Because some banks are not clear on ICC500 article 20 (b) they will often include a notation in their covering letter to beneficiary's (when advising the original credit) to the effect that all original documents must be stamped "original".
I wonder whether this practice is correct in light of the fact that it is not supported by article 20(b) and by the commission on banking technique and practice, 12July1999 under the heading "The determination of an 'original' document in thecontext of UCP500 sub article 20(b)" which can also be found in the ICC550/2 publication.
What are your views?
should adv bks include notation that orig docs must be stamp
should adv bks include notation that orig docs must be stamp
Without liability/responsibility, personally:
I think its ‘correctness’ must depend on the advising bank’s views of its courts’ interpretation of sub-Art 20(b) and if those courts will take into account the ‘Decision’ in arriving at this. My bank abandoned this practice post-publication of the Decision and the Decision interpretation of sub-Art 20(b) was recently upheld by the English High Court (court of first instance) in Credit Industriel et Commercial v China Merchants Bank.
I think its ‘correctness’ must depend on the advising bank’s views of its courts’ interpretation of sub-Art 20(b) and if those courts will take into account the ‘Decision’ in arriving at this. My bank abandoned this practice post-publication of the Decision and the Decision interpretation of sub-Art 20(b) was recently upheld by the English High Court (court of first instance) in Credit Industriel et Commercial v China Merchants Bank.