ICC Digital Library Forum

We have just received the final printed ISBP doc. ICC Pub. 645. In its introduction, (p. 9) it states: “The incorporation of this publication into the terms of a documentary credit should be discouraged, as the requirement to follow agreed practices is implicit in the UCP.” This statement gives room for the ISBP publication to be inserted in the credits. Since UCP 500 is only complemented by ISBP and the latter does not come in as an amendment to the former, what kind of purpose does such an allowance serve?

Dimitri

I’ve already given my views in ‘ISBP, ICC Publication No.465’ posted by VijayalakshmiK on 30 Jan in the General Discussion section.

Jeremy,
You’ve mentioned that a credit at least ought to be considered automatically subject to ISBP too. However, you also mentioned that in case there is a reference to ISBP that could cause potential problems where it undoubtedly conflicts UCP. It is now a fact that ISBP is simply discouraged but not prohibited to be incorporated in the DCs so I wonder how problematic cases would be handled.

Dimitri

Dimitri,

If I’ve understood you correctly, you’ve misunderstood me. My view is that the problem is present whether or not the credit makes reference to ISBP, given that I believe a credit ought to be considered automatically ‘subject’ to ISBP (in other words documents compliance ought to be always determined by UCP + ISBP). Also, there is not merely the problem of ISBP – UCP conflict, but some of the sections of ISBP are I believe also quite poorly worded and open to dispute as to their interpretation. To me, the only sure solution to avoiding any conflict between banks (and among banks), beneficiaries & applicants is through the express terms of the credit. For example, in the case of a rail waybill and section 172 (to me the most glaring example of UCP – ISBP conflict), the credit should ideally either expressly state the document must indicate the name of the carrier and be signed by the carrier (thereby overriding ISBP) or expressly state that a document evidencing ‘date stamp by the railway of departure …… etc’ is acceptable.

Jeremy

[edited 3/18/03 9:49:33 AM]

I agree with Jeremy that some parts of ISBP are poorly worded, but there will always be some who will poorly interpret whatever wording is used. I had a recent example of a bank interpreting a clause in a DC requiring copies of "transport documents" to be despatched, to mean copies of all documents to be despatched, citing ISBP 22 a) as their rationale.

Jeremy and others may remember me speaking against this clause in previous meetings of the Banking Commission.

ISBP is still comparatively new and some banks still have not heard of it. Only time will tell how many or few more misinterpretations will be made.

Laurence