More DOCDEX Decisions



Under a documentary credit subject to UCP 600, the documents required for claiming the final 10% were ambiguous as to whether or not an acceptance certificate and a bank guarantee or an invoice and a bank guarantee were required. The negotiating bank submitted documents which were refused by the issuing bank on the basis that the acceptance certificate was not presented. The negotiating bank refuted the discrepancy by stating that only an invoice and bank guarantee were required. It was decided, in accordance with ISBP 745, that the issuing bank bears responsibility for ambiguous instructions and must, therefore, honour. 




It was queried as to whether or not, under a credit subject to UCP 600, an advising bank has a duty to honour or negotiate if it carries out a pre-check of the documents. It was concluded that a pre-check service is outside the purview of UCP 600 and represents a separate service agreed between the beneficiary and the advising bank. 




A negotiating bank made a number of presentations under two documentary credits subject to UCP 600, all of which were accepted by the issuing bank. At maturity, the issuing bank did not pay, asserting an alleged fraud and that legal proceedings had been initiated. Furthermore, they stated that the negotiating bank did not negotiate. It was decided that the issuing bank was obligated to honour, regardless of whether or not the negotiating bank actually negotiated. The issue of fraud is a legal question. 


Back to recent articles