Singapore ICC Opinions are out
The ICC
have just published the ICC Opinions approved at their meeting end April in
Singapore.
Most if
those are (of course) somewhat similar to the draft opinion. Many have been
cleaned up - and that for the good.
For example
TA820rev where the analysis has been changed a lot - and no longer suggests
that an amendment is rejected if it is not used in the presentation. That is
good - and correct.
Two of the
new ICC Opinions – in their final versions – are however very troublesome:
First of
all TA814rev which deals with an LC issued in USD - and the invoice simply
referred to the currency using a $-sign. In the draft Opinion this was
considered a discrepancy. At the meeting in Singapore this was changed; I.e.
Reversed 180 degrees. I was there and I specifically remember Neil Chantry say
that it will be so that unless the presentation specifically indicates that it
is a currency different from US$ (like Singapore dollar) - then it is NOT a
discrepancy.
I can
subscribe to that view!
And so it
seemed could the majority of the NCs in the room.
It seems
however that the technical advisers could NOT subscribe to that: the analysis
in the revised final Opinion looks nothing like what was agreed at the meeting.
In fact I
am not even sure I understand the analysis.
I simply
need to quote part of it here:
Quote
Field 32B of a SWIFT MT700 contains the
currency code and amount of the credit, and as per SWIFT network validation
rules, it must be a valid ISO 4217 currency code. It appears that the credit
was issued with the currency code „USD‟. The currency was stated in the first
beneficiary‟s invoice as „$‟. Both UCP 600 and ISBP 745 specify that an invoice
must be in the same currency as the credit. This pre-supposes that the currency
code utilised in the invoice can be recognised and can be directly related to that
stated in the credit. The „$‟ sign is used to indicate the dollar unit of a
currency, but can be applied to the currency of any country that utilises the
dollar as a currency. Unless the issuer of the invoice is in a country that
uses the dollar as a unit of currency or one which uses the dollar sign as a
generic symbol for its currency the use of the sign $ instead of the ISO code
USD does not indicate non-compliance with sub-article 18 a. iii. UCP600.
Unquote
Somehow I
get what they are trying to say BUT:
1: this is
clearly outside the mandate given by the Commission at the meeting. If the technical
advisers - for some reason - felt that what was agreed was wrong, they should
have sent it out for a new round of comments from the NCs.
2: the
above analysis is written so unclear and sloppy that it can only lead to
confusion. (I dare not even summarise what they are trying to say).
Frankly I
think this is a disgrace - and the ICC Opinion need be revised to reflect what
was actually agreed at the meeting; or send out for a new found of comments.
The second
ICC Opinion that calls for more words are TA817rev. I have discussed this
before - most thoroughly here:
http://www.lcviews.com/index.php?page_id427
And also
here:
http://www.lcviews.com/index.php?page_id428
Now the
final Opinion is here. The conclusion has not changed; it is still a
discrepancy.
However
again the Analysis calls for confusion and wonder. It includes the following:
Quote
FCL stands for „Full Container Load‟ and
relates to the usage of space in a container and that the container has been
loaded by the shipper.
„CY/CY stands for „Container Yard / Container Yard‟
and relates to the receipt of a full container at the location of the shipper‟s
premises and delivery by the carrier to the consignee‟s premises.‟
UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d) specifically relates
to international standard banking practice. Common knowledge of abovementioned
terms would not generally be considered as an element of such practice.
The credit required explicit reference to FCL
container, as such, the bill of lading should provide specific reference to FCL
rather than other terms such as CY/CY.
Unquote
So what
they are saying is that:
* The LC
calls for "shipment in FCL container." FCL means full container load.
* CY/CY “relates to the receipt of a full container.”
• However,
this is not something that the document examiner need to know - for what reason
the bill of lading is discrepant.
Wouww - if
the aim is to distance the LC totally from the rest of the world - then this
Opinion surely is helpful!
My personal
view is that this Opinion is wrong - very wrong: This is clearly the same
thing. The analysis even states that! But what can I say: damage done ....
Enough of
that.
Reviews of
all ICC Opinions subject to UCP 600 (including the latest ones - like mentioned
above) and URDG 758 are available in lcviews premium.
Take care
of each other and the LC.
Kind
regards
Kim