This blog provides a brief overview of all the Opinions that were approved by the ICC Banking Commission in February 2016 following the cancellation of the Paris meeting in November 2015. The full text of each opinion should be reviewed to fully understand all the issues.
TA.832 has not been included as this was revised and will be discussed during the Commission meeting to be held in Johannesburg in April 2016.
TA.815rev4 - Currency of the invoice stated as ‘$' instead of ‘USD'; B/L evidenced applicant as consignee
An invoice was presented referring to the designated currency as ‘$'. This was considered by the issuing bank to be a discrepancy on the grounds that the actual currency was not specified. UCP and ISBP specify that an invoice must be in the same currency as the credit. It was decided that provided a beneficiary is not in a country other than the USA that uses ‘$' to describe or reflect its base currency and, on the basis that there was no data in the invoice or any other document implying that ‘$' referred to a currency other than ‘USD', then the invoice complied and the discrepancy was invalid. Additionally, the credit included a condition that the bill of lading be negotiable and blank endorsed. The presented bill of lading showed the name of the applicant in the consignee field and was not endorsed. As this meant the bill of lading was straight consigned, the discrepancy was valid.
TA.820rev4 - Acceptance of an amendment under UCP 600
At the time of presentation of a set of documents, the beneficiary had not yet provided acceptance or rejection of a prior amendment. It was decided that if the presentation complied with the original credit, but not with the content of the amendment, the beneficiary would be considered as not, at that stage, as having accepted or rejected the amendment. On that basis, the presentation was determined as compliant. Beneficiaries can accept amendments at any time, regardless of the timing of any presentation(s). Furthermore, beneficiaries can, when presenting documents, communicate acceptance of an amendment to apply to future presentations. A presentation must fully comply with a credit either before or after amendment: there can be no mix of conditions.
TA.828rev - Packing list / weight memo reference number differs to that stated on the certificate of origin
A certificate of origin referred to the attached packing list / weight memo as ‘rev03': the presented packing list / weight memo stated ‘rev04'. It was concluded that in view of the fact each individual document complied with the terms and conditions of the credit and that the credit itself included no requirement for a particular revision number to be stated, then no discrepancy could be identified. It must be noted that this decision is predicated upon the conclusion that the wording ‘rev' must be an abbreviation for the word ‘revision'.
TA.829rev - ‘Underdrawn' credit despite partial shipment allowed and no inclusion of a unit price
The term ‘underdrawn' is not defined in UCP 600. The presentation covered a shipment of goods that equated to almost the full quantity of goods as stated in the credit. However, the amount claimed was only for approximately two thirds of the value of the credit. It was determined that the credit allowed partial shipment and also that a unit price was not quoted. On this basis, the stated discrepancy could not be supported and the documents were considered as compliant.
TA.830rev - Documents released to drawee without payment under a collection subject to URC 522
A collection instruction given by a remitting bank to a presenting bank stated that two sets of documents were to be delivered against payment. The documents were released to the drawee without payment being obtained and the drawee obtained the goods. It was concluded that the presenting bank was clearly in breach of URC and, in addition, did not provide required information ‘without delay'. A court injunction had been issued that prevented the presenting bank from paying the collections, however this was only well after the date that documents had been released to the drawee and goods collected. Such a court injunction did not prohibit the presenting bank from complying with the collection instructions at the time of releasing the documents.
TA.831rev - Validity of confirmation fee; credit issued in two languages
An issuing bank instructed a bank to add its conformation to a credit and to subsequently advise the credit to the beneficiary via a third bank. The third bank informed the beneficiary that it had received a confirmed credit and no adverse comments were received in this respect. Two presentations of documents were made. As no mention was made of discrepancies, it was assumed that these were compliant. Although the beneficiary had not specifically instructed the advising bank to add its confirmation, the beneficiary did not dispute this at the time and the bank was entitled to receipt of applicable fees. A query as to whether or not it was possible to use two languages in a credit was answered positively; there is nothing in UCP to prevent this. However, banks have no responsibility for providing translations.
TA.833rev - Net weight greater than gross weight
An issuing bank refused documents on the basis that all documents showed a net weight greater than the gross weight, which they considered to be illogical. The reasoning provided by the nominated bank was that the weight in question was actually ADMT (air dry weight), which can be greater than the gross weight due to included moisture. The Opinion highlighted that although this is information not likely to be known by a document examiner, use of the words ‘net weight' in conjunction with ‘ADMT' weight did not make the documents discrepant.
TA.834rev - Partial shipment within units
A credit was issued covering delivery of a number of merchandise units and allowing for partial shipment. The presented documents evidenced that partial shipment was made within the units themselves. This was, in the opinion of the issuing bank, a discrepancy. However, there was nothing in the credit to prevent such a scenario. Accordingly, this could not be considered as a discrepancy.
TA.835rev - Insurance policy does not indicate name of the proxy
An issuing bank refused documents presented under a credit on the basis that the insurance document did not indicate the name of the proxy; it had been signed as Proxy for a stated insurance company. It was determined that the signature and document was in compliance with UCP and the discrepancy was not valid.
TA.836rev - Bill of lading does not show capacity of signing party
An issuing bank refused documents presented under a credit on the basis that the presented bill of lading did not show the capacity of the signing party. However, both the signature and the capacity of the signatory were determined to be in line with the requirements of UCP. The master had manually signed it with the master's name in the signature field.
TA.837rev - Quoted abbreviation not acceptable
An issuing bank refused documents presented under a credit on the basis that within the name of the applicant the abbreviation ‘Ind' had been used to represent ‘Industries'. This, in its opinion, was not acceptable. Although ISBP 745, paragraph A1, lists a number of acceptable abbreviations, this is not all-inclusive, and other types of abbreviation can be acceptable. From the perspective of this specific query, the use of the word ‘Ind' was not viewed as a discrepancy.
TA.838rev - Payment terms quoted incorrectly on invoice
A credit was issued with deferred payment details '30 days after transport document'. A third drawing under the credit included an invoice that included wording stating ‘L/C 30 days sight'. This was considered by the issuing bank to be a discrepancy on the grounds that it differed with the payment terms of the credit. There was no requirement in the credit for the invoice to stipulate payment terms and, in any event, the wording on the invoice did not change the obligations of the issuing bank as stated in the credit. The discrepancy was not considered as valid.
TA.839rev - Flight/date box on AWB
The query was raised as to whether or not the box ‘Flight/Date' on an AWB is a specific notation of the date of issuance. Under UCP 600, there are a variety of ways in which the date of issuance can be identified. The box in question is normally used by the carrier to indicate the scheduled flight and date and, as such, cannot be considered as a definite notation of the date of issuance.
TA.840rev - Bill of lading had no indication of ‘Regular Line Vessels' or ‘By Regular Line Vessels'
The ‘documents required' field of a credit, included mention that a full set of bills of lading was to be presented with ‘... notation date ocean bill of lading by regular line vessels ...'. It was observed that credits may include documentary requirements in addition to those stated in UCP. In the circumstances of this credit, it was not considered that any statement in respect of a regular line vessel was required. The discrepancy was not considered as valid.
More information can be found at www.tradefinance.training