ICC Digital Library Forum

Dear sir,
Pls give us yr comment or relating ICC Opinions on the following issue:
- Insurance Certificate stated effective date: 11.33 a.m 20.7.2011 whereas the shipment date: 20.7.2011
Can we consider the I.C discrepant

I hate situations like this. Why can’t people just keep things simple?

A literal reading of 28(e) would seem to suggest the insurance document is not discrepant. However, a ‘common sense’ reading of 28(e) suggests to me that it is saying that the insurance document must appear to take effect from -at the latest- the start of the day of the date of shipment. Therefore, assuming the BL does not give the time of shipment (that is 11.33am or after), as I infer, I would –at this particular moment- unenthusiastically refuse the insurance document on the basis that it did not appear to cover the whole of the day of the date the goods were shipped.

I do not re-call seeing any opinions on this subject.

Good luck PTN.

Hi,

The date of the insurance document is not later than the date of shipment, hence, it should be acceptable based on sub-article 26(e).

If you decide to reject the document you must show the article of UCP 600 that supports your decision. I find no such article or related ICC opinion.

Best regards,
N.H Duc

Dear NHD,

I am certainly not going to argue with your view that the insurance document is not compliant as, as my posting indicates above, I agree that a literal reading of 28(e) suggests it is compliant.

What interests me is your statement that “you must show the article of UCP 600 that supports your decision”.

Firstly, the views I expressed in my posting above are based on a UCP600 article, i.e. 28(e), and thus –if my interpretation of 28(e) is correct (which I accept it may not be)- 28(e) is the article one would quote. It certainly would be a mistake to assume an article can be read literally as UCP500 sub-Article 13(c) illustrated and UCP600 sub-Article 14(h) illustrates. Also, the fact that there might not be a relevant opinion to support one view or another is not of itself proof of anything. An opinion, decision etc may appear at a later date that clarifies the position, and -for examples- indicates a particular (sub-) Article may not be read literally, as was the case with the afore-mentioned sub-Articles.

Secondly, what I would be curious to learn is what article you would quote to support refusal of –say- a certificate of origin that did not appear to relate to the invoiced goods as set out in paragraph 183 of ISBP681. Or in the absence of a directly relevant article would you get around the problem by quoting the ‘catch all’ Article 2 and the definition of a complying presentation which makes reference to isbp?

Regards, Jeremy

[edited 9/16/2011 9:45:59 AM]