Bonjour; the Paris Opinions are out
Today the ICC Banking Commission circulated the ICC Opinions discussed and approved at the ICC Banking Commission Technical Meeting held in Paris on 7-10 October 2019.
The consolidated Opinions discussed was in the sequence TA891-896. The Draft Opinions were presented by Senior Technical Advisor Dave Meynell, Technical Advisors Glenn Ransier and Kim Sindberg.
ICC Opinion TA894 was withdrawn by the initiator before the meeting.
Here is a brief overview of the new ICC Opinions:
TA.891rev; B/L Photocopy returned after refusal
The Opinion deals with an LC calling for “2/3 set of clean on board ocean bill of lading made out to order of the issuing bank and blank endorsed...” The presentation was refused citing the discrepancy “only 1/3 set of original B/L presented.” Subsequently, the documents were returned. The returned documents included (only) 1/2 of the bill of lading, which was a photocopy.
The key question is that since one original page of the bill of lading was not returned – will article 16 (f) (i.e. the preclusion rule) apply to this case?
TA.892rev; Pages not linked together and refusal by MT799
The Opinion deals with a Draft Survey Report – and whether its pages were properly linked together. The Opinion adds extra flavor as the explanation from the issuing bank potentially changes the nature of the refusal. In addition to that, the refusal was made using MT799. Is that acceptable?
TA.893rev; Dimensions of the bale
The Opinion addresses a case where the “Packing list should indicate the dimensions of the bale to which the packing list is pertained.” The main question asked is if the CBM measurement (volume), satisfy the LC requirement of showing dimension?
TA.895rev; LC Overdrawn
The Opinions addresses this clause:
“In the event of delay in FOB delivery beyond 4 January 2019 the value of this letter of credit shall stand reduced by 0.5PCT (one half percent) of purchase order value per week or part thereof subject to a maximum discount of 5PCT (five percent) of the FOB order value. The date of Bill of Lading will be considered as date of delivery.”
More on this one here:
http://www.lcviews.com/index.php?page_id=776
TA.896rev; Certificate of Origin attachment not presented, pre-inspection certificate not presented
This Opinion discusses 2 discrepancies:
One where the attachment to the Certificate of Origin (i.e. invoice) is (potentially) not presented.
One where a pre-inspection certificate is not presented.
For the latter the pre-shipment inspection certificate was in fact NOT required by the LC – however a requirement for the presentation of a pre-shipment inspection certificate was included in the LC application, but (due to a mistake on the part of the issuing bank I guess) not included in the LC.
All good stuff, and already now reviews of the new Opinions have been added to lcviews premium – duly linked to relevant articles, paragraphs and topics.
All the Opinions – as well as the reviews have been carefully drafted – aiming to take good care of the LC.
Kind regards
Kim