Forgot your password?
Please enter your email & we will send your password to you:
My Account:
Five Draft Opinions will be addressed at the next session of ICC Banking Commission’s quarterly discussion of Opinions on 23 January 2023. The Draft Opinions were released in November 2023 to ICC National Committees for review and comment by 9 Jan.
Draft Opinion TA935 involves a query submitted by the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) regarding UCP600 in which an LC issuing bank raised as a discrepancy a presented bill of lading showing ‘CAT LAI PORT’ as place of delivery instead of as port of discharge without notation evidencing that port of discharge is ‘CAT LAI PORT’. The query asked if the discrepancy is valid.
Draft Opinion TA936 deals with a query sent by ICC India regarding UCP600 and ISBP in which an issuing bank quoted the discrepancy: “Trade term not found in invoice.” The LC’s goods description stated xxx CFR [Port C] with no indication of the applicable Incoterms publication. The presented invoice showed C&F under the unit price and amount, with Port C mentioned as the port of discharge and final destination elsewhere in the invoice. In disputing the discrepancy, the presenting bank mentioned among its contentions that the trade term “C&F” from the 1980. Incoterms publication was modified to “CFR” in subsequent Incoterms publications and is equivalent. Because the trade term specified in the credit did not indicate the relevant Incoterms publication, the presenting bank’s stance is that the trade term was mentioned in the invoice and the discrepancy is not valid.
Draft Opinion TA937 addresses a query from ICC Denmark dealing with a presented airway bill showing: “Airport of departure: Amsterdam” and “Airport of destination: Panama, Ciudad DE”. The issuing bank refused the presentation, citing the discrepancy: “Air Waybill does not show name of Airport of departure nor Airport of Destination”. The nominated bank contended that the AWB does show the relevant airports, but the issuing bank maintained its position and referenced ISBP Paragraph H11. The query asked if the discrepancy is valid.
Draft Opinion TA938 deals a series of questions submitted by ICC Netherlands about the role and responsibilities of an “Advising Bank” based on UCP600 Sub-Articles 9(b), (c), and (f). The questions related to a particular LC issued by a bank subsequently revealed to be non-existent. From the complex scenario it outlined involving four banks, the query asked if the LC text was decisive in qualifying the role of an advising bank, whether the bank qualified as a first advising bank was in breach of one or more sub-articles of UCP600 Article 9, and whether a bank acting as a second advising bank was in breach one or more sub-articles of UCP600 Article 9.
Draft Opinion TA939 deals with a query from the US Council for International Business (USCIB) regarding UCP600-issued credits requiring presentation of a draft in more than one field of an MT700, for instance, field 42C (Drafts at …) and field 42a (Drawee) as well as in field 46A (Documents Required) or field 47A (Additional Conditions). In such cases when the LC requires presentation of drafts and the tenor and drawee are the same in both fields, the query asked whether two original drafts must be presented or if just one will suffice.