January 2024 ICC Opinions published
This week the ICC met virtually. At that meeting 4 new ICC Opinions were approved. You may stop at think; were there not 5 Opinions on the agenda? Indeed there were. However, at the meeting it was agreed to move TA935 to the next meeting. The reason is that, the ICC Technical Advisors proposed to turn the conclusion 180 degrees.
ICC Opinion TA935 deals with an LC that required presentation of a bill of lading, and further indicated:
“44F: Port of Discharge: CAT LAI PORT, HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM.”
The presented bill of lading indicated:
Port of Discharge: HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM
Place of Delivery: CAT LAI PORT, HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM
The question is if this is acceptable. This will be discussed at the next ICC Banking Commission meeting in April 2024.
TA936rev: C&F versus CFR
The LC indicates (as part of the goods description): “xxx CFR [Port C]” (No reference to Incoterms).
The presented invoice, instead of “CFR” stated “C&F”.
The presentation was refused on the basis that “Trade term not found in invoice.”
The main question asked is of this is a valid discrepancy. A sub-issue is if it makes a difference that four similar presentations had previously been accepted – and honoured.
The answer from the ICC is that this is not a valid discrepancy. Also the ICC Opinion makes it clear that all presentations must be treated on a stand-alone basis.
TA937: Ports versus cities
The LC called for an air waybill (AWB) and included the following requirements:
=> SWIFT Field 44E (Port of Loading/Airport of Departure): Any Europe Airport
=> SWIFT Field 44F (Port of Discharge/Airport of Destination): Any Panama Airport
The presented AWB indicated the following information:
=> Airport of departure: Amsterdam
=> Airport of destination: Panama, Ciudad DE
The presentation was refused stating that “Air Waybill does not show name of Airport of departure nor Airport of Destination”.
This was not deemed a valid discrepancy.
TA938rev: Responsibilities for an advising bank
The query includes questions that seek to understand the responsibilities of an advising bank and a second advising bank – and even a third advising bank
The case presented is a complex LC involving a long list of involved banks.
TA939rev: Draft in field 42 versus fields 46A/47A
The query concerns an LC subject to UCP600 (issued via SWIFT MT700) that includes the requirements for a Draft. The question is how many originals are required to be presented if the draft is required in more than one field in the LC.
The answer from the ICC is that only one Draft is required presented.
All in all, good additions in the “standard banking practice bucket” …. and of course reviews of the new ICC Opinions has been added to lcviews premium - duly linked to relevant rules and practice.
Take care – of yourself and the LC.
Kind regards
Kim