The Final Paris Opinions
As you know the unfortunate events in Paris led to the cancellation of the fall meeting in the ICC Banking Commission. Following that; the ICC have lead a process for the purpose of approving the Draft Opinions that should have been discussed (and approved) at the Paris meeting.
The presentation to be made in Paris was circulated to the ICC NCs for comments.
On 5 February 2016 the ICC circulated the following message:
In accordance with the agreed procedure, the presentation planned for the Paris session covering Draft Opinions 828-840 was distributed to National Committees on 7th December 2015 together with revised wording for 814 & 820.
Based on feedback received, attached are the consolidated final Opinions 814, 820, 828-831 and 833-840 which have been approved by means of this process.
It is evident that a suitable consensus has still not been achieved for 832 and this will be held over for further discussion at the Johannesburg meeting in April 2016.
Below is an overview of the approved and not-approved ICC Opinions:
TA814rev4 and TA820rev4
These two were revisited and changed after the final versions following the Singapore meeting. More information here:
(814 + 820 3rd revision is out)
The two Opinions cover three issues; i.e.:
· $ Versus USD (814rev4)
· Bill of lading blank endorsed? (814rev4)
· Amendment – accepted or rejected
The topic for the Opinion is a Packing list/Weight memo; where the document shows that it is “rev04” … but the C/O makes reference to “rev03.”
This is not considered a discrepancy.
The question is if the LC is “under-drawn” since a Final shipment document is presented and the full quantity is not shipped.
The answer is that it is not.
This Opinion covers a collection according to URC 522; where the documents are released without payment – and subsequently the collecting bank receives a court injunction prohibiting it from paying.
This Opinion covers two topics. One is if the Confirming bank is entitled to receive its confirmation fee if the beneficiary has not asked the confirming bank to add its confirmation; the other is whether an LC may use two different languages – and if a bank is obligated to translate the “other” language.
The answers are that the confirming bank is entitled to its confirmation fee; and the LC may contain different languages; and that the bank is not responsible for providing a translation.
It was not possible to achieve consensus for this Draft Opinion from the comments from the ICC NCs. Therefore it will be discussed at the coming meeting in the ICC Commission in Johannesburg.
The issue is whether a difference in weight between the documents constitutes a discrepancy; i.e. The packing list shows “Nett weight 630.000 / Gross weight 630.360”
The bill of lading shows “Nett weight 630.000 / Gross weight 630.000”
The Draft Opinion is that this is not a valid discrepancy. It seems however that many NCs do not subscribe to that view.
In many ways it is an interesting issue / case. There have been a number of ICC Opinions recently that seems to “expand” the interpretation of UCP 600 article 14(d). This one seems to go the “whole way.” Although it seems wrong to refuse based on a difference of 360 kgs, it is hard argue (based on the UCP 600) that this is not a discrepancy. If this is approved without a really good analysis, then it may cause confusion about the interpretation of UCP 600 article 14(d).
The issue is whether there is logic between the Nett, Gross and Air Dry Weight; and whether or not the fact that the nett weight is greater than the gross weight is a valid discrepancy.
The answer is that it is not.
The issue is whether or not it is allowed to ship “95% of 4 units” where partial shipment is allowed.
The answer is that it is.
The issue is whether an insurance documents signed by proxy must show the name of the proxy.
The answer is that the UCP 600 does not require that an agent or proxy is to be named in an insurance document.
The issue is if a CPBL is signed correctly.
The query addresses the following discrepancy:
“Invoice addressed to Xxxxxxx Heavy Industries i.o Xxxxxxx Heavy Ind”
Is this a valid discrepancy? The ICC answer is “no” …
The LC is payable at “30 days after transport document date” – but the invoice states “30 DAYS SIGHT.” Is this a valid discrepancy? The ICC answer is “no” …
This Opinion deals with an Air waybill with the following data:
Date of issue: 21-April-2014
The question is which date is to be considered date of shipment?
The LC calls for a B/L by “regular liner vessel” – and the document is refused because it does not show the words “regular liner vessel.” This is not considered a valid discrepancy.
The above is a very “rough” walk through the newly approved ICC Opinions. Reviews of the above are available in lcviews premium; linked to the UCP 600/URC 522 article that applies to the query.
lcviews includes reviews of all ICC Opinions issued subject to UCP 600, URC 522 as well as URDG 758.
Please Login to Leave Your Comment
Viewer's Recent Comments
Be the first to make a comment.