Blog

As announced at the Plenary Meeting in Paris on 20 October 2022, the Banking Commission SteerCo, in response to feedback from National Committees, established a Working Group in order to initiate a limited review of the ISBP 745. 

The aim was to evaluate all ICC Opinions approved since the release of the ISBP 745 and to ensure that the ISBP were fully aligned with their content.

It should be noted that the ISBP 745 were approved by ICC National Committees in 2013, and the reviewed Opinions were approved by ICC National Committees between October 2013 and January 2023. 

Therefore, this review merely ensured alignment between previously approved texts, and allowed for all relevant material to be contained in a single publication.

144 Opinions were reviewed, 13 of which had been withdrawn by the initiator.

The outcome of the alignment review resulted in nine Opinions being recognised as containing content that would be meaningful for addition within the ISBP. 

These are now included in the ISBP XXX and comprise:

• New Preliminary Consideration viii) stating that the absence of a credit number, or the mistyping of a credit number, on a document is not a valid reason for refusal. (Opinion 876rev)
• New Preliminary Consideration ix) providing that administrative conditions such as a requirement for an additional photocopy of all documents, or a statement that all documents may not be stapled, should not be incorporated by an issuing bank in a credit. (Opinion 915rev)
• Add ‘Industries' to paragraph A1 (Abbreviations). (Opinion 837rev)
• Add new paragraph A17 (b) (Documents and the need for completion of a box, field or space) stating that there is no requirement for the applicant name, address and contact details (if any) to appear in a specific box, field or space on an invoice. (Opinion 818rev)
• Add new paragraph A31 (b) (copy documents) stating that copies of documents need not be signed and move existing A31 (b) to A31 (c). (Opinion 842rev3)
• Add new paragraph C7 (general issues relating to invoices) providing that an invoice presented under a credit issued in USD, bearing only the "$? sign without further qualification, fulfils the requirement of UCP 600 sub-article 18 (a) (iii) unless data in the invoice itself, or another presented document, implies that the "$? sign may refer to a currency other than USD. (Opinion 814rev4)
• Add new paragraphs D5 (e) (multimodal transport document), E5 (e) (bill of lading), & F4 (e) (non-negotiable sea waybill) stating that the signature of the master (captain) may be accompanied by a stamp that incorporates the name of the vessel. (Opinion 813)
• Add new paragraph G4 (c) (charter party bill of lading) stating that the signature of the master (captain) may be accompanied by a stamp that incorporates the name of the vessel. (Opinion 836rev)
• Add new paragraph K2 (b) stating that UCP 600 does not require that an agent or proxy is to be named in an insurance document and move existing paragraph K2 (b) to K2 (c). (Opinion 835rev)

Target to publish soonest - dependent on ICC Publishing

ISBP xxx (to be allocated)

Next Steps

1. No further work
2. Full review of the newly aligned ISBP text retaining the scope as "examination of documents" only
3. Scope of ISBP to be extended beyond the "examination of documents" to other areas such as issuance, advising, confirmation, amendment, honour, etc.
4. Drafting of separate, independent, guidance publication(s) covering issuance, advising, confirmation, amendment, honour, etc., with ISBP still focusing on the "examination of documents"

ICC National Committees will be invited to provide comment on potential next steps.

Alignment in detail

New Preliminary Consideration viii) stating that the absence of a credit reference number, or the mistyping of a credit reference number, on a document is not a valid reason for refusal. (Opinion 876rev) 

• Beneficiary certificate indicated an incorrect documentary credit number.
• R289 - the absence of the reference number, which neither adds nor detracts from the purpose of the document, would seem to be an irrelevance and not valid grounds for rejection.
• R578 - a refusal based on the absence of a L/C number on a document, where requested in the L/C, is not grounds for refusal.
• R635 - misquoting of the credit number on the bill of lading does not create a reason for refusal.
• R811 - request for insertion of L/C numbers is usually at the instigation of the issuing bank, to facilitate the collation of documents when one or more go astray.
• The mistyping of the credit number on a document does not render such document discrepant.

New Preliminary Consideration ix) providing that administrative conditions such as a requirement for an additional photocopy of all documents, or a statement that all documents may not be stapled, should not be incorporated by an issuing bank in a credit. (Opinion 915rev) 

• To exacerbate the problem further, the issuing bank used these "conditions" as a reason to treat the presentation as non-compliant.
• As highlighted in the Opinion, neither "condition" constitutes a valid reason for refusal of documents.
• It was further commented that whilst the ICC Banking Commission can neither mandate nor limit the terms and conditions that an issuing bank may choose to include in its credits, these types of condition should not be incorporated by an issuing bank to reduce its own internal "administrative" requirements.
• It is not acceptable for nominated banks or beneficiaries to fulfil "administrative tasks" on behalf of an issuing bank.

Add ‘Industries' to paragraph A1 (Abbreviations). (Opinion 837rev)

• An invoice was refused as it included "Industries" as part of the name of the applicant whereas the credit used the abbreviation "Ind".
• Abbreviations are regularly, and commonly, used in international trade instruments and documentation, in substitution for a word or vice versa.
• The abbreviation "Ind" can be used as an abbreviation for many words: the exact understanding depends on the contextual relevance.
• Such abbreviation, or similar, is not limited solely to an interpretation in the singular or the plural.
• In the context of this query, "Ind" can be used as a substitute for both "Industry" and "Industries" and does not create a conflict.

Add new paragraph A17 (b) (Documents and the need for completion of a box, field or space) stating that there is no requirement for the applicant name, address and contact details (if any) to appear in a specific box, field or space on an invoice. (Opinion 818rev)

• Queried if a commercial invoice with a box labeled "addressee" and completed with the details of the applicant complied with the requirement in sub-article 18 (a) (ii) for the invoice to be made out in the name of the applicant.
• Neither UCP 600 nor ISBP 745 stipulates that the name and address of the applicant be present in a specific location, field or box on the invoice, or that any name thereon be distinctly identified as the applicant. The requirement in UCP 600 sub-article 18 (a) (ii) is merely that: "A commercial invoice must be made out in the name of the applicant."

Add new paragraph A31 (b) (copy documents) stating that copies of documents need not be signed and move existing A31 (b) to A31 (c). (Opinion 842rev3)

• Queried, when a credit required all documents to be manually signed, whether this included copies.
• The concept that copies of documents do not need to be signed is so entrenched in international standard banking practice that, where a manual signature is exceptionally required to be added to a copy of a document, it must be expressly stated in the credit e.g., "All documents, and also copies, are to be manually signed."
• New A31 (b) states: Copies of document need not be signed, even when a credit states that all documents are to be manually signed.

Add new paragraph C7 (general issues relating to invoices) providing that an invoice presented under a credit issued in USD, bearing only the "$? sign without further qualification, fulfils the requirement of UCP 600 sub-article 18 (a) (iii) unless data in the invoice itself, or another presented document, implies that the "$? sign may refer to a currency other than USD. (Opinion 814rev4)

• Both UCP 600 sub-article 18 (a) (iii) and ISBP 745 paragraph C6 (c) specify that an invoice must be in the same currency as the credit.
• An invoice presented under a credit issued in USD, bearing only the "$" sign without further qualification, fulfils the requirement of UCP 600 sub-article 18 (a) (iii) unless data in the invoice itself, such as the domiciliation of the beneficiary in a country whose currency is commonly referred to with the "$" sign, or another presented document implies that the "$" sign may refer to a currency other than USD.

Add new paragraphs D5 (e) (multimodal transport document), E5 (e) (bill of lading), & F4 (e) (non-negotiable sea waybill) stating that the signature of the master (captain) may be accompanied by a stamp that incorporates the name of the vessel. (Opinion 813)

• Combined transport bill of lading was signed by the master, in addition there was a stamp that included the name of the vessel, the name of a shipping company and an address, and name of the carrier; queried whether the signature and stamp created a conflict in determining the capacity in which the document had been signed.
• Based on the evidence provided, the bill of lading bore a stamp that provided evidence of the name of the carrier.
• Furthermore, the document was signed by the master and the signature was identified as that of the master.

Add new paragraph G4 (c) (charter party bill of lading) stating that the signature of the master (captain) may be accompanied by a stamp that incorporates the name of the vessel. (Opinion 836rev)

• Charter party bill of lading was signed by the master but also bore a stamp indicating the vessel name and what appeared to be the name of the owner or shipping company; queried whether the signature and the stamp created a conflict with regard to determining the capacity in which the document had been signed.
• The contents of the charter party bill of lading, including the signature and capacity of the signing entity, were in conformity with the provisions of the UCP 600 sub-article 22 (a) (i).
• It is not uncommon for a stamp/seal of the charterer or owner of the vessel to appear on a charter party bill of lading, which does not eliminate or dilute the validity of the signature and the identification and capacity of the master appearing on it.

Add new paragraph K2 (b) stating that UCP 600 does not require that an agent or proxy is to be named in an insurance document and move existing paragraph K2 (b) to K2 (c). (Opinion 835rev)

• Queried whether an insurance policy was signed as proxy for the insurance company and whether the signature was acceptable without naming the proxy.
• The insurance document presented complied with the requirements of UCP 600 sub-article 28 (a).
• ISBP 745 paragraphs K2, K3 and K4 offer guidance on how to correctly deploy UCP 600 sub-article 28 (a).
• UCP 600 does not require that an agent or proxy be named in the document.

www.tradefinance.training