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



A wrong being fixed!



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:




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.



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



Please Login to Leave Your Comment

Viewer's Recent Comments

Be the first to make a comment.

What's Inside

Login To LCViews

   Email Address

   Remember   Forgot Password

Latest Blog Post

Fob, Fca And The Incoterms In The Pipeline
The High Risk Ghost In Trade Finance
Combating Trade Based Money Laundering: Rethinking The Approach
The New Icc Opinions Are Out
The Ucp 600 Revision – Now You See It. Now You Don’t

Latest Single Window Questions

Lc Confirmation
Refusal To Negotiate Documents By A Nominated Bank
Definition Of Shipping Company
Ta629 And Isbp D8
Cost Additional To Freight

LCViews - 814 + 820 3rd revision is out