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