The NON-Dubai ICC Opinions are out
As already reported (New and newer ICC Opinions / http://www.lcviews.com/index.php?page_id=790) the Annual ICC Meeting to be held in Dubai was cancelled – or rather re-scheduled. As also stated, the re-scheduling of the Dubai meeting has many consequences. One of those is that the process around the Draft Opinions has been “disrupted”:
Instead of discussing the proposed changes to the Draft ICC Opinions, the handling of the “NON-Dubai Opinions” has been handled via e-mail, whereby the suggested changes were circulated to the ICC National Committees for final comments.
In addition to that, a “new” ICC opinion came into play; namely TA902. ICC Opinion TA902 was also mentioned in the above mentioned (and linked) lcviews blog. The final version of ICC Opinion TA902 is included into ICC Opinions that were to come out of Dubai (but never did).
Concluding on the above, the ICC Opinions (as distributed in April 2020 due to the cancellation of the April 2020 Banking Commission Annual Meeting in Dubai – including TA902) have now been Finalized, approved and distributed to the ICC Nation al Committees. The new approved ICC Opinions are TA898rev, TA899rev, TA900rev, TA901rev and TA902.
A brief overview of the Queries is:
TA898rev: Incomplete wording in Attestation. Goods description missing on B/L
The query includes two discrepancies:
1: IRREVOCABLE ATTESTATION: WORDING INCOMPLETE, NOT SHOWING “.... O U R OBLIGATIONS...”
2: B/L: GOODS DESCRIPTION MISSING
The question asked is if each of those two discrepancies are valid.
TA899rev: CMR in 1 copy
The query deals with an LC with the following documents required:
* Manually signed commercial invoice in 1 original.
* CMR in 1 copy issued to the name of XYZ (the applicant).
* Certificate of origin in duplicate.
* Packing list in 1 original and 1 copy.
* Photocopy of original ATR.
* Beneficiary’s declaration stating that 1 original CMR (original for sender/shipper) and original of ATR certificate have been sent together with the goods.
The question relates to the “CMR in 1 copy” and if that is to be understood so that a copy or an original CMR must be presented under the documentary credit.
TA900rev: SWIFT guarantee presented in original or copy?
The query deals with an LC that calls for the presentation of a performance guarantee. The guarantee presented was a paper based MT760. The presentation was refused on the grounds that “Copy of the MT760 presented, instead of an original.”
The question is if that is a valid discrepancy.
TA901rev: Reimbursement instructions
The query deals with this reimbursement clause in an LC:
Quote
“UPON RECEIPT OF CREDIT COMPLYING DOCUMENTS AT OUR ABOVE ADDRESS, WE WILL COVER YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, VALUE 5 NEW YORK/GENEVA BANK BUSINESS DAYS.”
Unquote
The documents were received by the issuing bank 27/9-2019, and so the question is when is the latest payment date?
The opinion of the nominated bank (the presenter) is that payment must be made 4/10-2019. I.e. 5 business days within receipt of complying documents.
The opinion of the issuing bank is that payment must be made 10/10-2019. I.e. 5 business days after having determined that the documents presented were complying.
The question is who is correct; the nominated bank or the issuing bank?
TA902: COVID-19 clause in Bill of Lading
A bill of lading presented under an LC subject to UCP 600 include the following “COVID-19 clause”:
Quote
“Following the exceptional measures adopted by various governments in relation to the outbreak of COVID-19 virus and the operational constraints resulting thereof, the Merchants are hereby notified that the carriage of cargo may be disrupted or delayed. Cargo may not be loaded on the intended vessel and may be on forwarded to the port of destination on any alternative vessel at Carrier’s sole discretion.
Furthermore in case of disruption of ports’ operations, the cargo may be discharged in an alternative port without notice and – subject to availability – be on forwarded to the original intended port of destination. Carrier reserve its rights to accomplish the bill of lading in any alternative port. All additional costs, including but not limited to storage, demurrage, plugging, monitoring at the alternative discharge port or extra on forwarding costs, shall be on Merchant’s account and payable before delivery and the carrier shall have no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage resulting thereof.”
Unquote
The query raises 6 question, basically testing if this clause would make the presentation discrepant.
As always, reviews of the ICC Opinions are available in lcviews premium – duly linked to relevant articles, paragraphs and topics.
And as always, do take care of the LC – but take special care of each other during these difficult times.
Kind regards
Kim