Commission on Banking Technique and Practice

Educational Opinions of the ICC Banking Commission

At the November 2009 Banking Commission meeting it was agreed that a two tier system of responding to queries would be introduced. The usual official opinions are to be supplemented by what will be known as educational responses. Queries submitted to the Banking Commission will be reviewed and placed into one of the two categories. Attached to this note are 8 new queries that have been designated by the Officers as being educational in nature. As the responses are considered to be educational, they will not be discussed at the Orlando meeting, are provided for your information only and no comments are requested. The initiators remain at liberty to subsequently request an official opinion, in which event the query will be re-submitted to national committees for comment at a later meeting. Although the intention is that these queries are not discussed, we did receive comments from a couple of ICC offices requesting that the last paragraph of the analysis and conclusion of TA718 be removed as they would not have the capability to support the pursuing of disputes with other ICC offices. As some ICC offices do not have the facilities or manpower that this may entail, the decision has been taken to remove the referenced paragraph. For your information, please find attached Educational Queries 470/TA727-734

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

Mrs. Yeliz Geri ICC Turkey - ICC Trkiye Milli Komitesi Executive Director / Mdr V. Atatrk Bulvar, No. 149 Bakanlklar 06640 Ankara, Turkey 27 May 2010 Subject: Document 470/TA.727(ED) Dear Mrs. Geri, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the view(s) of the officers of the Banking Commission. QUOTE We have been seeing credits calling for bills of lading or multimodal transport documents and stating in the additional conditions field: 1) Forwarders bill of lading is not acceptable, or 2) Transport documents issued by freight forwarders not acceptable, or 3) Transport documents issued or signed by freight forwarders not acceptable. Under the foregoing conditions which of the following transport documents are acceptable? Case A: Issued on the letterhead of the carrier reading in part DEF Shipping Line .. and signed by a forwarder ABC Freight Line Co .. as agent for the carrier or for the master. Case B: Issued on the letterhead of the carrier reading in part DEF Shipping Line and signed by the master. Case C: Issued on the letterhead of a forwarder reading in part ABC Freight Line Co and signed by it as agent for a named carrier. Case D: Issued on the letterhead of a forwarder reading in part ABC Freight Line Co , indicating separately the name of the carrier, signed by the forwarder as agent for the master.

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION In respect of the conditions mentioned in item 1 and 2, the credit is prohibiting the transport document being issued on the letterhead of the forwarder. If, however, the forwarder issues it on its letterhead and signs in the capacity of a carrier, then the document becomes a carrier type document and must be accepted. Similarly, if the transport document is issued on the letterhead of the carrier and signed by the forwarder as agent for the carrier or for the master, once again the document must be accepted. In respect of the condition mentioned under item 3, where a credit states that a transport document issued or signed by a forwarder is not acceptable, in addition to the comments made above as to the act of issue, the document must also be signed by a party acting as carrier or master and not a party as agent for either of them. In conclusion: 1-Under a credit incorporating the condition (s) in item 1 and 2, a transport document issued and signed in the manner as stated in: Case A is acceptable, Case B is acceptable, Case C is not acceptable, Case D is not acceptable. 2-Under a credit incorporating the condition in item 3, a transport document issued and signed in the manner as stated in: Case A is not acceptable, Case B is acceptable, Case C is not acceptable, Case D is not acceptable. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION The analysis and conclusion of the national committee is agreed. The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commissions officers based on the facts under QUOTE above. They do not necessarily reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commission. This

3
Document 470/1148

query is considered to be of an educational nature and will not be placed before the next Banking Commission meeting for approval. The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered. Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Adviser shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in connection with the rendered opinion(s). Yours sincerely,

Thierry Senechal Policy Manager Banking Commission

4
Document 470/1148

Mrs. Yeliz Geri ICC Turkey - ICC Trkiye Milli Komitesi Executive Director / Mdr V. Atatrk Bulvar, No. 149 Bakanlklar 06640 Ankara, Turkey 27 May 2010 Subject: Document 470/TA.728 (ED) Dear Mrs. Geri, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the view(s) of the officers of the Banking Commission. QUOTE Under a standby credit subject to UCP600, a copy of an unpaid invoice is required to be presented, in addition to a beneficiary's certificate. The beneficiary's certificate complies, but the invoice is issued for an amount that is higher than that of the standby. Bearing in mind that the invoice is a supporting document, please advise whether the issuing bank or a confirming bank, if any, or a nominated bank acting on its nomination, as the case may be, must accept such invoice as with the case of subrule 3.08 (e) of ISP98, or do they still reserve the right to reject in line with the content of UCP 600 sub-article 18 (b). NATIONAL COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Article 1 of UCP600 states in part that the rules shall apply to any documentary credit (credit) (including to the extent to which they may be applicable, any standby letter of credit). Sub-article 18 (b) reads A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank may accept a commercial invoice issued for an amount in excess of the amount permitted by the credit, and its decision will be binding upon all parties, provided the bank in question has not honoured or negotiated for an amount in excess of that permitted by the credit.

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

The issue raised in the query highlights one of the many problems that can arise when a standby credit is issued subject to the UCP. However, as stated in the query, the invoice in this case is a supporting document and a bank may not be expected to know the complete payment terms relating to the underlying transaction on which the standby may be based. Provided the amount of the invoice is not less than the amount demanded, the issuing bank, confirming bank or a nominated bank acting on its nomination, does not have any grounds to refuse the invoice. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION The analysis and conclusion of the national committee is agreed. The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commissions officers based on the facts under QUOTE above. They do not necessarily reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commission. This query is considered to be of an educational nature and will not be placed before the next Banking Commission meeting for approval. The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered. Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Adviser shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in connection with the rendered opinion(s). Yours sincerely,

Thierry Senechal Policy Manager Banking Commission

6
Document 470/1148

Mrs. Yeliz Geri ICC Turkey - ICC Trkiye Milli Komitesi Executive Director / Mdr V. Atatrk Bulvar, No. 149 Bakanlklar 06640 Ankara, Turkey 27 May 2010 Subject: Document 470/TA.729 (ED) Dear Mrs. Geri, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the view(s) of the officers of the Banking Commission. QUOTE A standby credit, subject to UCP 600, stipulates instalment drawings as follows: USD50,000.00 may be drawn between 01 Jan 2010 and 01 Mar 2010. USD50,000.00 may be drawn between 02 March 2010 and 01 May 2010. Please advise whether the standby credit ceases to be available for the first and second instalment if the beneficiary does not draw partly or wholly under the first instalment between 01 Jan 2010 and 01 Mar 2010. NATIONAL COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Article 1 of UCP 600 states in part that the rules shall apply to any documentary credit (credit) (including to the extent to which they may be applicable, any standby letter of credit). Article 32 states that if a drawing or shipment by instalments within given periods is stipulated in the credit and any instalment is not drawn or shipped within the period allowed for that instalment, the credit ceases to be available for that and any subsequent instalment. Therefore, article 32, by its heading and content, will apply to any credit issued subject to UCP 600 that contains an instalment drawing or shipment schedule. It follows that if the first drawing is not made partly or wholly within the period specified, the standby credit ceases to be available for that and the second drawing.

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

It is for this reason that where an instalment drawing schedule is stated in a standby credit subject to UCP 600, article 32 should always be excluded. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION The analysis and conclusion of the national committee is agreed. The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commissions officers based on the facts under QUOTE above. They do not necessarily reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commission. This query is considered to be of an educational nature and will not be placed before the next Banking Commission meeting for approval. The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered. Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Adviser shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in connection with the rendered opinion(s). Yours sincerely,

Thierry Senechal Policy Manager Banking Commission

8
Document 470/1148

Mrs. Yeliz Geri ICC Turkey - ICC Trkiye Milli Komitesi Executive Director / Mdr V. Atatrk Bulvar, No. 149 Bakanlklar 06640 Ankara, Turkey 27 May 2010 Subject: Document 470/TA.730 (ED) Dear Mrs. Geri, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the view(s) of the officers of the Banking Commission. QUOTE We have been seeing the following clauses on insurance documents. Please advise acceptability of these clauses according to article 28 of UCP 600. Clause 1: PREMIUM PAYMENTS AND POLICY ANNULMENT CLAUSE: Unless otherwise agreed, the insurer's obligation shall in no way commence unless the premium is paid or the down payment is made, regardless of whether the policy is delivered or not. There is no marking of premium paid on the policy. Clause 2: In cases when it's agreed that the first installment (down payment) or all of the premium is paid by the policy holder by credit card rather than in cash upon his/her consent and request, and that a delay payment by credit card is granted to the policy holder, the liability of the insurer commences upon the withdrawal of the first installment (down payment) or all of the premium from the credit card on the preagreed day. The insured shall be deemed to be in default in case he/she fails to pay the insurance premium or in cases when the parties agree to have the premium paid in installments, down payment or any one of the installments, having their final due

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

dates stipulated on the policy until the due date. In case the insured is in default by failing to pay the premium, then the provisions of the Obligations Code shall become applicable and the contract shall be annulled at once without any further notice in compliance with paragraph 3 of article 107 of Obligations Code." There is no marking of premium paid on the policy. Clause 3: We, ABC INSURANCE hereby agree, in consideration of the payment to us by or on behalf of the assured of the premium as arranged, to insure against loss, damage, liability or expense to the extent and in the manner herein provided." There is no marking of premium paid on the policy. Clause 4: In case of any claim payment through this policy, the assured (insured party) agrees to pay the additional premium arising from the difference between the foreign exchange rates, on the claim payment day and on the policy issuance day. The terms of the credit are CIF. NATIONAL COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Clause 1: The clause expressly indicates that even if the policy is issued and delivered it will not be effective unless the premium is paid. Therefore, there should be evidence that the premium had been paid for the insurance to be effective. The document is discrepant. Clause 2: The clause expressly indicates that if any part of the premium is not paid, the insurance is cancelled. There is no indication that the premium has been paid. The document is discrepant.

10
Document 470/1148

Clause 3: By stating "in consideration of the agreed premium paid to the Company" reference to 'the agreed premium paid' would not imply that the premium is still to be paid. Unless there is a statement on the document that the premium is unpaid or similar, the document is acceptable. Clause 4: Given that the terms of the credit are CIF, the insurance is contracted for by the beneficiary and premium is paid by it. However, the clause states that in case of any claim the assured will pay the additional premium before being paid under the policy. The document is discrepant. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION The analysis and conclusion of the national committee is agreed. The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commissions officers based on the facts under QUOTE above. They do not necessarily reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commission. This query is considered to be of an educational nature and will not be placed before the next Banking Commission meeting for approval. The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered.

11
Document 470/1148

Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Adviser shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in connection with the rendered opinion(s). Yours sincerely,

Thierry Senechal Policy Manager Banking Commission

12
Document 470/1148

Mrs. Yeliz Geri ICC Turkey - ICC Trkiye Milli Komitesi Executive Director / Mdr V. Atatrk Bulvar, No. 149 Bakanlklar 06640 Ankara, Turkey 27 May 2010 Subject: Document 470/TA.731 (ED) Dear Mrs. Geri, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the view(s) of the officers of the Banking Commission. QUOTE We have been seeing the following clauses on insurance documents. Clause 1: This insurance does not cover any loss or damage to the property which at the time of happening of such loss or damage is insured by or would, but for the existence of this Policy, be insured by any fire or other insurance policy or policies, except in respect of any excess beyond the amount which would have been payable under the fire or other insurance policy or policies had this insurance not been effected. Does the above clause create a discrepancy? Clause 2: This policy is prepared according to the material facts disclosed by the proposer as is shown in the proposal form and is subject to the enclosed general and special conditions and clauses attached and the Company hereby agrees to indemnify the Assured, against payment of the premium due, in case of a marine peril as described above". Please advise how should "enclosed general and special conditions and clauses attached" be interpreted, can we deem the indication of clauses i.e. ICC (A) as

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

required by the credit and shown on the policy sufficient or must we look for general and special conditions in these other pages to be physically attached/enclosed to the insurance policy itself due to the wording "enclosed general and special conditions. Clause 3: The cover will be valid, if and only if, the transporting vessel(s) have a valid ISM Certificate and Classification Certificate (according to Institute Classification Clause 01.01.2001) during the transport. There is no data on any required document meeting the above mentioned condition. Please advise whether this creates a discrepancy. Clause 4 CAUTION: This policy is subject to the following mentioned conditions and warranties: 1. The vessel should be fully classed and class maintained with class society member of IACS (including Turk Lloyd) as per Institute Classification Clause 01.01.2001 as per attached wording. Therefore, the vessel being nominated should be complied with the stipulation stated thereof. 2. Vessel should also be a member of a respected P & I (Protection & Indemnity) club member of International Group. 3. Vessel should also be complied with the ISM requirements. 4. A vessel which does not have above mentioned qualifications and are aged over 35 and tankers aged over 15 will not be covered. There is no data on any required document meeting the above mentioned conditions. Please advise whether this creates a discrepancy. NATIONAL COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Clause 1: An insurance document should cover the designated risks from the date of shipment (at the latest) to the point where the credit may state that the insurance is to cease, or the point at which the respective Institute clauses designate as closure. The intent of an insurance document presented under a credit is that it is a stand-alone document that is capable of being claimed under following any event that falls under the risks that are covered.

14
Document 470/1148

However, the wording implies that in the event of loss or damage, the goods will not be covered if the risk was covered by any other policy that may be in place at the same time for that purpose. The document is discrepant. Clause 2: Reference to "enclosed" can be deemed to be clauses that are referenced within the document itself such as ICC (A) etc. However, where it refers to "clauses attached" then there is a specific requirement for the policy to contain some form of attachment(s) that complete the policy document. Absent such attachment(s), the document is incomplete and discrepant. Clause 3: The expectation of an applicant, when calling for an insurance document, is the presentation of a free standing document that operates in its own right and without it being subject to pre-conditions. Since there is no data on any required document meeting the conditions as required by the clause, the insurance may be considered null and void by the insurer. The document is discrepant. Clause 4: Similar to the conclusion to clause no.3 the expectation of an applicant, when calling for an insurance document, is the presentation of a free standing document that operates in its own right and without it being subject to pre-conditions. Since there is no data on any required document meeting the conditions as required by the clause, the insurance may be considered null and void by the insurer. The document is discrepant. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION The analysis and conclusions of the national committee are agreed, except in respect of Clause 1.

15
Document 470/1148

Sub-article 14 (a) requires a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the documents alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. There appears to be no evidence that any other insurance has been taken out for the same shipment and therefore the bank should examine the document on the basis that it is the sole insurance document for the shipment at hand. The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commissions officers based on the facts under QUOTE above. They do not necessarily reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commission. This query is considered to be of an educational nature and will not be placed before the next Banking Commission meeting for approval. The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered. Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Adviser shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in connection with the rendered opinion(s). Yours sincerely,

Thierry Senechal Policy Manager Banking Commission

16
Document 470/1148

Mrs. Yeliz Geri ICC Turkey - ICC Trkiye Milli Komitesi Executive Director / Mdr V. Atatrk Bulvar, No. 149 Bakanlklar 06640 Ankara, Turkey 27 May 2010 Subject: Document 470/TA.732 (ED) Dear Mrs. Geri, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the view(s) of the officers of the Banking Commission. QUOTE An insurance policy shows at the bottom, in preprinted wording, "Not valid unless countersigned by ABC" and underneath "Countersigned at .... (blank) Date: 13/10/2009 Endorsed at... (this field is also blank)". As is seen, the endorsement date is missing and there is no issue or effectiveness date shown in the document. The shipment date is the same as countersignature date, i.e., 13/10/2009. Is the document discrepant for the missing issuance date or the effectiveness date, or may the countersignature date be taken as the effective date of the policy and the policy is acceptable? NATIONAL COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Sub-article 28 (e) states that the date of the insurance document must be no later than the date of shipment, unless it appears from the insurance document that the cover is effective from a date not later than the date of shipment. Furthermore, the first sentence of ISBP681, paragraph 13 states that drafts, transport documents and insurance documents must be dated even if a credit does not expressly so require.

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

As regards the insurance document, the notion of date mentioned in subarticle 28 (e) and ISBP paragraph 13 should not be confined merely to the issue date of the document but rather to the date on which the document becomes effective. In the case at hand, the date of the countersignature is the date that the insurance becomes effective which should be examined by banks to determine the compliance with the credit and UCP. The inclusion of the countersignature date deems an indication or otherwise of the date of issue (endorsement date) in the document is not necessary. The document is compliant. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION It should be noted that Endorsed at .. is signifying the adding of a place and not a date of the endorsement. Absent any other date, the countersignature date would serve as evidence of the effective date of the insurance coverage. The analysis and conclusion of the national committee is agreed subject to the above comments. The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commissions officers based on the facts under QUOTE above. They do not necessarily reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commission. This query is considered to be of an educational nature and will not be placed before the next Banking Commission meeting for approval. The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered. Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Adviser shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in connection with the rendered opinion(s). Yours sincerely,

Thierry Senechal Policy Manager Banking Commission

18
Document 470/1148

Mrs. Yeliz Geri ICC Turkey - ICC Trkiye Milli Komitesi Executive Director / Mdr V. Atatrk Bulvar, No. 149 Bakanlklar 06640 Ankara, Turkey 27 May 2010 Subject: Document 470/TA.733 (ED) Dear Mrs. Geri, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the view(s) of the officers of the Banking Commission. QUOTE An insurance document is issued on the insurance company's headed paper (ABC Company). However, it is signed by another company declaring itself "as agent" without further stating "on behalf of the Insurance Company above" or "on behalf of ABC Company" or "on behalf of Insurance Company, ABC Company". We understand from ICC Opinion R685 that the document is not acceptable. Please advise whether the document is discrepant. NATIONAL COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The second paragraph of sub-article 28 (a) of UCP 600 states [A]ny signature by an agent or proxy must indicate whether the agent or proxy has signed for or on behalf of the insurance company or underwriter. Moreover, as stated in the opinion quoted in the query, a bank needs to know the connection with the signing party and the insurance company/underwriter on which the signing party has acted. It follows therefore that the document must indicate on whose behalf the agent is signing or acting either as part of the signing process, e.g., DEF, as agent for ABC Company or elsewhere in the document.

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

The document is discrepant. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION Although ICC Opinion R.685 was issued in connection with a credit subject to UCP 500, the same position would prevail under UCP 600 in respect of this query. The analysis and conclusion of the national committee is agreed. The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commissions officers based on the facts under QUOTE above. They do not necessarily reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commission. This query is considered to be of an educational nature and will not be placed before the next Banking Commission meeting for approval. The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered. Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Adviser shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in connection with the rendered opinion(s). Yours sincerely,

Thierry Senechal Policy Manager Banking Commission

20
Document 470/1148

Mr. Wilko Gunster Secretary General ICC Nederland Bezuidenhoutseweg 12 2594 AV DEN HAAG The Netherlands 27 May 2010 Subject: Document 470/TA.734(ED) Dear Mr. Gunster, Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Please find below the view(s) of the officers of the Banking Commission. QUOTE We seek an opinion on the correct interpretation of the L/C clause(s) mentioned below, since we recently experienced difficulties with their interpretation. Although we realise that the clauses referred to are not subject to any specific UCP article, we believe that such clauses are so common that an opinion from the ICC would be beneficial in ensuring all parties apply a uniform understanding. The following is the exact wording of the clause in dispute and is a clause we see in varying forms in L/Cs on a regular basis. The clause quoted appears in a L/C issued subject to UCP 600, which requires presentation of drafts, invoices, bills of lading, packing lists and 4 different beneficiary certificates: (Example 1) Quote All documents except Bill of Lading must indicate this credit number and P.O. no. XXXXX Unquote The problem seems to be the interpretation of the word except and what effect it has on the clause. In our opinion, the word means that the excepted document does not need to comply with the instruction that follows. Only the remainder of the documents must comply.

26 July 2010/TS/wf Document 470/1148

In this example, so long as all documents other than the bill of lading quote the credit and P.O. numbers the clause is satisfied. The fact that the bill of lading may or may not quote the credit and P.O numbers is not a matter of concern since the document is excepted by the clause. We encounter banks which are of the opinion that the clause means that the bill of lading must not quote the credit and P.O numbers. We would also like to add to the argument the following (actual) clause, which has a reverse effect but is nevertheless of a similar nature and follows the same principle. (Example 2) Quote All documents except Invoice and Drafts must not show Invoice number, Invoice value, Invoice date, unit price, contract no. name of applicant, trade term, L/C No., L/C issuing date and name of issuing bank Unquote In this example, the clause points the checker not in the direction of the invoice and drafts, since those documents have been excepted, but to all the other documents to ensure they do not quote any of the forbidden information. Therefore, the invoice and drafts may or may not quote any or all of this data. In this case, some banks are of the opinion that the wording means that the invoice and draft may show the specified details. Since such L/C terms are not covered by any specific UCP article, they must be applied literally and banks should not try to second guess the reasons for their inclusion. We kindly ask ICC Country N to endorse our opinion. UNQUOTE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ANALYSIS Example 1. The emphasis in this condition is that all documents must indicate certain data except the bill of lading. So with regard to the bill of lading there has been made an

22
Document 470/1148

exception in reference to the necessity. However this condition does not prohibit the bill of lading mentioning the prescribed data. Example 2. The emphasis in this condition is that it is not allowed for the described data to be mentioned in documents except for the invoice and drafts. So with regard to the invoice and drafts there has been made an exception in reference to this prohibition. However, this condition does not demand that the invoice and drafts mention the prescribed data. One should keep in mind however that certain data must be mentioned in the invoice and drafts according to a number of articles and paragraphs of UCP 600 and international standard banking practices (ISBP). NATIONAL COMMITTEE CONCLUSION In case the credit demands or prohibits that certain data is mentioned in documents, and excludes one or more documents from that demand, the excluded documents may or may not mention that data. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION The analysis and conclusion of the national committee is not agreed in respect of example 1. In example 1, the credit is stating all documents except the bill of lading must indicate the credit number and P. O. number. This is a clear rule prohibiting these numbers appearing on the bill of lading. For example 2, the analysis and conclusion is agreed. Unless the credit, by its other terms and conditions, requires such data appear on the invoices and drafts, there is no requirement for all of this data to appear. However, it should be noted that most of the information would be included in an invoice without such requirements being specified in a credit. The opinion(s) rendered on this query reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commissions officers based on the facts under QUOTE above. They do not necessarily reflect the view(s) of the ICC Banking Commission. This query is considered to be of an educational nature and will not be placed before the next Banking Commission meeting for approval. The reply given is not to be construed as being other than solely for the benefit of guidance and there should be no legal imputation associated with the reply offered.

23
Document 470/1148

Neither the ICC nor any of its employees, nor any member of the Banking Commission, including the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or Technical Adviser shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of any act or omission in connection with the rendered opinion(s). Yours sincerely,

Thierry Senechal Policy Manager Banking Commission

24
Document 470/1148