I may be missing a point here but Para L4 (a) of ISBP seems to suggest that a certificate of origin should indicate a description of goods that corresponds to that in the credit or a description shown in general terms not in conflict with the goods description in the credit; this appears to be in conflict with UCP sub Para 14 e which implies that the documents other than the commercial invoice need not indicate the description of goods (unless specifically called for in the credit).
Use of the words “if stated” in UCP, clearly implies that description of goods on documents other than commercial invoice is not required.
Look forward to hear from the members, and thank you in advance for your views. Regards Khalid
Content of a certificate of origin
-
AsifMahmoodButt
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Content of a certificate of origin
Khalid,
This is not something new, having been in ISBP645 (para 198) which related to UCP500.
Setting that aside, it has never been clear to me why this isbp exists when it is not seemingly in accordance with the requirements of UCP500 / 600.
I have heard it argued that this isbp relates to a c/o having to appear to fulfil its function. However, UCP500 Article 21 (as ‘clarified’ by ISBP645 para 43, last sentence) and UCP600 sub-Article 14(f) only apply –with regard to appearing to fulfil function- where the data contents are not stipulated. Thus, if a credit stipulates a certificate of, say, UK origin issued by, say, a chamber of commerce UCP500 Article 21 and UCP600 sub-Article 14(f) are of no application (as the data content has been stipulated). Thus the question of the document appearing to fulfil its function does not arise in these circumstances. So this argument would appear to be ill-founded.
An alternative explanation is that –seemingly uniquely among documents- isbp requires ‘linkage’ between the c/o and invoice or credit. However, the Commentary on UCP 600, ICC Publication 680, it is stated that:
'UCP 600 does not refer to, require or imply that linkage is necessary between or among documents.'
This would appear, on its face, to be an authoritative statement that 'linkage' between documents is no longer required. However, the Commentary is not a Banking Commission approved document and thus it is unclear if this statement enjoys the support of the Commission as a whole.*
Overall, I remain mystified as to the logical basis for this isbp.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the apparently clear wording of UCP600 sub-Article 14(e) it seems to me that the transport articles at least do expressly require the goods to be described, as otherwise how is the document to evidence that the goods have been despatched, taken in charge, shipped or accepted for carriage (as appropriate). It also seems odd to me that anyone would seriously suggest an insurance document, for example, did not have to describe the goods in some way, as if it did not one could not ascertain to what the insurance cover related. However, the ISBP are completely silent on these matters.
In summary, we are all up against the seemingly defective drafting of the UCP and what would appear to be the lack of consistency of the ISBP within itself and with the UCP.
* It needs to be borne in mind that UCP400 Article 23 did require linkage, at least in certain circumstances, as it stated:
‘When documents other than transport documents, insurance documents and commercial invoices are called for the credit should state by whom such documents are to be issued and their wording or data content. If the credit does not so stipulate, banks will accept such documents as presented provided their data content makes it possible to relate the goods and/or services referred therein to those referred to in the commercial invoice(s) presented ……’.
However, when UCP500 was published the requirement regarding data content making it possible to relate the goods and/or services referred therein to those referred to in the commercial invoice(s) presented was omitted (from Article 21). Nonetheless, in Opinion R251 -published in 1997- the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice stated:
‘a bank requires to see some form of "linkage" between the documents presented and/or the letter of credit terms’.
This opinion was confirmed in ‘unpublished’ Opinion R556 (TA525rev) given in 2003.
[edited 11/4/2013 12:47:20 PM]
This is not something new, having been in ISBP645 (para 198) which related to UCP500.
Setting that aside, it has never been clear to me why this isbp exists when it is not seemingly in accordance with the requirements of UCP500 / 600.
I have heard it argued that this isbp relates to a c/o having to appear to fulfil its function. However, UCP500 Article 21 (as ‘clarified’ by ISBP645 para 43, last sentence) and UCP600 sub-Article 14(f) only apply –with regard to appearing to fulfil function- where the data contents are not stipulated. Thus, if a credit stipulates a certificate of, say, UK origin issued by, say, a chamber of commerce UCP500 Article 21 and UCP600 sub-Article 14(f) are of no application (as the data content has been stipulated). Thus the question of the document appearing to fulfil its function does not arise in these circumstances. So this argument would appear to be ill-founded.
An alternative explanation is that –seemingly uniquely among documents- isbp requires ‘linkage’ between the c/o and invoice or credit. However, the Commentary on UCP 600, ICC Publication 680, it is stated that:
'UCP 600 does not refer to, require or imply that linkage is necessary between or among documents.'
This would appear, on its face, to be an authoritative statement that 'linkage' between documents is no longer required. However, the Commentary is not a Banking Commission approved document and thus it is unclear if this statement enjoys the support of the Commission as a whole.*
Overall, I remain mystified as to the logical basis for this isbp.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the apparently clear wording of UCP600 sub-Article 14(e) it seems to me that the transport articles at least do expressly require the goods to be described, as otherwise how is the document to evidence that the goods have been despatched, taken in charge, shipped or accepted for carriage (as appropriate). It also seems odd to me that anyone would seriously suggest an insurance document, for example, did not have to describe the goods in some way, as if it did not one could not ascertain to what the insurance cover related. However, the ISBP are completely silent on these matters.
In summary, we are all up against the seemingly defective drafting of the UCP and what would appear to be the lack of consistency of the ISBP within itself and with the UCP.
* It needs to be borne in mind that UCP400 Article 23 did require linkage, at least in certain circumstances, as it stated:
‘When documents other than transport documents, insurance documents and commercial invoices are called for the credit should state by whom such documents are to be issued and their wording or data content. If the credit does not so stipulate, banks will accept such documents as presented provided their data content makes it possible to relate the goods and/or services referred therein to those referred to in the commercial invoice(s) presented ……’.
However, when UCP500 was published the requirement regarding data content making it possible to relate the goods and/or services referred therein to those referred to in the commercial invoice(s) presented was omitted (from Article 21). Nonetheless, in Opinion R251 -published in 1997- the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice stated:
‘a bank requires to see some form of "linkage" between the documents presented and/or the letter of credit terms’.
This opinion was confirmed in ‘unpublished’ Opinion R556 (TA525rev) given in 2003.
[edited 11/4/2013 12:47:20 PM]
-
AsifMahmoodButt
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Content of a certificate of origin
Jeremy,
Thank you for your response. Sorry for the confusion. I also noticed subsequently that the description of goods is simply cited as an example of how the relationship to the underlying goods may be established. Hence I stand corrected that there is no conflict.
Regards
Khalid
Thank you for your response. Sorry for the confusion. I also noticed subsequently that the description of goods is simply cited as an example of how the relationship to the underlying goods may be established. Hence I stand corrected that there is no conflict.
Regards
Khalid
Content of a certificate of origin
Nonetheless Khalid, the fact remains that there is not any obvious basis in UCP600 for requiring a certificate of origin, as I have described above, to appear to relate to the invoiced goods and that is to what my response related.