The Open LC Community for and by LC Specialists

[Home]

Inside lcviews.com

 
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

 

 

  UCP 600  Day 50

50 days have now gone since the implementation of the UCP 600. How has it been received in the market? Are there articles in the rules that have caused problems - or at least a change in practice?

Read the views below - and feel free to submit your own UCP 600 expierences at lcviews@lcviews.com

[August 2007]


 

  T.O.Lee (See Bio) comments:

In providing consultancy to an annual retainer client, I have found a credit received after 1 July 20907 has sub-article 12 (b) excluded to pass the buck back to the nominated bank in discounting DPU without authorization from the issuing bank.

Many special clauses in UCP 500 that are now included in the provisions of UCP 600 still find their way to a credit subject to UCP 600. They are no more necessary but they are still there. I recommend my client to remove them to make the credit not so wordy.

Examples are:

(1) After sending notice of refusal, the issuing bank has the right to release the documents to the applicant against a waiver (if also accepted by the issuing bank) before receipt of instructions to the otherwise from the presenter.

(2) Forwarder's bills of lading acceptable. This is probably due to the fact that the beneficiary is worried that the provisions of article 30 of UCP 500 now disappear in UCP 600. The beneficiary is not properly trained. Otherwise he should have known that the scope of tolerance in UCP 600 sub-article 14 (l) is even wider.

I also find a credit subject to UCP 600 allowing e-presentation subject to eUCP version 1.1 as an option. This is a good sign to move on e-credit.


 

  Kim Christensen (See Bio) comments:
 
My general view is that it is "business as usual". Most LCs I have seen issued after 1 July 2007 are issued subject to UCP 600 - and are "content wise" similar to their UCP 500 equivalent (i.e. similar LCs issued before 1 July).

There are however a few issues that need be mentioned:

  • UCP 600; Article 35§2 (documents lost in transit)
    It seems to me that this article has bee subject to heavy discussions - and that have resulted in actual clauses in LCs - excluding or modifying this article.
    As far as I understand most of the nominated banks have contacted the issuing bank informing them that due to such clause they are not able to follow their nomination. In many cases the issuing banks have amended the LC accordingly.
     
  • UCP 600; sub-article 7(c) (Issuing banks obligation to reimburse nominated banks)
    Again - some LC have been reported excluding this sub-article, and again it seems that nominated banks have reacted and that the LC have been amended accordingly.
     
  • UCP 600; sub-article 38(g) (The transferred credit must accurately reflect the terms and conditions of the credit, including confirmation, if any...)
    It seems that some bank do not like the inclusion of "including confirmation". LCs have been reported which makes it clear that the confirmation given by the confirmation/transferring bank ONLY applies to the first beneficiary - and not to the second beneficiary.

It should be mentioned that the above is - as far as I can tell - a very positive picture. The UCP 600 related problems are - so for - very limited. Reading international LC Medias one might get the impression that everything is just chaos. Luckily this is not the case.

 

 
   

N.D. George (Check Bio) says that:

I have not experienced any problem so far.