ICC Digital Library Forum

Since the Banking Commission issued its Decision on original documents, have readers experienced fewer problems in dealing with this issue? We would like to hear. Ron Katz, ICC

*originally posted by T.O.Lee

I receive no more enquiries on "original" documents over the
internet or other media after ICC's pubnlishing its
"Decision on Originals". For one pending case on "orignal" documents,
occurred before ICC's announcement, the issuing bank has
freezed the litigation process. This is a good sign.

There have not been many problems with interpretation of "original" since the ICC Decision.
However even before this, some banks incorporated in their standard L/C covering letter to beneficiaries, a clause requesting that all original documents required be marked on their face as originals. Although the ICC Decision allows for a broader interpretation, beneficiaries who follow this instruction are not likely to have presentations rejected for lack of compliance with the meaning of "original".

laurence_aj@hotmail.com

However, I have noted that certain countries do have their LsC specifying that the ICC Decision Paper on Originals does not apply and manual signatures are required in the Bs/L.

I am from www.tolee.com

In my opinion many banks are still "very careful", They, for instance, stipulate in their L/Cs issued that the documents, which are to be originals, must be clearly marked as "originals". Many bankers are not fully aware of the ICC Decision. We, ICC Czech Republic, are currently working on the new official commentary to UCP500 which will also include translation of the ICC Position Papers, Decision on Original Documents and DOCDEX Rules.

Pavel Andrle
ICC Czech Republic