Forgot your password?
Please enter your email & we will send your password to you:
My Account:
Four draft opinions were released in late August to ICC National Committees for review and comment by 10 October. The pending opinions will then be addressed at the first day of the ICC Banking Commission Meeting to be held in Paris and conducted as a hybrid event on 24-25 October 2023.
Draft Opinion TA931 involves a query from a party acting as advising bank under a commercial LC confirmed by another bank. Receiving a notice of refusal containing a series of discrepancies, the advising bank resolved all but two. The discrepancies it challenged dealt with the confirming bank’s contention that the presented invoice did not show “CONFIRMATION IT IS AS PER QUOTATION NO. …” and that the presented shipping company certificate was short 1 original. Advising bank claimed that the invoice clearly referred to the quotation within the goods description and that the credit failed to require express wording. Advising bank also maintained that the credit, before or after it was amended, was not clear in requiring two separate documents. The advising bank queried ICC whether these two discrepancies are valid.
Draft Opinion TA932 deals with a documentary collection matter in which a remitting bank sent a URC522 collection and instructions to collecting bank to deliver documents against payment. According to the query, collecting bank released the documents to the drawee without receiving payment. The query asks ICC to opine whether the collecting bank is liable to compensate and pay the full amount to the remitting bank along with delay payment interest.
Draft Opinion TA933 involves a UCP600 LC requiring presentation to occur within 21 days after the date of shipment. According to the date on the negotiating bank’s cover letter and the date on the bill of lading, the presentation occurred 22 days after the date of shipment. The negotiating bank’s cover letter included the statement: “We hereby certify that all terms and conditions of this credit have been complied with and that we endorsed the drawn amount on the reverse of the credit”. The query asks whether the issuing bank can consider this late presentation.
Draft Opinion TA934 involves a UCP600 LC under which presentation by a nominated bank resulted in two discrepancies identified by the issuing bank. The first discrepancy indicated that the presented document containing CMR was a copy for sender instead of an original for shipper as required by the LC. The second discrepancy posited that the presented EUR1 certificate violated the LC’s condition that all documents must be in English because it contained a word not written in English language. The query asks whether the two discrepancies are valid.