This blog provides a brief overview of all the Opinions that were approved by the ICC Banking Commission at its meeting held in April 2014. The full text of each opinion should be reviewed to fully understand all the issues.
TA.793rev - Signing of Charter Party Bill of Lading
Further clarification was requested in respect of previous Opinion 470/TA.775. Two cases were outlined in respect of Charter Party Bills of Lading (CPBL).
Case 1 - does the freight clause indicate this is a CPBL? If so, is it discrepant as it is signed by an agent for a carrier?
Case 2 - Does the appearance of a ‘carrier' on a CPBL cause an issue?
It was remarked in the analysis that the credit was badly worded in that it required a bill of lading marked freight payable as per charter party. In view of the fact that it was so marked, it was to be checked as a charter party bill of lading, not a bill of lading, and checked under UCP 600 article 22.
Accordingly, the fact that an agent for a carrier signs the charter bill of lading makes it discrepant.
In the second case, an agent for the master signed the charter bill of lading. The fact that it additionally included a carrier name did not make it discrepant.
TA.794rev - Insurance Certificate marked ‘Not transferable'
Insurance Certificate included the wording "Not transferable unless countersigned" above the "countersigned" box.
The bank claimed that the following wording should be mentioned: "Only valid unless countersigned by the insured", otherwise the document would be discrepant.
On the assumption that the document was correctly signed, it was concluded that there was no discrepancy on the basis that inclusion of any such wording as the above is a matter for the insurance industry and not for UCP 600. The countersignature was included as a prerequisite for transferability and, as such, does not conflict with UCP 600.
TA.795rev - Discrepancy fee
This query revolved around a request to re-consider ICC Opinion TA700rev.
The credit included a clause that a discrepancy fee would be deducted if documents were presented with discrepancies. The issuing bank paid, deducting a discrepancy fee, but had not previously indicated any discrepancies to the advising bank.
It was concluded that in the event that a bank charges a discrepancy fee, it would be good banking practice for them to provide details of any associated discrepancies to the presenter.
This can be done at the time of noting the discrepancies or at a later date.
TA.796rev - North European Port
The credit called for shipment from any North European port and the presented bill of lading evidenced shipment from Antwerp.
The question raised was whether or not Antwerp could be considered as a North European port.
The analysis pointed out that it is not the role of banks to determine geographical locations.
It concluded that, as the credit did not include a definition of a north European port, then the document was to be considered as compliant.
TA.797rev - Remitting bank reduced the amount of a collection.
Despite the remitting bank having reduced the amount of a collection, the collecting bank erroneously paid the initial collection amount, not the reduced amount. A refund of the excess amount was questioned
URC 522 does not provide a rule for the handling of collection amendments. As such, it was concluded that the query was to be considered as a legal issue and outside the scope of URC 522.
TA.798
This query was withdrawn.
TA.799rev - Payment location of Guarantee
A credit was issued by an issuing bank located in country X on behalf of an applicant also located in country X and confirmed by a Bank located in country Y requiring a guarantee from an international first class bank payable in country X.
The bank guarantee presented to the confirming bank was issued by a bank located in country Y and stated that it was subject to the laws of country Y.
The wording of the guarantee neither contained an express indication that it was "payable in country X" nor any express reference to country X being the place of payment.
The opinion concluded that the guarantee should have stated that it was payable in country X. Accordingly the presented guarantee was discrepant.
TA.800rev - Signing of Charter Party Bill of Lading
The master on behalf of the owners signed the presented Charter Party Bill of Lading. This is not a signing scenario strictly covered by UCP 600 article 22.
However, the fact that it was signed by the master means the document is compliant in this respect.
TA.801rev - Alleged incomplete set of documents under a documentary collection
The remitting bank sent several documents for collection on behalf of its client (the principal) to a presenting bank. After numerous attempts, the presenting bank finally provided a written response alleging that they had only received 2/3 original Bills of Lading under each presentation of documents.
The presenting bank should have responded ‘without delay' as stated in URC 52 sub-article 12 (a). As they did not, they are precluded from claiming that any documents were missing.
In the event that the presenting bank is unable to return the missing documents, they must pay the collection
TA.802rev - Original Standby LC not presented and additional discrepancies.
The beneficiary presented a demand under a standby credit, which arrived at the counters of the issuing bank before the expiry date of the credit.
The issuing bank subsequently issued a notice of refusal on the third day following presentation stating one discrepancy: "Original Standby LC Not Presented". There was no wording in the credit requiring presentation of the original Standby LC.
In the analysis, it was noted that the credit had not included a condition that the original credit be included with the claim. In any event, unless the credit was issued in mail or paper format, this would not even prove feasible.
Accordingly, it was concluded that this was not a discrepancy.
The initiator also asked whether the issuer was able to raise additional discrepancies at a later date. As stated in many previous opinions, it was re-emphasised that a bank has only one opportunity to raise discrepancies in respect of a presentation of documents.
TA.803 & 804
These queries were withdrawn.
TA.805rev - Originals & Copies
Documents were refused by an issuing bank for the following reason: "Health Certificate to be presented in 1 original and 2 copies but only presented in 1 original plus 1 copy."
The nominated bank stated that all required originals and copies were presented to them within the time limits foreseen by the credit, but admitted to having made an operational mistake by leaving one copy of the Health Certificate in their file and by only sending one original and one copy to the issuing bank.
As such, it was concluded that the discrepancy was valid, but would fall away once the missing document was received together with the nominated bank's confirmation of receipt of that document within the time limits in the credit.
More information can be found at www.tradefinance.training