Breaking: The ICC Banking Commission withdraws ICC Opinion 470/TA.842rev.
Yesterday
the ICC Banking Commission circulated the following message:
“In response to a number of comments received
in respect of 470/TA.842rev, it has been agreed that this Opinion will be
withdrawn for the time being and re-submitted later in the year for further
discussion at the Rome meeting in November.”
In fact it
was a surprise to many that TA.842rev was included into the bundle of Final ICC
Opinions circulated following the Annual Meeting in Johannesburg (April 2016).
Let’s recap
the query:
It deals
with an LC including the following requirements:
Quote
MANUALLY
SIGNED AND DULY DATED BENEFICIARY‟S COMMERCIAL INVOICE ADDRESSED TO APPLICANT,
MARKED L/C NUMBER, EVIDENCING DELIVERY AND PAYMENT TERMS – IN 1 ORIGINAL AND 1
COPY
+ ALL
DOCUMENTS TO BE MANUALLY SIGNED
Unquote
The
presentation was refused citing the following discrepancy:
"Commercial invoice presented copy is not
manually signed as per L/C terms”
The
question was if this is a valid discrepancy. The answer from the ICC was that based
on the LC condition, all presented documents including copies must be manually
signed. I.e. the discrepancy is valid! (or was … till yesterday).
This query
initiated quite some discussion at the Johannesburg meeting. What was
interesting, was that – based on the comments given prior to the meeting –
there was a majority in favour of the ICC answer. However, at the meeting –
almost all comments were against the ICC answer.
On that basis
it was agreed that this particular query would be re-circulated to the National
Committees for a new round of comments. The re-circulation would include the
comments made at the Johannesburg meeting for and against the Draft Opinion.
For that
reason it was a surprise to see TA.842rev included into the bundle of Final ICC
Opinions – and it is a surprise to see that it is simply re-submitted for
further discussion at the Rome meeting in November. One would have expected
more; i.e. a recap of the pro and cons comments made at the meeting.
Actually,
there are two other issues that are surprising:
The first
is that, this is actually the second time in a row following an Annual ICC
Banking Commission Meeting that Final ICC Opinions had to be withdrawn, based
on subsequent comments from National Committees. This simply is not good!
The second
is that the ICC Banking Commission have just released a document that deals
with “strict compliance,” and have shown in a number a previous ICC Opinions
that they discourage minor and insignificant discrepancies. If I ever saw a
minor and insignificant discrepant, then it is this one! Refusing that the copy
invoice is not manually signed simply is not correct. On the meeting Professor
Jim Byrnes raised a similar example where “photo copy of a signed bill of
lading” was part of the presentation. The result of this Opinion (now
withdrawn) is that it need be manually signed – again. On top of the copied
signature ….
So – at
least the good thing amongst all the surprises is that there is a possibility
that this one will be changed! I hope so.
Take care
of each other and the LC.
Kind
regards
Kim