814 + 820 3rd revision is out
This topic
has been “in loop” for a long time … and it seems not to stop: After the ICC
Banking Commission Meeting in Singapore (April 2015), ICC Opinions TA 814 and
TA820 have been discussed – and various conclusions have been presented.
To cut a
very long story short, this issue has been discussed in the two previous blog
posts:
Singapore ICC Opinions are out
http://www.lcviews.com/index.php?page_id433
A wrong being fixed!
http://www.lcviews.com/index.php?page_id443
The two ICC
Opinions TA814rev3 and 820rev3 was received yesterday – after they have been
circulated for another round of comments by the National Committees.
Two issues
are worth noting:
1: the
conclusion and analysis are not surprising, and
2: It sound
as if those are not the final ones.
For the
analysis and conclusion:
TA814rev:
As such 3
conclusions has been reached for this query so far:
The draft Opinion:
Unless it can be identified from elsewhere in
the invoice that „$‟ relates to United States Dollars, the symbol „$‟ cannot be
stated as definitely relating to USD. The „$‟ sign is used to indicate the
dollar unit of a currency, but can be applied to the currency of any country
that utilises the dollar as a currency.
The first circulated Opinion
1: IF the invoice issuer is in a country that
uses Dollar or the Dollar-sign ($) then it is NOT acceptable to only state “$”
for USD.
2: IF the invoice issuer is NOT in a country that
uses Dollar or the Dollar-sign ($) then it is acceptable to only state “$” for
USD.
The Updated Opinion for comments
An invoice presented under a credit issued in
USD, bearing only the ‘$’ sign without further qualification, fulfils the
requirement of UCP 600 sub-article 18 (a) (iii) unless data in the invoice
itself or another presented document implies that the ‘$’ sign may also refer
to a currency other than USD.
And now –
as said – revision 3 is out and – except and additional paragraph to the Analysis
and a slightly revised Conclusion – the result is the same.
TA820rev:
For this
one there are some changes to the conclusion – but (as far as I can see) only
to clean up some (language) mistakes in the previous version.
The main
conclusion still is that when the beneficiary makes a presentation without
having communicated acceptance or rejection of an amendment, and such
presentation complies with the original LC but not with the amended LC, the
amendment has not yet been accepted or rejected by the beneficiary.
So far so
good!
What is interesting
is the ICC Banking Commission seems to indicate that there will be another discussion
on these two. It ends its forwarding letter by saying:
The revised Opinions will be discussed at the
start of the Opinions session in Paris on Tuesday 17th November 2015.
This process is an exception and will not be
considered as practice for the future.
Of course
one can only smile of the last “strict school master” comment … hmmm who
created this in the first place?? In any case – both are up for discussion at
the next ICC Meeting – this November.
Will we
after that have a 4th revision? Will be interesting to hear.
For that
reason reviews of the 2 has not been included into lcviews premium. That will
be done when the final/final/final versions are available….
Take care
of each other and the LC.
Kind
regards
Kim