Document 470/TA.569

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:00 am

The Commentary refers to the opinion TA 569 to explain that a credit available by negotiation "should not include any reference to claiming reimbursement". Does anyone know if this opinion has ever been offcially published?
Daniel

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:00 am

Dear Daniel,

I think not – and a bit strange in fact as the ”Unpublished Opinions 1995-2007” includes TA558-TA568 and TA570-TA572 ??

Best regards
Kim

Ps. but then againg: it has been published now: in the Commentary

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:00 am

Kim,
Therefore and as the Commentary is not an official publication, a credit available by negotiation with a reimbursement clause is OK.
Daniel

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 1:00 am

Dear Daniel,

Not sure exactly what you are aiming at: TA569 is an official opinion (i.e. approved by the Banking Commission) – even though it is unpublished.

In any case; Notwithstanding TA569 I do not see any difference in the position of a negotiating bank – regardless if the LC includes a reimbursement clause or not.

Best regards
Kim

SvetlanaS · Post by **SvetlanaS** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:00 am

Dear Kim

I agree that under the UCP rules the position of the Negotiating bank which is a Nominated Bank is the same in respect of Issuing Bank ultimate obligation……………... “– regardless if the LC includes a reimbursement clause or not.”

However, in my opinion if an LC with sight tenor is issued stated to be available by negotiation with nominated bank and also includes a reimbursement authorization, then that LC (despite negotiation label) is really available by sight payment with that bank.

Svetlana

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:00 am

Dear Svetlana,

It is not that I do not agree with that – and I even imagine that I understand the technical difference

However I do not see any real material difference (although I admit there may be a difference in the practical handling).

What matters to me is

1) That the bank “paying” is nominated by the LC (i.e. protected by the UCP 600) – and
2) has followed that nomination.
3) The agreement made between the beneficiary and the nominated bank.

Best regards
Kim

SvetlanaS · Post by **SvetlanaS** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:00 am

Dear Kim

I also do not see any difference, real of otherwise.

So if there is no difference then they are the same.

The are both providing the Nominated Bank with authorisation to pay at sight with a reimbursement authorisation from the Issuing Bank which is a Sight Payment LC.

I think it is best practice to avoid adding the confusing label of ‘negotiation’ in these instances.

Thank you

Svetlana

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:00 am

Kim,

I am not about to join another discussion about negotiation so my question is: how are supposed to refer to something which has not been published?
Regards
Daniel

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:00 am

Spot in again Daniel

This is however how this works; even unpublished official (still valid!!??) opinions forms part of the wonderful concept “international standard banking practice” …. Who said it was easy

[edited 8/13/2008 10:30:12 AM]

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:00 am

Kim,

Thanks. I must have missed a chapter of the concept.
So my question, if you allow me, is now: why was it not published?
Daniel