ICC Approved Opinions January 2023



A credit was issued providing for shipment of a cooking range and its spare parts for an amount of XXX (the credit amount). The presented documents including an invoice which displayed three rows under the header ‘Commodity':

  • Cooking range
  • Spare parts
  • Spare parts (f.o.c)


The issuing bank refused the presentation stating that ‘free of charge' goods were not allowed by the credit. 


The nominated bank considered that, as the credit did not stipulate a price for the spare parts, ‘free of charge' spare parts were acceptable under the credit. 


It is queried as to whether the discrepancy is valid, and whether an invoice stating goods free of charge is acceptable. 


Although 2/3 of ICC National Committees were in agreement with the general approach of the draft Opinion, it was apparent that the existing rationale within the Analysis required more clarification. 


Accordingly, this will be re-drafted and presented at the next Banking Commission meeting in April 2023 for approval. 




A credit, subject to UCP 600, required an insurance document. Accordingly, the presented document was required to comply with UCP 600 article 28 which provides the default requirements for an insurance document and coverage. 


The presented insurance policy contained a brand name/logo and was signed by a branch. 


The question has been raised as to whether or not the insurance policy complies with UCP 600. 


It was decided that the combination of pre-printed text agreeing to insurance, combined with the brand name/logo, plus the evidential signature line, provided sufficient substantiation that the insurance document was appropriately signed and was, therefore, complaint. 




A presentation was made under a documentary credit, subject to UCP 600, where the presented bill of lading had been generated via an electronic document platform. The bill of lading was initially only available in electronic form, and the digital content reflected that ownership was transferred by way of endorsement. 


The question is whether or not image signatures can be used to endorse a paper bill of lading pursuant to UCP 600 article 3, where a paper bill of lading is printed at the end of the electronic process? 


UCP 600 article 3 (interpretation of signed) states that a document may be signed by handwriting, facsimile signature, perforated signature, stamp, symbol or any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication.


In the context of this query, the signature was deemed to be a facsimile signature and acceptable under UCP 600 article 3.


Back to recent articles