Five Opinions were approved during the ICC Banking Commission meeting in Paris, in October 2019.
The initiator withdrew TA.894.
TA.891rev
A credit stipulated that 2/3 bills of lading were to be presented. Subsequent to presentation, the issuing bank cited a number of discrepancies including the fact that only 1/3 original bill of lading was actually presented. After a period of time, the presenting bank asked for the return of the documents. However, upon receipt, the presenting bank noted that page 1 of the original bill of lading was a photocopy and, as a result, contacted the issuing bank for the original page. The issuing bank also took 12 days to return the documents. The missing original page was not received, although the issuing bank did advise that the goods had been released. A number of questions were asked in respect of this situation.
It was concluded that the issuing bank had a responsibility to either honour or return the documents as presented. Documents can be returned at any time, but such action should be without delay. Failure to return the documents in the number of originals and copies as was received means that the issuing bank would be in breach of UCP 600 sub-article 16 (f).
TA.892rev
A credit was issued requiring presentation of a draft survey report issued by an independent surveyor. Although the presented documents were deemed as compliant by the confirming bank, the issuing bank raised a discrepancy that the draft survey report omitted to evidence the first page as ‘page 1 of 2'. The second page was marked ‘page 2 of 2'. In the analysis, it was noted that the two pages were bound together. As stated in ISBP 745 paragraph A24, pages that are physically bound together, however named or titled, meet the requirement for determination of whether or not such presentation is to be considered as the same document.
It was further noted that the refusal advice was sent by SWIFT MT799, with a comment that it should be treated as an MT734 message. If this is to be the case, then the MT799 message is subject to the same requirements as an MT734 as stated in UCP 600 article 16. In this particular case, such refusal advice was not issued in accordance with UCP 600 sub-article 16 (c) (iii), meaning that the issuing bank was precluded from claiming that the presentation was not complying and must honour.
TA.893rev
A credit was issued requiring presentation of a packing list that included dimensions of the bale to which the packing list pertained. The presented packing list identified the dimensions in CBM, which was refused by the nominated bank as being insufficient as the phrase ‘dimension' required a linear measurement to be shown.
As stated in the analysis, the acronym CBM refers to ‘cubic meter'. Such type of measurement does meet the ‘dimension' requirement.
TA.895rev
A credit was issued with a condition that in the event of delay in delivery beyond a particular date, the value of the credit would be reduced by a certain percentage. However, the credit did not actually state how such percentage reduction was to be identified and recorded. The confirming bank sent documents to the issuing bank apparently claiming the full amount of the credit. This was despite placing a reserve on the beneficiary, implying that they were aware that a deduction should be made. The issuing bank refused the documents due to the credit being overdrawn.
What was made very clear in the analysis was that the credit was poorly drafted, a fact that should have been noted by all parties but, in particular, by the issuing bank and the applicant who must take in the bulk of the blame. This does not, however, completely absolve the confirming bank or the beneficiary.
The stated condition in the credit was tantamount to an automatic reduction clause, and could not be ignored, even though it did not state exactly how such reduction was to be evidenced. It was concluded that the issuing bank's refusal notice should have been withdrawn once the confirming bank had agreed to a deduction, and the amount of the deduction was to be agreed by the issuing bank, confirming bank and the beneficiary, without delay.
TA.896rev
A credit was issued requiring a certificate of origin in duplicate issued by a Chamber of Commerce. The issuing bank, on the basis that an attachment that was referenced in the certificate of origin was not presented, refused the documents. They further stated that a required pre-shipment inspection certificate was not presented, despite there being no such requirement in the credit.
In the analysis, it was stated that the required attachment was in place, and could clearly be related to the certificate of origin. With regard to the pre-shipment inspection certificate, this was not required by the credit and cannot, therefore, be stated as a discrepancy.