ICC Opinons 2016 Part 1: an overview


This blog provides a brief overview of all the ICC Opinions that were approved by the Banking Commission in April 2016. The full text of each Opinion should be reviewed to fully understand all the issues and the context of the analysis and conclusion that has been given.


  • TA.842rev was withdrawn for re-submission at the November 2016 meeting. (to be covered in next blog)
  • TA.849rev was withdrawn pending discussion with the Legal Working Group and subsequent re-submission at the November 2016 meeting. (to be covered in next blog)
  • TA.850 was withdrawn and handled as an Educational query.
  • TA.851rev was withdrawn for re-submission at the November 2016 meeting. (to be covered in next blog)



TA.832rev2 - Conflict of weight details between documents

The credit required (among other documents) a non-negotiable copy of an ocean bill of lading and an original packing list. The issuing bank claimed a discrepancy between the stated gross weights on each document.


It was deliberated that the information in the attachment to the bill of lading was not in conflict with that stated on the copy bill of lading and did not constitute a conflict with weights shown on the packing list. The packing list had shown a gross weight of 630,000kgs and gross weight of 630,360kgs. As part of the goods description appearing on the non-negotiable copy of the bill of lading, the net weight was shown as 630,000kgs. However, under the heading ‘Gross Wgt/Nett Wgt' it was stated 630,000kgs. In an attachment to the non-negotiable copy of the bill of lading, under a heading of ‘Gross weight in kilos' it showed 630,000kgs.


The discrepancy was not considered to be valid.



TA.841rev - ‘Extend or Pay' under UCP 600

As highlighted, ‘extend or pay' demands are not normally seen in credits issued subject to UCP 600 .


In this particular transaction the credit clearly stated that the confirming bank was to make payment against the presentation of the beneficiary's first simple written demand and that it would claim reimbursement from the issuing bank, by confirming that all credit terms were complied with. An ‘extend or pay' demand sent by the confirming bank, prior to the expiry date of the credit, did not comply with the reimbursement instructions given in the credit in that it did not indicate that a valid demand had been received from the beneficiary.



TA.843rev - ‘Black and white' documents, ‘colour' documents, originality

A document was produced on-line via an electronic platform and then printed for signature by the beneficiary. Although documents had previously been printed in colour, this particular document had been produced in black and white.


It was concluded that an issuing bank cannot refuse a document simply because it is printed in black and white, provided that the document can be determined as an original in accordance with UCP 600 article 17.



TA.844rev - Signature and the capacity of signing party on an air transport document and the validity of the refusal message


A confirming bank refused to accept an Air Waybill on the basis that it omitted the capacity of the signing party in the field ‘signature of issuing carrier or its agent'.


It was concluded that the signing party had been identified in the space for the signature of the shipper or its agent as well as the space for the signature of the issuing carrier or its agent.


The discrepancy was not considered as valid.



TA.846rev - Remarks made by Master on a bill of lading

A number of remarks made by the master of a vessel on presented bills of lading were determined by the issuing bank to constitute a defective condition of the goods / packaging thereby leading to a discrepancy that the bills of lading were not clean. These included "containers loaded during rain" and "Containers loaded from open storage."


It was considered that all of the master's remarks were confined to the exterior condition and appearance of the containers and that the bills of lading were not discrepant.



TA.847rev - Whether it is possible for a bank to be both the Obligor Bank and Recipient Bank in the same BPO transaction, or may it be made possible by adding a special condition to the BPO transaction

Whether or not the Obligor Bank and the Recipient Bank can be branches of the same bank in the same country is outside the scope of URBPO and is subject to local banking practice and applicable law. A Recipient Bank will always be a bank.


On a separate issue, it was pointed out that the seller is not the beneficiary of a BPO.



TA.848rev - Alleged discrepancy in description of goods and timing of rejection notice

An issuing bank refused documents on the basis of a discrepancy in the Health Certificate, namely that the identification of the commodity included a scientific name as well as that stated in the description of goods in the credit. The credit itself had not specified either the form or content of the required Health Certificate.


The addition of a scientific name is not considered to be a discrepancy.

Back to recent articles