as it cannot be determined from the document itself that the bank having
issued the guarantee has a branch office in Vietnam. The principle of documentary credits is to
verify the compliance of documents only on the basis of their content (UCP 600 sub-article
14(a)). The checking of documents should not be made from any information available via any
channel other than the documents themselves. A bank should ensure from the document itself
that the issuer is as requested in the credit.
UNQUOTE
ANALYSIS
As stated in ISBP 745 Preliminary Considerations (iv), “Many of the problems that arise
at the document examination stage could be avoided or resolved by the respective parties
through careful attention to detail in the credit or amendment application and issuance of the
credit or any amendment thereto. The applicant and beneficiary should carefully consider the
documents required for presentation, by whom they are to be issued, their data content and
the time frame in which they are to be presented.”  
In this particular query, the credit required a performance bond, issued and sent by a
reputable Vietnamese Bank or international bank having a branch office in Vietnam. (emphasis
added)
The presented performance bond was issued by an international bank but contained no
specific indication that the bank maintained a branch in Vietnam. However, it cannot be
considered international standard banking practice for the issuer of a performance bond, or
similar type of guarantee, to list specific branch offices in each bond that it issues.
Furthermore, there was no actual requirement in the credit that this be the case. The credit
merely specified that where the issuer was an international bank it should maintain a branch in
Vietnam, not that such fact should be overtly stated within the documentary presentation. If this
was to be the case, it should have been clearly stated within the credit as part of the
documentary requirement. UCP 600 sub-article 14 (h) states that if a credit contains a
condition without stipulating the document to indicate compliance with the condition, banks will
deem such condition as not stated and will disregard it. For example, the credit could have
stated a requirement for the presentation of a suitable certificate or statement by the issuer of
the performance bond.
CONCLUSION
The discrepancy is not valid.

Yours Sincerely,
Olivier Paul

Banking Commission
Mr. Donald R. Smith

International Banking Advisor
United States Council for International Business
1212, Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
United States of America
29 April 2019
Subject: Document 470/TA.888rev
Dear Mr. Smith,
Banking Commission.
QUOTE
Since the introduction of UCP 600, we continue to receive letters of credit that attempt to
modify sub-article 16 (c) (iii) (b). The following are actual examples of the phrases that we see,
all received from different banks, in different country locations:
1. IF DOCUMENTS PRESENTED UNDER THIS L/C ARE FOUND TO BE

DISCREPANT AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED PRESENTER'S DISPOSAL
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISCREPANT DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF THE
APPLICANT'S WAIVER OF DISCREPANCIES, WE SHALL RELEASE THE
DOCUMENTS TO THE
APPLICANT WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PRESENTER AND WE WILL HAVE NO
LIABILITY TO THE PRESENTER IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH RELEASE. [Emphasis
added]
2. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 16 C III B OF UCP 600, IF

WE GIVE NOTICE OF REFUSAL OF DOCUMENTS PRESENTED UNDER THIS
CREDIT WE SHALL HOWEVER RETAIN THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT A WAIVER OF
DISCREPANCIES FROM THE APPLICANT AND, SUBJECT TO SUCH WAIVER BEING
ACCEPTABLE TO US, TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS AGAINST THAT WAIVER
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PRESENTER PROVIDED THAT NO WRITTEN
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRARY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY US FROM THE
PRESENTER BEFORE THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTS. ANY SUCH RELEASE
PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF CONTRARY INSTRUCTIONS SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A
FAILURE ON OUR PART TO HOLD THE DOCUMENTS AT THE PRESENTER'S RISK
AND DISPOSAL, AND WE WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY TO THE PRESENTER IN
RESPECT OF ANY SUCH RELEASE. [Emphasis added]

3. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF ART 16.c.iii b - UCP 600, WE SHALL
RELEASE DOCUMENTS AGAINST THE WAIVER WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THE PRESENTER PROVIDED THAT NO WRITTEN
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRARY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY US
FROM THE PRESENTER BEFORE THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTS. ANY
SUCH RELEASE PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF CONTRARY INSTRUCTIONS SHALL NOT
CONSTITUTE A FAILURE ON OUR PART TO HOLD THE DOCUMENTS AT THE
PRESENTER'S RISK AND DISPOSAL, AND WE WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY TO THE
PRESENTER IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH RELEASE. [Emphasis added]
4. IF DOCUMENTS PRESENTED UNDER THIS L/C ARE FOUND TO BE

DISCREPANT, WE SHALL GIVE ITS NOTICE OF REFUSAL AND SHALL HOLD
DOCUMENTS AT YOUR DISPOSAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 'IF
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED YOUR DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE
DISCREPANT DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF THE APPLICANT'S WAIVER
OF DISCREPANCIES, WE SHALL RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS TO THE
APPLICANT WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU.' [Emphasis added]
These conditions are often ambiguous and add no clarity to UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c)
(iii) (b). If anything, they cause unnecessary confusion, requests for amendments and possible
concerns relative to whether they are attempting to change the intent of this sub-article.
The result of this sub-article is clearly alluding that should an issuing bank agree to waive
the discrepancies and release the presentation to the applicant, either in conjunction with the
applicant’s waiver or on its own determination, the issuing bank must honour the presentation.
Our questions:
1. Regarding the above and similar clauses to the above:
a. Is our understanding correct that once an issuing bank agrees to accept or otherwise waive
discrepancies, it must honour?
b. Is our understanding correct that if an issuing bank releases a presentation to anyone other
than the presenter without their consent then the issuing bank must honour?
2. Is it standard banking practice to disregard these types of clauses understanding that

requests for amendments are often met with silence?
UNQUOTE
ANALYSIS
When an issuing bank refuses documents, and according to UCP 600 sub-article 16 (b),
decides to approach the applicant for a waiver of discrepancies, UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c) (iii)
(b) requires that its notice of refusal must state that it “is holding the documents until it receives
a waiver from the applicant and agrees to accept it, or receives further instructions from the
presenter prior to agreeing to accept a waiver, or”
By subsequently agreeing to accept a waiver of the applicant, the issuing bank will no
longer be in a position to refuse to honour the presentation. Provided the acceptance of the
waiver is made prior to any further instructions being received from the presenter, for example,
instructions that convey a different course of action to be taken than the honour of the
presentation, the issuing bank must proceed to honour the presentation, as outlined in UCP
600 sub-article 15 (a), and it may then release the documents to the applicant, or in a manner
as so directed by the applicant.

There appears to be no inference in any of the clauses that the respective issuing bank
will not act according to the requirements of UCP 600 sub-articles 16 (c) and (d), thereby
risking preclusion under UCP 600 sub-article 16 (f) for any failure to do so.
However, the issuer of each of the referenced clauses appear to be under the
impression, albeit incorrectly, that if they accept a waiver, honour the presentation, and then
release the documents to the applicant or as so directed by the applicant, they incur some
form of liability for not obtaining the presenter’s prior agreement for the release of those
documents. These types of clauses were seen in credits made subject to UCP 500 due to UCP
500 not having a comparative rule for UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c) (iii) (b). It has been apparent
that some banks have continued to use the same kind of clauses, modified for reference to
UCP 600, without identifying that the structure of UCP 600 does not require their continued
use.
These clauses are not implying that the documents will be released to anyone other than
the presenter without honour. However, for the sake of clarity, to release the documents would
require the issuing bank to honour.
The position under UCP 600 article 16 is that if an issuing bank accepts a waiver given
by the applicant, prior to the receipt of any instructions from the presenter, as to the further
handling of the documents, it is required to effect honour and may then release those
documents without seeking any prior consent of the presenter.
These types of clauses are unnecessary and should not be incorporated into a credit.
CONCLUSION
1(a). Correct. When an issuing bank agrees to accept the applicant’s waiver, it must honour.
1(b). Correct, as outlined in the analysis above.
2. Disregarding any clause in a credit cannot be considered as standard banking practice,

except as provided for in UCP 600 and ISBP 745. As indicated in the Analysis, these clauses
are unnecessary and can cause confusion as to their intent, and should not be incorporated
into a credit.
Yours Sincerely,
Olivier Paul

Banking Commission
H. Banu Yilmaz
ICC Türkiye-ICC Turkey
General Secretary
Dumlupınar Bulvarı No: 252
(Eskişehir Yolu 9.km) 06530/Ankara
Turkey
29 April 2019
Document 470/TA.889rev
Dear Banu,
Banking Commission.
QUOTE
Letter of credit terms include:
Field 46A Required Documents:

(x) Full set of charter party bills of lading in 3/3 originals issued or endorsed to the order of
ABC Bank marked freight payable as per charter party, quoting this credit number, and notify
only the applicant name and address exactly as mentioned in this letter of credit (field 50)
(x) Photocopy of EUR1 Certificate
A bill of lading issued to order of ABC Bank and an EUR1 certificate containing a
consignee field marked “to order” were presented to ABC Bank, which is acting as confirming
bank. ABC Bank refused to honour the presentation indicating the following discrepancy by
referring to ISBP 745 paragraph Q9.
“Consignee of the EUR1 certificate is inconsistent with the consignee of b/l.”
If a credit requires the presentation of a copy of a EUR1 Certificate it is to be examined

according to the terms and conditions of the credit and UCP 600 sub-article 14 (f).
It seems that the confirming bank has taken into consideration ISBP 745 Paragraph L5 or
Q9 in the examination of the document. We have no objection to this approach. According to
these paragraphs, the document does not need to state the consignee information and when
shown, it is not to conflict with the consignee information in the transport document.
In our opinion, the consignee information stated on the EUR 1 document i.e., “to order”
has no effect and cannot be considered to be in conflict with the consignee information i.e., “to
the order of ABC Bank” stated on the transport document. The document should be
accepted.

We would like to have an official opinion of the ICC Banking Commission as to
whether the discrepancy is valid or not.
UNQUOTE
ANALYSIS
Completion of the consignee field in a EUR1 certificate is optional and, even when
completed, does not serve the same purpose as the consignee information on a transport
document.
The question here is, simply, whether a charter party bill of lading evidencing goods
consigned to the order of the confirming bank is in conflict with the consignee information
appearing on the EUR1 certificate i.e., ‘To order’.
The applicable rules in UCP 600 are:
UCP 600 sub-article 14 (f) states that if a credit requires presentation of a document other than
a transport document, insurance document or commercial invoice, without stipulating by whom
the document is to be issued or its data content, banks will accept the document as presented
if its content appears to fulfil the function of the required document and otherwise complies
with sub-article 14 (d).
UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d) states that data in a document, when read in context with the
credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to,
but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.
ISBP 745 paragraphs L5 and Q9 offer the following text i.e., “Consignee information,
when shown, is not to conflict with the consignee information in the transport document.
However, when a credit requires a transport document to be issued “to order”, “to the order of
shipper”, “to order of issuing bank”, “to order of nominated bank (or negotiating bank)” or
“consigned to issuing bank”, a certificate of origin [a certificate for Q9] may show the consignee
as any entity named in the credit except the beneficiary. When a credit has been transferred,
the first beneficiary may be stated to be the consignee.”
These paragraphs refer to the situation outlined in the query i.e., that the charter party
bills of lading were made out to order of the confirming (nominated) bank. The practice
described is that in such a circumstance, a certificate of origin or a certificate may, as an
alternative to matching the consignee details appearing on the transport document, indicate
the consignee details as any entity named in the credit except the beneficiary. A EUR1
certificate indicating in the consignee field ‘To order’ is not indicating the consignee as the
beneficiary nor is it creating any conflict under UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d).
CONCLUSION
The discrepancy is not valid.

Yours Sincerely,
Olivier Paul

Banking Commission
Ms. Maria Beatrice Deli

Secretary General
ICC Italia
Via Barnaba Oriani, 34
00197 Roma
Italy
29 April 2019
Document 470/TA.890
Dear Sirs,
Banking Commission.
QUOTE
On 10 October 2018, a credit was issued subject to UCP 600 and was confirmed by our
bank.
The MT700 indicated:

Field 46A: Full set clean on board ocean bills of lading made out to the order of [name of the
issuing bank] notify applicant and marked freight prepaid
Field 47A: This credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits,
2007 Revision, ICC Publication no. 600
On 27 November 2018, the beneficiary presented documents including a bill of lading

signed by “ROH on behalf of HAP – the Carrier” which was complying with the terms and
conditions of the credit.
On 29 November 2018, we received a SWIFT MT999 message from the issuing bank
stating that documents were refused due to: “Bill of Lading: Signing capacity not
specified” and they were holding the documents at our disposal.
The same day we contested the discrepancy by SWIFT MT799 message claiming that
the signing capacity was clearly shown according to ISBP 745 paragraph E5 (c) (last three
lines) saying that: “the named agent may sign, for example, as agent for (or on behalf of) the
carrier” meaning that “as agent for the carrier” is equal to “on behalf of the carrier”. The role of
an agent is to act on behalf of another person. The required core statement is to sign on behalf
of the carrier - in order to effect the carrier’s responsibility - regardless of the need to mention
the contractual source of such power belonging to the signer (usually, but not necessarily, the
agency contract). It is not up to banks to investigate the existence and the validity of the
relationship between carriers and persons authorised to sign on their behalf.
On 3 December 2018, we received a SWIFT MT799 message stating that the bill of

lading clearly shows HAP as carrier but does not show the signing capacity of ROH. The
correct signature would have been “ROH as agent on behalf of HAP”.
Moreover, the issuing bank stated that a charge of USD20 would be deducted for any
additional SWIFT message on this issue.
Our position is that UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a) (i), first bullet point, is clear: “ …and be
signed by … a named agent for or on behalf of the carrier” and that the ensuing wording in
ISBP 745 paragraph E5 (c), fifth line, “… the named agent on behalf of (name), the carrier” or
words of similar effect” allows for a bill of lading to be signed “ROH on behalf of HAP – the
Carrier”.
Position Paper no.4 published on 1 September 1994 point 3 paragraph (A) is a

confirmation of our position. It states: “where the document is signed by an agent for (or ‘on
behalf of’) the carrier, the agent must be named and must indicate the principal for (or ‘on
behalf of’) whom he is signing, in one of the following ways:
(a) When the word ‘carrier’ has not been used on the front of the document to identify the
party acting as carrier e.g.,
ABC Co. Ltd.
as agent (or ‘on behalf of’)
XYZ Shipping, carrier.
(signature)”
showing that “as agent of” or “on behalf of” have the same meaning.
We kindly ask your opinion concerning:

(a) The validity of the discrepancy raised by the issuing bank; and
(b) The legality or tolerability of deducting fees from the proceeds for any SWIFT message
concerning a discrepancy issue.
UNQUOTE
ANALYSIS
Reference is made in the query to ICC Position Paper No. 4 that was issued by the
Banking Commission to provide guidance for the correct application of the transport articles in
UCP 500. It should be noted that the content of this paper has since been superseded by its
incorporation into UCP 600 as well as the transport document sections of the ISBP
publications.
The query quotes an example given in the Position Paper, but does not entirely reflect its
content. The example in the Position Paper shows:
ABC Co. Ltd.

as agent for (or ‘on behalf of’) (emphasis added)
XYZ Shipping, carrier.
(signature)”
The reference to “(or ‘on behalf of’)” is stated in the context of an alternative wording to
the word “for” and not to replace or have the same meaning of “as agent for”.
As stated, the transport articles of UCP 600 have captured the requirements expressed in
Position Paper No. 4. This includes:

Sub-article 20 (a) (i) “indicate the name of the carrier and be signed by:
 the carrier or a named agent for or on behalf of the carrier, or …”
and
“Any signature by the carrier, master or agent must be identified as that of the carrier, master
or agent.”
From sub-article 20 (a) (i) it can be seen that the use of ‘or on behalf of’ is in the
context of an alternative wording to ‘for’ i.e., XYZ as agent for the carrier ABC, or XYZ as agent
on behalf of the carrier ABC, and does not remove the requirement to indicate that XYZ is
acting in the capacity as an agent. This is further emphasised in the wording “Any signature by
the carrier, master or agent must be identified as that of the carrier, master or agent.”
(emphasis added)
The content of ISBP 745 paragraph E5 (c) reflects the requirements of sub-article 20 (a)
(i) as quoted above.
The charging of a discrepancy fee and any charges relating to the sending of messages
in that context are outside the scope of the UCP and is a matter for both banks.
CONCLUSION
(a) The bill of lading is discrepant.

(b) This is outside the scope of UCP 600.
Yours Sincerely,
Olivier Paul


1282rev Consolidated Final Opinions - April 2019 - Beijing PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1282rev Consolidated Final Opinions - April 2019 - Beijing PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finance for Development

Final Opinions of the Banking Commission, April 2019 – Beijing

Subject: Document 470/TA.886rev

46A: Documents Required

COMMERCIAL INVOICE IN 1 ORIGINAL(S) AND 3 COPY(IES)

47A: Additional Conditions

UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN THIS DOCUMENTARY CREDIT, ALL DOCUMENTS

The issuing bank maintained its stand arguing:

Document No. 470/1282rev

Document No. 470/1282rev

Subject: Document 470/TA.887

The argument for acceptance of the presented document is:

Document No. 470/1282rev

The discrepancy is not valid.

Document No. 470/1282rev

Document No. 470/1282rev

Mr. Donald R. Smith

Subject: Document 470/TA.888rev

Dear Mr. Smith,

1. IF DOCUMENTS PRESENTED UNDER THIS L/C ARE FOUND TO BE

2. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 16 C III B OF UCP 600, IF

Document No. 470/1282rev

4. IF DOCUMENTS PRESENTED UNDER THIS L/C ARE FOUND TO BE

2. Is it standard banking practice to disregard these types of clauses understanding that

Document No. 470/1282rev

1(b). Correct, as outlined in the analysis above.

2. Disregarding any clause in a credit cannot be considered as standard banking practice,

Document No. 470/1282rev

Letter of credit terms include:

Field 46A Required Documents:

“Consignee of the EUR1 certificate is inconsistent with the consignee of b/l.”

If a credit requires the presentation of a copy of a EUR1 Certificate it is to be examined

Document No. 470/1282rev

The applicable rules in UCP 600 are:

The discrepancy is not valid.

Document No. 470/1282rev

Document No. 470/1282rev

Ms. Maria Beatrice Deli

The MT700 indicated:

On 27 November 2018, the beneficiary presented documents including a bill of lading

Document No. 470/1282rev

Position Paper no.4 published on 1 September 1994 point 3 paragraph (A) is a

We kindly ask your opinion concerning:

ABC Co. Ltd.

Document No. 470/1282rev

(a) The bill of lading is discrepant.

Document No. 470/1282rev

You might also like