Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In This Issue
Features:
An Alternative on Status
of Documents Under
Sub-Article 16(c) (iii) (b)
(p.3)
UCP 600 vs ISP98 (p.5)
L/C Quiz (p.6)
ISBP 745 Revisited
Discussion Corner
ISBP 745Paragraph
by Paragraph (v) (p.8)
Irrevocable
Reimbursement
Undertaking IRU (p.12)
News from the Trade
World, (p.15)
ICC Opinions: There has been a lot of fuss about Opinions TA.814rev and
TA.820rev that was withdrawn following the final versions. We now await
the final final versions; but what remains is a somewhat shaky image of the
ICC Banking Commission. I truly hope we will avoid such situations in the
future.
And for the future; the new Draft Opinions are just out. It is a 45 page bundle
of 13 Opinions (TA828-TA840).
Otherwise a lot of questions about guarantee expiry versus local law that do
not respect expiry date. I must admit those are issues I fail to comprehend.
I can however comprehend this much that those are issues that are causing
lots of problems for counter guarantors and applicants.
But above all I have been working on this issue. There is a great feature
by Nesarul Hoque. Really thought provoking.
And then there is a quiz! And there is a prize
Happy reading and take care out there
Kind regards,
Kim Sindberg / Editor in Chief / Trade Services Update / info@lcmonitor.com
Editors
to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal,
accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of
a competent professional person should be sought. Copyright 1999-2014 by GlobalTrade Corporation. All
rights reserved. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form, by microfilm, xerography or otherwise,
or incorporated into any information retrieval system, without the written permission of the publisher.
URL: www.tradeservicesupdate.com
Email: tsu@globaltradecorp.com
2
Tel: +1 416-661-8520
Bio: http://www.tradeservicesupdate.com/
editor_hoque
An Alternative on Status
of Documents Under
Sub-Article 16 (c) (iii) (b)
By: ATM Nesarul Hoque
Introduction:
The challenges to set up an alternative to the existing provision that the alternative must offer at
least similar kind of flexibility in operation and of
course, it must be done without hampering presenters irrevocable right
As a first step into the alternatives, we need to
reconsider the pre-waiver provisions of UCP 600
in sub-article 16 (b) as under:
When an issuing bank determines that a
presentation does not comply, it may in its
sole judgement approach the applicant for a
waiver of the discrepancies. This does not,
however, extend the period mentioned in subarticle 14 (b).
The issuing bank must sent a status report not later than close of fifth banking
day only mentioning the discrepancies
that the issuing bank convey to the applicant or similar.
By this provision, the presenter will be aware on
what ground the presentation is discrepant [within
not later than close of fifth banking day], which
will ultimately give the presenter better position to
further communicate its instruction, if contrary.
This status report is not a notice refusal but an
update on outcome of issuing bank examination
and its further course of action. If the presenter is
not satisfied with the reasons of status report,
the presenter may provide contrary instruction to
the issuing bank.
In continuation of above provision, Sub-article 16
(c) may be remained intake except sub-article
16 (c) (iii) (b) i.e.
When a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing
bank decides to refuse to honour or negotiate,
it must give a single notice to that effect to the
presenter.
The notice must state:
i. that the bank is refusing to honour or
negotiate; and
ii. each discrepancy in respect of which the
bank refuses to honour or negotiate; and
By Xavier Fornt
UCP 600 does not include a syndication possibility, but this possibility is included in ISP98.
To conclude, let me say that UCP are Rules of
The Banking Commission and ISP are rules of
the International Banking Law and Practice endorsed by the Banking Commission.
So far, so close.
Bio: http://www.tradeservicesupdate.com/editor_kim
L/C Quiz
By Kim Sindberg
The following quiz is made by Kim Sindberg. Answers can be sent via e-mail to
kim@kimsindberg.com.
Deadline for sending an answer is 20 November
2015. After that two winners will be picked from
the correct answers. The winners will receive one
free copy of Kim Sindbergs book The Cheaters
Handbook to Documentary Credits. More information about the book:
http://kimsindberg.dk/the-cheaters-handbook-todocumentary-credits-2014-2/?lang=en
The winners will be contacted directly, and will be
announced in the next issue along with the correct answers.
Global International Bank (GIB) has been requested to issue an L/C by its customer Loop Trading
Ltd in favour of Overseas Exporters.
The L/C is advised via First Traders Bank (FTB)
being available and confirmed with them.
The L/C is issued available by negotiation 90 days
after bill of lading.
The L/C is issued subject to UCP 600.
Tick off the appropriate box:
Question 01:
FTB is:
Question 02:
As an advising bank FTB must:
1. satisfy itself as to the workability of the L/C
and that the advice accurately reflects the
terms and conditions of the documentary credit
2. satisfy itself as to the apparent authenticity
of the L/C and that the advice accurately reflects the terms and conditions of the documentary credit
3. satisfy itself as to the apparent authenticity
of the L/C and that the advice accurately reflects the terms and conditions of the underlying contract
4. ensure that the L/C is authentic and exactly
reflects the terms and conditions of the L/C
Question 03:
As a confirming bank FTB must:
1. negotiate a complying presentation with recourse to the applicant
2. negotiate a complying presentation with recourse to the beneficiary
3. negotiate a complying presentation without
recourse to the applicant
4. negotiate a complying presentation without
recourse to the beneficiary
Question 04:
Overseas Exporters presents documents to
FTB. The L/C calls for a bill of lading. The date
of issue on the bill of lading is 15 October 2014.
The bill of lading indicates that the goods are
shipped on board at the port required by the L/C
on 20 October 2014...
6
Question 06:
1. 13 January 2015
2. 14 January 2015
Which is correct?
3. 16 January 2015
4. 18 January 2015
2. The UCP 600 always override any sanctions
regime
Question 05:
The bill of lading presented is issued as signed by
ABC Forwarders Ltd as carrier.
Which is correct?
Question 07:
Which way of signing is not acceptable on a bill
of lading presented under the documentary credit?
1. Mitsui O.S.K.Lines, Ltd. as Carrier (preprinted text) By Amity Shipping Ukraine
Ltd, As Agents
2. Header: Mitsui O.S.K.Lines, Ltd. Signed by
Amity Shipping Ltd, As Agents for the carrier
3. Header: Mitsui O.S.K.Lines, Ltd., carrier
Signed by Amity Shipping Ukraine Ltd, As
Agents for the carrier
4. [Signed by] Mitsui O.S.K.Lines, Ltd. as Carrier
Question 10:
Question 09:
The documentary credit calls for a certificate of
origin issued by local chamber of commerce and
legalized by the embassy in the exporting country.
Who must authenticate a correction to the certificate of origin?
1. Only the beneficiary
2. The beneficiary and the chamber of commerce
3. The beneficiary, the chamber of commerce
and the embassy
4. The chamber of commerce and the embassy
ISBP 745
Paragraph by Paragraph
(Paragraph iv)
Following the last issue we here cover
paragraph iv of ISBP 745:
ISBP 745 Paragraph v The credit and amendment application, the issuance of the credit and
any amendment thereto
Relevant references:
Official Opinion R638 / TA629 (An ambiguous requirement for a transport document)
Official Opinion TA704rev (An ambiguous
condition in a L/C)
Official Opinion R634 / TA638rev
(On exclusions in a L/C that makes the credit ambiguous)
Xavier Fornt
Andreu Vil
Radek Dob
Bob Ronai
T.O. Lee
Mohammad Sohail
Hussain
Bogdan Ilie
Zahoor N. Dattu
Daniel Devahive
Is it mandatory for L/C issuing banks to check the underlying marine insurance policy to ensure that it covers the risks
associated with Charter Party Bill of Lading (CPBL), where
the L/C requires a transport document as CPBL?
So, you do not have to read an express statement on the document that it covers charter party
shipment. But if the insurance document expressly states that it DOES NOT cover charter party
shipment, and CPBL has been in fact presented, such insurance document is discrepant.
Bob Ronai, Australia
In my opinion the answer is simple and one word: "no".
An underlying marine insurance policy covers risks of loss of or damage to the goods, not risks
"associated" with a CPBL if that refers to the owner's or master's actions and responsibilities
detailed in the CP.
10
11
Emile Rummens
Bogdan Ilie
Xavier Fornt
Radek Dob
Andreu Vil
Abdulkader Bazara
Nesarul Hoque
T.O. Lee
14
15