It is common for documentary credits to state that the presented transport document should be ‘clean'.
UCP 82, article 18, made the statement that shipping documents bearing reservations as to the apparent good order and conditions of the goods may be refused. This was repeated in UCP 151, article 18.
A change was made with the introduction of UCP 222, article 16, which stated a clean shipping document was one that bore no superimposed clause or notation which expressly declared a defective condition of the goods and/or the packaging, thereby allowing banks to refuse shipping documents that do bear such clauses or notations. This was repeated in UCP 290, article 18, and UCP 400, article 34.
UCP 500, article 32, continued this rule but with the deletion of the word ‘superimposed'.
UCP 600, article 27, simplified the rule by stating that banks only accept clean transport documents and that such a document is one that does not expressly declare a defective condition of the goods or packaging. It was further clarified that the word ‘clean' did not need to appear on the document.
Under ISBP 745, a transport document is not to include wording that expressly declares a defective condition of the goods or their packaging.
Even when a documentary credit includes a condition for a transport document to be marked "clean on board" or "clean", there is no necessity for the word "clean" to appear on the document. Deletion of the word "clean" on a transport document does not expressly declare a defective condition of the goods or their packaging.
The judge in the court case ‘British Imex Industries Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd (1958) mentioned that a clean bill of lading had never been exhaustively defined. However, his view was that such a document would be one that did not contain any reservation as to the apparent good order or condition of the goods or the packing.
The issue of a clean transport document has been addressed in a number of ICC opinions, most recently in TA.846rev. The credit in question included a requirement for the presentation of a clean bill of lading. The presented document included a number of remarks in respect to the nature and condition of the containers prior to, and at the time of, shipment. It was questioned as to whether or not this was a discrepancy.
The opinion concluded that the bills of lading in question were not discrepant because the remarks on the document were restricted to the exterior condition and appearance of the containers and the atmospheric / weather conditions at the time of loading the containers on to the vessel. It was considered that none of the remarks indicated any defective condition of the actual goods and/or packaging and that, furthermore, containers are not to be considered as packing in the context of UCP 600 article 27.