For discussion and approval at the ICC Banking Commission meeting on 21 October 2025.
TA.952
In 2007, two open-ended guarantees (an Advance Payment Guarantee and a Performance Guarantee) were issued under URDG 458 and governed by French law.
The applicant has confirmed that the underlying obligations have been fulfilled. The complication is that the beneficiary has since ceased to exist and cannot provide confirmation or return the guarantees for cancellation.
The issuer now seeks clarification on five points:
TA.953
A warranty guarantee was issued under URDG 758 on behalf of a contractor in favour of the employer. On the final day of its validity, the guarantor received a demand for payment that met the formality of URDG 758 sub-article 15 (a), but the beneficiary did not specify the amount claimed or the account details for payment. No additional documents were required under the guarantee.
The key questions are:
Member banks offered two opposing views:
TA.954
On 24 December 2013, Bank A issued an SBLC subject to UCP 600 in favour of a government entity, using beneficiary-required text. The SBLC contained auto-extension language: it would roll forward annually unless both the applicant and the beneficiary were notified by certified mail at least 120 days before expiry. If notified, any unused portion remained available for 120 days after receipt of the notices by both parties.
In August 2024, Bank A sent the required notices.
Applicant wants to waive the two-day shortfall and allow expiry on 24 December 2024. Bank A is reluctant to cancel, despite no drawing or objection by the beneficiary.
Issues raised
TA.955
On 5 December 2023, an Italian bank, acting as remitting bank under a collection subject to URC 522, sent a promissory note for EUR 159,854.38 with an expiry date of 28 December 2023 to the collecting bank. This was the fourth and final promissory note handled on a collection basis with the same bank and relating to the same drawee, the previous three having been duly paid by the collecting bank. The envelope containing this last note, forwarded by DHL, was received by the collecting bank on 24 December 2023.
On 12 January 2024, fifteen days after the note's expiry, the remitting bank requested information on the fate of the collection. Despite repeated follow-ups, the collecting bank neither effected payment nor returned the unpaid note, which constitutes a breach of URC 522 sub-article 26 (c) (3). Instead, the collecting bank offered only vague explanations, suggesting that the debtor might have settled directly with the remitting bank, something that has not occurred.
The remitting bank now suspects that the collecting bank mishandled the transaction and delivered the promissory note to the drawee without settlement. On the basis of the governing rules of URC 522 and the sequence of events, the remitting bank seeks confirmation from the ICC Banking Commission that the collecting bank is indeed obliged either to pay the amount due or to return the unpaid promissory note, as required by URC 522 sub-article 26 (c) (3).
TA.956
A letter of credit was received on 7 February 2025, and compliant documents were sent to the issuing bank on 7 March and delivered on 10 March. No MT734 or payment was received, so on 31 March a payment demand was issued. On that same day, the original documents were unexpectedly returned by the issuing bank, accompanied by a message that the transaction was non-compliant with their internal compliance risk management and that they had already closed their files.
The presenter responded that this return was unacceptable, citing UCP 600 Articles 7 and 8, which oblige an issuing bank to honour from issuance until expiry, and sub-article 16 (d), which requires a refusal notice within five banking days. No SWIFT message had been received within that period, so the documents should be deemed accepted.
After escalation via a German branch, the issuing bank asked for the documents to be re-presented, which occurred on 10 April. However, by then the documents were technically discrepant (due to expired credit and late presentation). Payment was only received on 25 April, after further reminders.
The questions now raised are:
TA.957
The confirming bank handled a documentary credit under UCP 600 with ISBP 821 as the interpretive guide. The LC terms included CIF to "any seaport in Egypt" and required a full set of at least 3/3 long form original clean on-board marine bills of lading issued or endorsed to the order of the bank, freight prepaid, and showing the full name and address of the carrier's agent in the destination country. Additional conditions stipulated that bills of lading showing charges additional to freight, as referred to in UCP 600 sub-article 26 (c), would not be acceptable except for demurrage fees for containers.
A full set of CMA CGM bills of lading was presented, correctly consigned "to order," marked "freight prepaid," and otherwise meeting the LC's conditions. However, each bill of lading-three sheets in total, with full carrier terms printed on the reverse-contained at the bottom of each page under "Additional Clauses" the pre-printed term "Free Out."
The issuing bank raised a discrepancy, relying on ISBP 821 paragraphs E27 (a) and (b), which prohibit references to costs additional to freight, including terms like "Free Out." The confirming bank rejected this discrepancy, arguing that under CIF Incoterms, discharge costs at destination are for the buyer's account and "Free Out" merely reflects this allocation of costs. Moreover, as "Free Out" appears as pre-printed wording in the carrier's standard clauses, it should fall under UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a) (v), which states that banks do not examine the terms and conditions of carriage on the reverse or in standard clauses.
The bank now seeks ICC's opinion on two points: