The content of ISBP 745 is based on a number of previously approved ICC Opinions. Below, we highlight some of the Opinions that have helped to develop international standard banking practice. Some have been the catalyst for the highlighted paragraphs of the ISBP publications, whereas a few offer an alternative stance.
A1 - R431: This Opinion highlights when abbreviations may not be considered consistent. A credit stipulated that a FCR was to be issued by XXX SPA. However, XXX SRL issued the FCR. Although both "SPA" and "SRL" have the same effect as "company" and "limited" etc., they can also have a different connotation as to the standing of the issuer and subsequent acceptability under a credit. An FCR issued by XXX S.R.L. would be considered discrepant in respect of a credit requiring that XXX S.P.A. issue it.
A5 - R555 (TA536): A credit required presentation of three beneficiary certificates. Upon presentation, the issuing bank refused them stating that they were not dated and that under international standard banking practice it would normally be expected that certificates be dated. However, compliance without a date would depend on the type of certification that has been requested, its required wording and the wording that appears within it. On the basis of the information received, there was nothing in the credit that made dating of each certificate crucial to the establishment of compliance with any of the statements therein. Accordingly, it was considered that there was no discrepancy.
A6 - TA767rev: The credit required, amongst other documents, photocopies of an air waybill together with an insurance document. The airport of departure was stated to be any airport in Sweden and/or European countries and/or China. The air waybill date was to be deemed to be the date of shipment. Copies of the air waybill showed the airport of departure field quoting Sweden instead of the name of an actual airport in Sweden. This was the first discrepancy that was noted. The insurance document showed a date of issuance as 17 June 2011 and the air waybill date as 17 June. The air waybill was dated 13 June 2011 and showed the flight number as QR688/17. The second discrepancy was that the insurance document showed the wrong air waybill date. Although the credit required the presentation of photocopies of an air waybill, and therefore the document would not be subject to examination under article 23, the credit did indicate that dispatch was to be effected from an airport, amongst other places, in Sweden. The conclusion indicated that the air waybill, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit, should have shown the name of an airport in Sweden and therefore the discrepancy was valid. For the insurance document, the credit had indicated that the date of the air waybill was to be the basis for determining the date of shipment. Therefore, the document should have indicated that cover was effective no later than 13 June 2011. This discrepancy was also stated to be valid.
A7 - R533 (TA103): This issue revolved around the question of international standard banking practice in respect of corrections on documents, specifically: transport documents, documents issued by the beneficiary and documents issued by a party other than the beneficiary. In summary, the following conclusions were provided:
Transport documents - corrections or additions on a transport document must be authenticated by a correction stamp as well as a signature or initials. Note the updated position that now prevails in A7. It should be clear who has corrected the document and on what authority. The adding of a freight paid stamp or an annotation of an on board date are not considered to be additions.
Beneficiary-issued documents - Corrections do not need to be authenticated by the beneficiary. Where documents have been, legalised, visaed or certified etc., any correction of data is to be authenticated by at least one of the entities that legalised, visaed or certified etc., the document.
Non-beneficiary documents - These documents must be corrected by the issuer and clearly identify who has made the correction. If a correction is made by an entity other than the issuer (i.e., an agent), then this must be annotated with a declaration of the capacity of the person(s) making the authentication in relation to the issuer. It will not be the responsibility of a bank to ascertain whether or not the person(s) was authorised to make the correction on behalf of the issuer.
A9 - R632 (TA657rev): This Opinion focussed on two
issues.
1. Whether a CMR was acceptable showing two carrier names.
2. Whether the insertion of the day of the month of the shipment, by pen, was
acceptable when the rest of the date i.e., month and year were typed onto the CMR.
The CMR showed, in box 16 (titled: Transporteur) the name of Company S and in
box 23 (titled: Signature et timbre du transporteur) the name and address of
Company C. The presenting national committee had offered its own analysis and
conclusion to the query and determined that the document was discrepant. The
Banking Commission agreed with this position.
The CMR showed in boxes 4 (date of taking in charge) and 21 (date of issuance)
".... -11-2007" and had been completed, in pen, with the addition of "28".
The presenting national committee had differing views as to whether or not this
was acceptable. The Banking Commission took the view that the document had been
created on the basis that the actual day would be inserted later; that it would
be acceptable according to the content of ISBP 681 paragraph 11 and would not
require authentication by the carrier or its agent.
A9 - R552 (TA555): ISBP does not specifically validate the acceptability of a document completed in different type styles, font sizes or handwriting. The acceptance of a document issued in such a manner would be subject to the type and form of the added data. For beneficiary-issued documents, this would not necessarily indicate a reason for refusal or a requirement for authentication. But with regard to additions on, for example, a bill of lading, it may well be valid for a bank to ensure that such data were authenticated. However, in most circumstances, use of differing font sizes or style within a document is not necessarily a reason for refusal.
A16 - R210: This Opinion considers the acceptability of different date formats on documents within a single presentation, specifically the American format MM/DD/YY and the European format DD/MM/YY. The indication in the documents of a date in different formats such as those mentioned above does not by itself provide a reason to refuse the documents. However, there should be no reason to doubt that both dates have the same interpretation or, in case of doubt, that there is another indication in the documents or in the presentation of documents that clarifies only one interpretation of the date is possible.