ICC Draft Opinions January 2024



A credit subject to UCP 600 stated that the port of discharge was to be Cat Lai Port, HoChiMinh City Vietnam. 


The presented bill of lading indicated the port of discharge as HoChiMinh City Vietnam, and the place of delivery as Cat Lai Port, HoChiMinh City Vietnam.  


This was considered as a discrepancy by the issuing bank, but not agreed by the negotiating bank.




Under a documentary credit subject to UCP 600, four presentations were honoured by the issuing bank. In each presentation, the beneficiary's invoice indicated "C&F" whereas the credit stated "CFR" (no reference to Incoterms was mentioned). 


A fifth presentation was refused by the issuing bank due to: "Trade term not found in invoice". Four months later, the presentation was honoured.


A sixth presentation was refused on the same basis, but the presenting bank argued that the discrepancy was not valid and, furthermore, acceptance of the same data for the first four presentations indicated that the issuing bank had accepted this trade term. 




Documents were presented under a credit subject to UCP 600. The credit included a requirement for an air waybill indicating the transport route to be port of loading/airport of departure as any Europe Airport and port of discharge/airport of destination as any Panama Airport.


Both the airport of departure and the airport of destination fields in the presented air waybill indicated the name of a city in Europe (Amsterdam) and Panama (Panama Ciudad DE) respectively, but without the name of a specific airport in either city. 


The issuing bank refused the presentation on the basis that the air waybill did not show the name of the airports of departure and destination. This was refuted by the nominated bank as, in their view, the relevant airports were shown. 




Clarity was sought on the qualification and scope of responsibilities for an advising bank under a credit issued subject to UCP 600.


In particular, it was questioned whether UCP 600 qualified the role of both an advising bank and a second advising bank, and whether an advising bank has a responsibility to verify if the issuing bank actually exists. 


Questions were also raised concerning whether or not the concerned banks had satisfied their responsibilities. 


The involvement of a potential third advising bank was also queried. 




Under credits issued subject to UCP 600, a query has been raised regarding credits that require the presentation of a draft in more than one field of a SWIFT MT700.


It is questioned whether such a credit requires presentation of two original drafts or just one.  




Back to recent articles