A credit was issued including a condition for presentation of a ‘Certificate of Australian Origin of the commodity issued by Australian Business Chamber in the form for China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, issued in Australia in one original and three copies'.
The presented document was entitled ‘Certificate of Origin - Form for China-Australia Free Trade Agreement'. It was argued by the issuing bank that this document did not actually specify the origin of the goods. The counter-argument, from the nominated bank, was that the document did not need to meet the normal criteria (specifically, stating the origin of goods) provided it was in the format required by the credit.
Within the analysis, it was highlighted that the document must be in the form as required by the credit and must also specifically indicate the origin of the goods as Australian, as also stated in the credit.
The field in the certificate that would indicate origin was only to be completed by the insertion of an acronym that was explained on the reverse of the document. This explanation did not explicitly indicate that the acronym could solely refer to Australian origin. Accordingly, the document was discrepant.
Our view is in conformity with that stated within the Opinion, however it is worth examining a few of the comments that have been raised in opposition.
Articles within the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement itself, specifically the origin requirements, evidence that the form issued by an authorised body of the exporting party, identifying the goods being consigned between the parties and certifying that the goods to which the certificate relates are originating in a party in accordance with the provisions of these articles.
An article within the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement states ‘unless otherwise indicated in this Chapter, a good shall be considered as originating in a Party when ...', followed by stipulation of the applicable situations of the above- mentioned three categories of WO, WP and PSR. Furthermore, a form of the certificate is provided as an annex of The Free Trade Agreement that is exactly the same form as the certificate of origin presented by the beneficiary.
There would not be any difficulties for the bank's document examiners to determine that the goods mentioned in the presented certificate originated from Australia, after observing from the documents alone that the certificate was issued in Australia and signed by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
The certificate presented under ICC Opinion TA.864rev fulfills the function of a certificate of origin.
In summary, the conclusion of the Opinion contains the appropriate response to this issue: "Absent an indication of "Australian origin", or any indication of the origin criterion which currently allows "WO", "WP" or "PSR", the document is discrepant.
The specific format of a "Free Trade Agreement" Certificate of Origin is acceptable provided it certifies the origin of the goods.