Draft ICC Opinions for the October 2023 Banking Commission Meeting
Last week, the ICC circulated 4 New Draft Opinions (TA9321-934), that will be discussed at the October 2023 Banking Commission meeting (held virtually and in Paris).
The Draft Opinions will be presented by Senior Technical Advisor Dave Meynell, Technical Advisors Glenn Ransier, Kim Sindberg, Jin Saibo and Farideh Tazhibi.
Here is a rough overview of the queries:
TA931: Invoice and carrier certificate
The query relates to two raised discrepancies.
One relates to the LC requirement that the invoice must confirm that it is as per quotation number. The presented invoices referenced the quotation number however did not mention the word "confirm".
This triggered a refusal.
The other related to an LC requirement for a certificate issued by the carrier or its agent.
The document was refused stating that the document was presented short one original.
The questions are if these two discrepancies are valid.
TA932: Collections documents released without payment
The query related to a documentary collection subject to URC 522.
The documents also included all original bills of lading, which were endorsed by the remitting bank in favour of the collecting bank. Following nu payment and various tracers, the collecting bank responded that they do “not perform documentary credit services (Cash against Documents)” and that they “consider this file as closed”.
Later the remitting bank found that the goods were released against the presentation of all original bills of lading, duly endorsed by the collecting bank in favour of the drawee.
The question is if the collecting bank is liable to compensate and pay the full amount to the remitting bank along with delay payment interest?
TA933: Is there late presentation?
The query relates to a documentary credit indicating a presentation period of 21 days after the date of shipment.
The negotiating bank’s covering letter was dated 28 March 2023. The date on the bill of lading was 6 March 2023. I.e., 22 days after the date of shipment.
The question asked is if the issuing bank consider this as late presentation?
TA934: Discrepancies in CMR and EUR1 certificates
The query relates to two raised discrepancies.
On relating to a CMR consignment note that was refused stating that the presented CMR was “copy for sender” and not the “original for shipper”.
The other relating to an EUR1 certificate not issued only in English language as required by the LC.
The questions are if these two discrepancies are valid.
Already now reviews of the queries can be found in lcviews premium.
More information to follow when the Opinions are final.
Kind regards
Kim