The Rome ICC Opinions are out


Following the first Technical Meeting in the ICC Banking Commission held in Rome November 2016 the new Final ICC Opinions have just been circulated (less than a week after the meeting – which I think is a record).

The Draft ICC Opinions were presented at the meeting by Dave Meynell, Glenn Ransier and myself.

Below is a brief overview of the topics covered by the Opinions:


TA.842rev3

This Opinion was held over from the previous meeting in Johannesburg.

The issue is whether the requirement “ALL DOCUMENTS TO BE MANUALLY SIGNED” applies to a copy of an invoice.


TA.849rev3

This Opinion was held over from the previous meeting in Johannesburg. 

The scenario is a invoice that includes the following clause:

“These commodities, technology, or software were exported from the United States in accordance with the Administration Regulations. Diversion contrary prohibited.”

And if that constitutes a valid reason for refusal.


TA.851rev3

This Opinion was held over from the previous meeting in Johannesburg. It deals with 2 issues: 

* If “applicants certificate” was indeed issued by the applicant, and 

* if the tenor of a dreaft should be “xxx sight” instead of “at sight” 


TA.852rev

This ICC Opinion covers a rather unusual situation where a bank will only pay the beneficiary when all presentations under the LC have been made.

 

TA.853rev

This ICC Opinion also covers 2 issues:

* If a Courier receipt must show contract number and date.

* If a Draft must show contract number and date.

 

TA.855rev

This ICC Opinions deals with an LC issued by a non-bank issuer, and whether or not such bank is held to the same standards as an “issuing bank”.

 

470/TA.856rev

This ICC Opinions deals with a situation where the contract number differ between the LC and the invoice.

 

TA.857:

Additional information has been requested, and the Draft Opinion will be re-submitted at the Jakarta meeting in April 2017.

 

TA.858rev

This ICC Opinion deals with a bill of lading indicated 2 different vessels in the same port, and the on-board notation is made on the first vessel; i.e. not the vessel actually leaving the port of loading.

 

TA.859rev

This ICC Opinions deals with a refusal stating “Invoice shows incoterms incomplete”.

 

TA.860rev

This ICC Opinions deals with a situation where the packing list includes “spare parts” although “spare parts” are not mentioned in the LC or the invoice.

 

TA.861rev

This ICC opinions deals with a copy performance guarantee presented under an LC – and whether or not it complies with the LC requirements in respect of amount and validity.

 

TA.862rev

This ICC Opinion questions if an Air Waybill must include a date of issuance.

 

TA.863rev

This ICC Opinions deals with the difference between “port” and “seaport” …


Reviews of the new Opinions are now in lcviews premium.

Take care of each other and the LC.

Kind regards

Kim



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
   

   Password
   
   Remember   Forgot Password
   


Latest Blog Post

The Ucp 600 Revision – Now You See It. Now You Don’t
The Case Of The 8 Containers
Guide To A 100% Letter Of Credit Conform Air Waybill
Bankers And The Market Price Of The Goods
Trade Finance Transaction Monitoring

Latest Single Window Questions

Insurance Same Currency With Lc
Dealing With Goods
Certificate Of Inspection Issued By A Well Known Authority
Transit Documentary Credit
Will A Copy Of A Courier Receipt Do?

LCViews - The Rome ICC Opinions are out