2 New ICC Opinions approved by the ICC Banking Commission
This week the ICC met – virtually and in Paris. During the session discussing the new Draft Opinions 2 new ICC Opinions were approved. Those have just been circulated to the ICC National Committees.
First, ICC Opinion TA935rev was approved after resubmission.
The core information in the query is:
LC information:
The LC required presentation of a bill of lading, and further indicated:
44F: Port of Discharge: CAT LAI PORT, HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM
Presentation information:
Port of Discharge: HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM
Place of Delivery: CAT LAI PORT, HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM
The presentation was refused on the basis that the “BILL OF LADING SHOWING 'CAT LAI PORT' AS PLACE OF DELIVERY I/O AS PORT OF DISCHARGE WITHOUT NOTATION EVIDENCING PORT OF DISCHARGE IS 'CAT LAI PORT'”
The question asked is if this is a valid discrepancy.
The answer from the ICC is that it is a valid discrepancy.
Second, ICC Opiniion TA940 was also approved. The query related to a guarantee issued subject to URDG 758 and whether a rejection of a presentation was valid.
There were four discrepancies raised by the guarantor.
1: “The invoice copies are dated in 2018”
2: “The invoice copies refer to a guarantee number that is different from the guarantee under which the demand is made”
3: “The invoice copies mention “payment terms: Standby L/C 90 days from B/L”.
The conclusion from the ICC was that the quoted discrepancies were not valid and therefore the demand was compliant.
Reviews of the new ICC Opinions (linked to relevant rules and practices) have been added to lcviews premium.