The Final ICC Opinions from the 2020 Technical Meeting are out
This week the ICC circulated the new bundle of Final ICC Opinions. Due to the Corona Virus, the 2020 Technical ICC Meeting (to be held in Cyprus) was held on-line.
For the purpose of the ICC Opinions, the consequences was that those were not discussed at the meeting. Instead, more thorough written feedback was given to the ICC NCs from the ICC Technical Advisors on every comment made. Following that, a new round of comments were allowed, and on the basis of that, the Final ICC Opinions were circulated 2 December 2020.
A total of 5 new Final Opinions has been circulated:
TA903rev: Addendum to AWB
The query relates to an LC requiring a Clean Airway Bill (AWB) consigned to the issuing bank), showing actual flight number and date, marked freight collect and notify the applicant.
Presented was one AWB set printed on 2 separate sheets (both printed single sided). On the first page was the AWB itself (signed). The second page contained the terms and conditions or carriage (Not stamped or signed).
The first page of the AWB included the following wording:
“It is agreed that the goods described herein are accepted in apparent good order and conditions (except as noted) for carriage subject to the conditions of contract on the addendum hereof. All goods may be carried by any other means including road or any other carrier unless instructions are given hereon by the shipper. Shipper agrees that the shipment may be carried via intermediate stopping places as deemed appropriate by carrier.”
The presentation was refused citing the following discrepancy:
“AWB: Not show contain terms and conditions of carriage.”
The question raised was if this is a valid refusal.
TA904rev: Do previous waivers of discrepancies create a precedent?
The main question asked in the query, relates to a situation where a bank – since 2012 – has issued 376 LCs (subject to UCP 600), available by sight payment all involving the same beneficiary and applicant.
The presentations under the LCs all had the same discrepancies, which was (as it seemed) routinely accepted by the issuing bank.
However, the issuing bank refused to honour documents presented under the remaining 9 LCs due to similar discrepancies.
The question asked is if the fact that the issuing bank accepted an applicant waiver of discrepancies in a presentation (or in this case more than 300 presentations), does that mean that the issuing bank bound to continually apply the waiver of discrepancies on a different LC with an identical beneficiary?
TA906rev: Applicants accounts are frozen
The query relates to an LC requiring that is available by deferred payment with a value of EUR735,000.
At maturity the issuing bank did pay to the reimbursing bank, but rather informed the confirming bank that “…we inform you that we cannot proceed to the payment value date 30/08/2019 because the accounts are frozen.” As it turned out the applicant was involved in a bankruptcy procedure and a special administrator had been nominated for a temporary management.
This situation lead to a number of questions circling around whether or not the acts from the issuing bank have acted in bad practice.
TA907rev: Payment restriction to pay guarantee demands
The query involves a counter guarantee and a guarantee, where the guarantor paid out to the beneficiary on the basis of a complying demand. Subsequently the counter guarantor did not reimburse the guarantor with the information that there is on place a payment restriction from the authorities in place.
This situation lead to a question as to whether the counter guarantor acted according to the scope of the URDG 758?
TA908rev: Insurance clause
The query relates to an insurance policy (as required by the LC) presented that included the following clause:
“Warranted free from known and / or reported losses on or before 19.05.2020” is a claims restricting clause and is to be considered as an explicit violation of the above mentioned ICC rule, by way of addition it is such an example of restriction of our right to claim for damages as being assured party since the insurer has no liability or indemnification of our losses occurring before 19.05.2020 which is much later than exact shipment date i.e., 02.05.2020.”
This clause lead to a refusal citing the following discrepancy:
“This insurance policy has been issued on 19.05.2020 for the insurance period starting on 02 May 2020. The end of the insurance cover in accordance with the insurance terms c100/2015. Warranted free from known and / or reported losses on or before 19.05.2020.”
This question is if this a valid refusal?
Already now, reviews of the new ICC Opinions are now in lcviews premium; duly linked to the relevant articles, paragraphs and topics.