Name: SHLOMO AVRAHAM

The bank told me that the ISBP was not regarded as commitment like the UCP 500 or the UCP 600.

Because of that anything which is written in the ISBP may be rejected by the issuing bank as it is not under the UCP which was accepted as obliged by all banks.

If this is true - The answer about the abbreviation LIMITED versus LTD may be not correct!!!

Dear Shlomo Avraham,

Interesting question indeed!

There have been many discussions regarding the status of the ISBP. Let me start by quoting the Introduction to the UCP 600:

During the revision process, notice was taken of the considerable work that had been completed in creating the International Standard Banking Practice for the Examination of Documents under Documentary Credits (ISBP), ICC Publication 645. This publication has evolved into a necessary companion to the UCP for determining compliance of documents with the terms of letters of credit. It is the expectation of the Drafting Group and the Banking Commission that the application of the principles contained in the ISBP, including subsequent revisions thereof, will continue during the time UCP 600 is in force. At the time UCP 600 is implemented, there will be an updated version of the ISBP to bring its contents in line with the substance and style of the new rules.

I guess you can say that the ISBP signifies the practical application of the UCP 600.

Bear in mind also the definition of a “Complying presentation” as stated in UCP 600 article 2:

… a presentation that is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit, the applicable provisions of these rules and international standard banking practice.

The reference to “international standard banking practice” signifies – amongst others (but not limited to) – the ISBP.

As such the ISBP is an interpretation of the UCP 600 meaning that everything in the ISBP must (in theory at least) be arguable based on UCP 600 articles.

For SWQ#67 – you can (also) argue as follows:

UCP 600 article 18 says “A commercial invoice … must appear to have been issued by the beneficiary”. To me it clearly does.

Further UCP 600 sub-article 14(d) reads:

Data in a document, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.

The data “Ltd” is not identical to “Limited” – but the two pieces of data does not conflict!

There is no limit to what issuing banks will state as discrepancies … but that does not make them correct…

Best regards

Kim Christensen