The January 2024 Draft Opinions have landed


This week, the ICC Banking Commission circulated the Draft ICC Opinions (in the sequence TA935 – TA939 – all subject to UCP 600) to be discussed during the 23 January 2024 Banking Commission meeting which will be held virtually.

Here is an overview of the new Draft Opinions:

 

TA935: Port of Discharge versus Place of Delivery

The query concerns an LC that in SWIFT field “44F: Port of Discharge” mentions: “CAT LAI PORT, HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM”

The presented bill of lading indicated:

Port of Discharge: “HoChiMinh City Vietnam”

and 

Place of Delivery: “Cat Lai Port, HoChiMinh City Vietnam”

The question raised is if this is considered a discrepancy.

 

TA936: C&F versus CFR 

The query concerns an LC that, as part of the goods description, indicated “xxx CFR [Port C]”. (No reference to Incoterms)

The presented invoice, instead of “CFR” stated “C&F”. 

The main question asked is of this is a valid discrepancy.

A sub-issue is if it makes a difference that four similar presentations had previously been accepted – and honoured.

 

TA937: Ports versus cities

The query concerns an LC that, in the MT700 includes the following:

 

SWIFT Field 44E (Port of Loading/Airport of Departure): Any Europe Airport

SWIFT Field 44F (Port of Discharge/Airport of Destination): Any Panama Airport

The presented Air waybill indicated “Amsterdam” as Airport of departure and “Panama, Ciudad DE” as Airport of destination.

The Air waybill was refused on the basis that it does not show the actual names of the airports.

The question is of this is a valid discrepancy.

 

TA938: Responsibilities for an advising bank

The query includes questions that seek to understand the responsibilities of an advising bank.

The case presented is a complex LC involving a long list of involved banks. In the query, clarity is sought as to the responsibilities for an advising bank. 

 

TA939: Draft in field 42 versus fields 46A/47A  

The query concerns LCs that include requirements for a draft in more than one field in the SWIFT MT700. I.e., both in SWIFT fields 42C (Drafts at...) and 42a (Drawee) as well as in “Documents Required” (SWIFT field 46A) field or the “Additional Conditions” (SWIFT field 47A).

The question raised is if, in that case, one or two original Drafts are required to be presented.

 

That’s it. It will be interesting to be part of the discussion around these Draft Opinions. My only humble request is that everyone takes good care of themselves and the LC.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Kind regards

Kim

 

What's Inside

Login To LCViews

   Email Address
   

   Password
   
   Remember   Forgot Password
   


Latest Blog Post

2 New Icc Opinions Approved By The Icc Banking Commission
Technical Advisory Briefing No. 9
The Icc Have Circulated Two New Draft Opinions For The April 2024 Meeting
January 2024 Icc Opinions Published
217 Isbp 821 Paragraph F10 Original Non-negotiable Sea Waybill

Latest Single Window Questions

Draft In The L/c
L/c Confirmed By Issuing Bank
Freight Prepaid And Freight Advance
Clarification On Ta858 Rev
Courier Receipt

LCViews - The January 2024 Draft Opinions have landed