As explained in our last few blogs, the explanatory notes accompanying the recent ICC Banking Commission decision not to proceed with a revision of UCP 600 contained a number of answers to questions raised by practitioners in different parts of the world.
We have addressed a few more of these queries below by stating the issue and the response from the ICC.
Do we still have to differentiate between carrier, agent and master? Please compare to BPO requirements.
|
- URBPO provides for a ‘Data Set' including, for example, transport data. Such ‘data' is not comparable to the issuance of a paper transport document. |
- The signing of such documents, either by a carrier, agent or master reflects industry practice and is not mandated by UCP.
Insert a clause, which states that sub-article 26 (a) is not applicable in case of transport by container vessel.
- Containers can be stowed/secured on deck. This is not a UCP revision issue.
Delete article 11 with regard to teletransmitted and pre-advised credits and amendments, as it is an out-dated process.
|
- UCP reflects existing practice. If it were observed that this is no longer an existing practice then deletion would be supported. However, evidence suggests that this is still an on-going, although diminishing, practice. Unless a credit is pre-advised, the rule does not apply so there is no issue. |
- UCP cannot mandate how banks approach this issue.
- It should also be noted that SWIFT still make available message type MT705.
ISBP 745 paragraph E23: This paragraph should become part of a revised UCP regarding transport documents and also, with an adjusted wording, regarding insurance documents in connection with a requested settling agent.
|
- The wording in ISBP 745 states: ‘need not'. This is, therefore, not a rule as the reverse could also be true. |
- The same apples to insurance documents.
ISBP 745 paragraph J2 (c) should become part of a revised UCP, amending the current UCP 600 article 24.
- The wording in ISBP 745 states: ‘includes terms such as'. This is not all-inclusive and cannot be considered as a rule.
ISBP 745 paragraph K7 is not an international standard banking practice but a rule, which should become part of a revised UCP, amending the current UCP 600 article 28.
- This paragraph includes terms such as ‘may be' and ‘need not'. These are not pre-requisites for a rule.
ISBP 745 paragraph K16 is not an international standard banking practice but a rule, which should become part of a revised UCP, amending the current UCP 600 article 28.
- It is considered that this paragraph reflects practice and is not a rule.
ISBP 745 paragraph L3 (c): the permission to accept different issuers than required in the credit is not an international standard banking practice but a rule, which should become part of a revised UCP as a new article.
- It is considered that this paragraph reflects practice (i.e. ‘also be satisfied') and is not a rule.
ISBP 745 paragraph L6 is a rule and should become part of a revised UCP. Otherwise a different shipper (not shown on other documents) could be considered as a conflict with other documents.
- This paragraph indicates that a certificate of origin ‘may indicate' not ‘must indicate'.
- This is, therefore, a reflection of practice rather than a rule.
ISBP 745 paragraph C15 (a) (i) and (ii): the first part of (a) (i) is the original wording of UCP 600 article 32. Therefore, the second part and (a) (ii) should also become part of an article in a revised UCP.
|
- The first part of ISBP 745 paragraph C15 (a) (i) is, as stated, a repetition of UCP 600 article 32. However, it is necessary in order to explain what is being said in the 2nd sentence, and avoids the need to create different language and the risks that can arise if there is a conflict between that language and that in UCP. |
- Such necessary clarification is also the case in most, if not all, other instances wherein a UCP 600 rule is repeated in ISBP 745.
Sub-article 37 (c) should include a definition of a period of time for claiming and reimbursing charges or, at least, mention an obligatory wording or clause like "without delay" or the same.
|
- Customs, practice and legal requirements for the settlement of fees differ throughout the world |
- This is not an issue that can be solved by ICC rules.
UCP 600 should include a uniform format for article 39 and define a uniform assignment form that covers essential details as a guideline for assignor and banks.
|
- Article 39 clearly states that assignment rights are made in accordance with applicable law. |
- UCP cannot mandate for the many different provisions that may exist throughout the world.