TA.941rev
A credit was issued subject to UCP 600 requiring presentation of a full set clean on board or shipped negotiable marine bills of lading. The presented bills of lading included a statement indicating: "Cargo Conditions As Per Survey Report issued by [name of survey company]." The survey report was not required to be presented un- der the terms and conditions of the credit.
The issuing bank considered the bill of lading to be discrepant on the basis that as the survey report was not included as a part of the presentation, it was not possible to determine if the bill of lading was "clean".
There was no wording on the bill of lading which suggested any defective condition of the goods or their packaging. When checking documents, the process should not include scrutiny of any document other than those required by the credit. In any event, any non-required document is to be disregarded and may be returned to the presenter as stated in UCP 600 sub-article 14 (g).
The alleged discrepancy was not considered as valid, and this would have remained the case even if the survey report had been presented.
TA.942rev
A demand guarantee was issued subject to URDG 758, including the following requirement: "For identification purposes the Beneficiary's payment request shall be submitted via its servicing bank [Bank B], SWIFT: [SWIFT address of Bank B] that will confirm that the Beneficiary's signature(s) thereon is/are authentic and legally binding upon the Beneficiary."
A written demand was made by the beneficiary via courier service and apparently relayed through the advising bank directly to the guarantor. The demand was followed by an unauthenticated SWIFT message sent by the advising bank, to the guarantor, seeking the guarantor's confirmation of receipt of the beneficiary's demand.
As both means of delivery were not authenticated and no confirmation that the beneficiary's signatures are authentic and legally binding upon the beneficiary were received, the guarantor did not consider this to be the final demand according to URDG 758 sub-article 14 (c), on the basis that the required SWIFT message is deemed not to have been presented.
It is necessary to highlight that the requirement in the guarantee did not require for any related demand and/or certification to be sent by authenticated SWIFT; all it did was to advise the SWIFT address of the advising bank.
A paper presentation from the beneficiary was a prerequisite of the guarantee and this had been completed. Nevertheless, the absence of the bank's confirmation of the authenticity of the beneficiary's signature necessitated further examination.
In respect of a separate question, it was stated that revocation of SWIFT keys by the guarantor due to an internal policy cannot be used as a reason to refuse a demand, and that where mandatory law is applicable to a guarantee, it must be complied with.
TA.943rev
Documents required under a credit subject to UCP 600 were submitted by beneficiary to the advising bank, stating on the cover letter: "Please send documents on approval basis", in order to have the documents immediately sent to the issuing bank, without further delay.
The advising bank forwarded documents to the issuing bank without a specific statement of "on approval basis", but with the request to remit proceeds to their (advising bank's) account. The documents were lost in transit between the advising bank and the issuing bank.
Clarification was sought on the understanding of "approval basis" and the obligations of the advising and issuing banks.
It was concluded that the term is widely understood to mean that the documents should be forwarded to the issuing bank without any prior examination.
However, unless the nominated bank is a confirming bank or has otherwise agreed with the beneficiary to honour or negotiate, there is no obligation on that bank to examine the documents, either of their own volition or as a result of a request from the beneficiary.
The documents can be sent to the issuing bank without prior examination. However, the issuing bank must follow UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c).
TA.944rev
A documentary credit was issued subject to UCP 600, requiring presentation of bills of lading consigned to order of shipper, blank endorsed, with charter party bills of lading being acceptable.
The field for "shipper" on the presented charter party bill of lading indicated "[YYYY Company] for and o/b of [Beneficiary Company]", and was endorsed in blank by the "Beneficiary Company" with a stamp and signature.
In a previous Opinion, the field for "shipper" on the bill of lading indicated "Third Party Trading Company for and on Behalf of Company T", and blank endorsement with a stamp only stating "Company T". This Opinion concluded that such an endorsement was acceptable on the basis that it could be provided either by "Third Party Trading Company (as agent for Company T)" or solely by "Company T". The same rationale applies to the current query, meaning that blank endorsement by "Beneficiary Company" was acceptable.
TA.945rev
A nominated bank received a set of compliant documents (including a full set of clean on-board ocean bills of lading, made out to order and blank endorsed) under a credit subject to UCP 600.
The documents are included in a package which was sealed and sent to the issuing bank via international courier pursuant to the credit terms and conditions.
Subsequently, the issuing bank claimed to have received an empty, undamaged, sealed envelope from the nominated bank.
The Opinion clarified that it was not appropriate to discuss the exact detail regarding the issue of how the documents were lost, as this is outside the scope of UCP 600.
The term "lost" is defined as meaning that the content of the envelope was unaccounted for. Whilst this could technically be interpreted at nothing being physically lost from the apparent empty envelope, the fact remains that the contents were missing. This is covered by the meaning of "lost" in the context of the query and UCP 600.
Loss in transit can be pure ‘loss', e.g., the mislaying of a package, or irretrievable damage to a package (package destroyed or badly damaged), or through theft, even before receipt by the courier. Any bank not acting in good faith loses the protection of UCP 600 including article 35.