ICC Digital Library Forum

I quote an excerpt from the latest issue of DCI in response to a query on the subject
When documents other than transport documents, insurance documents and commercial invoices are called for, the Credit should stipulate 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 that their data content is not inconsistent with any other stipulated document presented"; and sub-Article 31(iii) allowing the consignor of the goods to be a party other than the beneficiary of the credit, specifically permits the most common understanding of the term "Third party documents acceptable".

Given that the UCP permits such situations to occur, use of the term "Third party documents acceptable" can only lead to parties interpreting the clause to mean something different from the above. ICC has already stated that the use of such a term would permit the issuance of invoices and drafts in the name of a company other than the beneficiary"
I am in total agreement with the opinion, but find the concluding part stating "ICC has already stated that the use of such a term would permit the issuance of invoices and drafts in the name of a company other than the beneficiary" a bit confusing and contrary to the spirit of the opinion.I am also unable to find any opinion relating to this.

The related Opinion is R246.

The following is taken from the conclusion of that Opinion:

The question as to which "third party documents are acceptable" illustrates the confusion which can be caused if such language is used in a documentary credit. Since "third party" may be interpreted to mean the party issuing the document and/or the party to whom or in whose name the document is made out, the term should be considered imprecise, and reference should be made to Articles 12 and/or sub-Article 5(b). Confusion may also arise as to the meaning of "third", i.e. is it any other party, or any other party except the beneficiary of the credit?

The Group of Experts prefers to avoid any answer that would give any semblance of approval or support to this term, which has no standing within UCP. Further note might be taken of the following observations:

Articles 2 and sub-Articles 9(a) and (b) leave no room for drafts to be drawn by any party other than the credit's beneficiary, unless the credit permitted transfers as under Article 48, in which case, drafts would then be issued by the second beneficiary. If it were otherwise, the credit could be operated as if it were a transferable credit outside the applicable Article 48 provisions.

Article 21 already allows banks to accept documents other than transport documents, insurance documents and commercial invoices as presented (subject to the proviso stated in Article 21 being fulfilled) if the credit does not stipulate by whom such documents are to be issued.

Sub-Articles 23(a)(i), 24(a)(i), 26(a)(i), 27(a)(i), 28(a)(i) and 25(a)(ii) set out that banks will, unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, accept a transport document when issued in compliance therewith.

Sub-Article 34(a) stipulates that insurance documents must be issued and signed by insurance companies or underwriters, or their agents.

Sub-Article 37(a)(i) specifically states that "Unless otherwise stipulated in the Credit, commercial invoices must appear on their face to be issued by the Beneficiary named in the Credit (except as provided in Article 48)".