For discussion and approval at the ICC Banking Commission meeting on 5 August 2025.
TA.949
Held over from the February 2025 meeting, pending discussion with key transport industry representatives.
A documentary credit, subject to UCP 600, required presentation of one copy of "Surrendered B/L".
Three original bills of lading were presented stating, below the description of goods, "Original Bill Surrendered at Origin".
The presentation was refused on the basis of two discrepancies:
Three questions were raised:
Once this Opinion has been finalised, we will provide you with the outcome.
TA.950
In this case, a documentary credit subject to UCP 600 was issued in December 2023 and later confirmed by the nominated bank following the beneficiary's request. The original credit carried an expiry date of 6 December 2024 and a latest shipment date of 15 November 2024.
A second amendment, issued by the issuing bank on 11 November 2024, extended the shipment date to 30 November 2024 and the expiry to 21 December 2024.
However, the confirming bank declined to advise this amendment to the beneficiary on the basis that it did not intend to extend its confirmation. Although the applicant separately provided a scan of the amendment to the beneficiary, the nominated confirming bank proceeded to examine documents under the terms and conditions that prevailed prior to the second amendment and refused the presentation for late shipment.
The issuing bank argues that the decision of the confirming (nominated) bank not to advise amendment number 2 relied on UCP 600 sub-article 9 (e) which, from their understanding, is inaccurate as sub-article 9 (e) is to be read in conjunction with sub-article 9 (f) and deals with a situation where the advising bank is unable to authenticate the message received.
TA.951
In this case, a confirming bank has sought the opinion of the ICC Banking Commission regarding the acceptability of electronically signed documents under two separate documentary credits governed by UCP 600 and interpreted in light of ISBP 821 paragraph A35.
Both credits required signed documents: one required an invoice in two originals signed by the beneficiary, while the other required a certificate of conformity signed by the beneficiary. In each case, the presented document bore what appeared to be electronic signatures, one using DocuSign identifiers, and the other a combination of a typed signatory name, timestamp, and an approval statement. Neither document contained a reference to a verifiable authentication website.
The bank refused both presentations on the grounds that the electronic signatures did not constitute an acceptable method of authentication under UCP 600 article 3 or ISBP 821 paragraph A35.
Specifically, the bank argued that the phrases used, such as "Docusigned by..." or "signed at [date/time] - Reason: I approve this document", were similar in nature to the disclaimers explicitly addressed in paragraph A35 (c), which states that such phrases alone do not fulfil the requirements for electronic authentication.
Furthermore, the absence of any website link or reference on the documents meant that paragraph A35(d), which outlines what constitutes a valid electronic method of authentication, was also not met. On that basis, the bank deemed itself unable to determine the authenticity of the signatures and thus treated the documents as discrepant.