Ravi Mehta
1945-2007

In our
hearts
always

 


The Open LC Community for and by LC Specialists

[Home]

Inside lcviews.com
 
Get connected or Submit
 
Library

 

Who's Who in LC World

 

Single Window

 

High Profile

 

Global

 

Devil lies in the detail

 

Eye of the hurricane

 

Traders corner

 

LC Action

 

Contact and Editorial Board

 

Inter-web tour

 

 
COMMENTS ON UCP 600 DRAFT
NEED TO REFINE WHAT THEY DEFINE

By Ravi Mehta, Ph.D.

 

UCP 600

 

 

 

  [The below comments are based on the March 2006 draft to the UCP 600]

For the first time UCP has a glossary. It's a good idea, but more or less not a good attempt. Because some definitions are not well defined. I find text book definitions better than UCP Draft definitions. The deficiency in a UCP Draft definition may be because of UCP 's lack of experience and expertise for defining glossary. Here are some tips for defining a term.

I take up only two definitions from the UCP 600 Draft (Article 2) to tell why their some definitions are not satisfactory and why I propose alternative definitions. The two definitions make an enough case to stress my point how a term should be defined.

Take the definition of advising bank. The Draft says advising bank means the bank that advises the credit at the request of the issuing bank. Am I satisfied with the definition? Certainly no. Why? Because it is not complete, because it is vague. How incomplete or vague? The definition does not tell what to advise, how to advise, when to advise, to whom to advise.

My definition, then. Advising bank means a bank, usually domiciled in the beneficiary's country and which is correspondent bank of the issuing bank, that advises, at the request of the issuing bank, to the beneficiary the apparent authenticity of the credit when it receives it, without the obligation to honor it.

The other definition. Applicant. The Draft says applicant means the party so named in the credit.

Am I satisfied with the definition? No, not at all. Because it does not tell what is applicant. It simply tells who could be the applicant . It is not definition. It is identification.

My definition. Applicant is a buyer who requests, on a prescribed application form, his bank, to issue a credit carrying terms and conditions as stipulated by him on the application.

A definition of a role actor in a credit transaction, called party in the documentary credit language, must say about actor, action, and action objective. The action description must discuss what, how, when, where, who, where, whom, why. My definition of applicant accordingly tells who is an actor. A buyer. What is his action? To request. To whom ? His bank. How to request? On an application. To request for what? That is, what is action objective? To issue credit.


Feed-back to these comments:

I share your views, especially on the definition of the applicant.   A Chinese proverb describes this very well: "Something said yet nothing is said".
 
T. O. Lee, Member of Consulting Group
 

 

                                                                                      
I agree on your points they are  to the point. That is why,  UCP500 does not include a glossary section of definitions. It is really a formidable exercise, but,  in my view,  not a  mission impossible. Such attempt is necessary and need to be encouraged and improved for better glossary. Efforts, failures, comments, revision, again revision they all ultimately lead to better result. Hope ICC takes up your suggestions well and does better.
 
Jia Hao, Bank of China, China