ICC Final Opinions October 2023


Approved 24 October 2023. 



A credit subject to UCP 600 required that the invoices must confirm accordance with a specific quotation number. Whilst the presented invoices clearly referenced the quotation number, the word “confirm” was not included. This was raised as  discrepancy by the confirming bank.


It was decided that the reference to the quotation number was a clear confirmation that the statement complied with the terms and conditions of the credit. As such, the discrepancy was invalid. 


Furthermore, the credit also required a certificate issued by a carrier or its agent. A subsequent amendment replaced this requirement with a new specified certificate. The presented certificate was refused by the confirming bank on the basis that the certificate was “short of one original”. 


It was concluded that the beneficiary had complied with the terms and conditions of the credit, by providing two certificates, one designed to address the 

original credit certificate statements and the other to address the amendment’s certificate statements even though only the latter certificate was needed. 




A documentary collection subject to URC 522 including instructions to deliver documents strictly against payment only.


Subsequently, it appeared that the collecting bank had released the documents to the drawee without receiving payment.


It was concluded that by delivering the documents covered by the collection to the drawee (and endorsing the bill of lading to the drawee), the collecting bank had effectively handled the collection, and was therefore liable under the terms and conditions of the collection instruction if it was unable to return the original documents as presented. 




A credit, subject to UCP 600, required presentation of documents to occur within 21 days after the date of shipment. 


According to the date on the negotiating bank’s covering letter, the actual presentation occurred 22 days after the date of shipment. However, the negotiating bank had included a statement in the covering letter highlighting that all terms and conditions of the credit had been complied with. 


It was concluded that the above statement from the negotiating bank was sufficient to satisfy the requirement in UCP 600 sub-article 29 (b) and that late presentation could not be cited as a discrepancy. 




A documentary credit was issued subject to UCP 600 requiring a CMR (Original for Shipper), and an original EUR1 certificate. Documents were to be issued in English.


Documents were subsequently presented and the issuing bank refused the documents on the basis of two discrepancies.


1. The presented CMR was a copy for sender instead of an original for shipper as required by the credit. 

Based on ISBP 821 paragraph J7, a road transport document indicating that it is the “original for consignor or shipper” and one that indicates that it is the “copy for sender” are synonymous and are to be treated in exactly the same manner.



2. The presented EUR1 certificate included a word that was not in the English language. 

An  EUR1 is prepared and completed in the country of the exporter utilising a local official form. Accordingly, it is expected that the content of the form will be in the host language of the exporter in order to meet local customs regulations. In any event, the issuing bank could quite clearly determine that the presented document satisfied the purposes of an EUR1 certificate in that it fulfilled its required function by evidencing the shipment of goods from the EU to the required destination by inclusion of the relevant ISO codes




Back to recent articles