ICC Digital Library Forum

Hi everyone,
I have a case as following that I would like to seek for your opinions:
L/C issued required: "(2/3) set of original AND 03 COPIES OF Road transport invoice, marked 'Freight prepaid'"
Docs presented included a doc named "Road transport invoice" which is signed "AS AGENT OF CARRIER: ABC TRANSPORT COMPANY", showing Receiver's name, Place of taking in charge, place of final destination, transport date, general description of goods (included amount), marked "Freight prepaid", etc.
Would you check this document as per Art24, UCP since it can be "however named" or would you check it as a document for which the UCP600 transport articles do not apply as per Art.19, ISBP?
Can you refer to some ICC Opinions for more understanding?
Thank you very much in advance for your sharing and comments.

Because the credit labled it as a road "transport" invoice I would apply Article 24. However, I agree that if you applied aticle 16 you could also be correct as "transport invoice" could be construed as nothing more than a document indicating that the transport freight due was paid. The LC is badly issued.

A bank should state the article applicable when requiring a transport document. Such as " Ocean B/L as per article 20".
It is what I suggested for the revision of the ISBP. But I doubt they will consider my impertinent suggestion.
Daniel

If the L/C requires presentation of a transport document, e.g., a road transport document, it must expressly state a road transport document or a bill of truck or words of similar effect. It is understood from the context that the document required is not a transport document but an invoice for transport freight. It should be examined in accordance with sub-article 14(f).

Regards,
N.H.Duc

Thanks to all of you for yr reply. I agree that the LC should have stped more clearly and exactly about what it required. However, the matter here is it is already issued. In fact, the doc does not include anything like freight charge (for freight invoice purpose) except that "freight prepaid". But I'm not quite sure to consider it to be a non-transport docs. Do you have any further idea or do you know any case/opinion similar to this one?