For discussion and approval at the ICC Banking Commission meeting on 27 January 2026.
TA.958
The query concerned whether a bill of lading stating both "freight prepaid" and "freight payable at D" should be treated as conflicting under a credit that expressly required the document to be marked freight prepaid. While the confirming bank viewed the combination as contradictory, interpreting "payable at D" as undermining the clarity of the prepaid status, the presenting bank argued that the additional notation merely indicated a location for carrier accounting rather than suggesting freight was outstanding. This raised the central question: does "freight payable at [place]" create a conflict with "freight prepaid" under UCP 600?
The analysis clarified that under UCP 600, particularly sub-article 14 (d), data in a document need not be identical but must not conflict when read in context. Commercial shipping practice recognises that "freight prepaid" refers to the status of charges, meaning they have been settled, while "payable at [place]" refers only to the carrier's internal settlement point. The provided bill of lading contained no terms such as "freight collect" or "due at destination," nor any wording implying freight remained unpaid. ICC precedent (Opinion R691 / TA604rev) also confirms that "freight prepaid" together with "freight payable at [place]" is not inconsistent when both appear on the same transport document.
Accordingly, the Technical Advisers found no valid discrepancy. The statement "Freight prepaid - payable at D" does not conflict with a credit requiring "freight prepaid," and should be regarded as compliant under international standard banking practice unless the context explicitly indicates that freight remains unsettled, which was not the case here. The refusal of documents by the confirming bank was therefore not justified.