Department of Policy and Business Practices
Commission on Banking Technique and Practice Opinions of the ICC Banking Commission
Attached are the consolidated draft Opinions to be discusd at the October 2008 Banking Commission meetings in Paris.
It is important that you nd your comments on the draft Opinions to the technical advir prior to the meeting so that we can facilitate the discussion. Plea email your comments to Gary Collyer at:
E-mail:
Plea bring all documents to the meeting. They will not be re-distributed
All rights rerved. This collective work was initiated by ICC which holds all rights as defined by the French Code of Intellectual Property. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, scanning, recording, taping or information retrieval systems – without written permission of ICC Services, Publications Department.羞羞涩
Department of Policy and Business Practices
Mr. Wilko Gunster
Secretary General
ICC Netherlands
Postbus 95309, 2509 CH Den Haag
Bezuidenhoutweg 12, 2594 AV Den
家庭状况
Haag
The Netherlands
5 May 2008
Subject: Document 470/TA.657 (UCP 600)
Dear Mr. Gunster,
Thank you for your query regarding UCP 600. Plea find below the opinion of the officers of the Banking Commission.
QUOTE
We advid and confirmed a L/C which was issued by ‘Bank X’ in Country I. After having received and checked the documents we found the following discrepancies.
论持久战内容First discrepancy
The CMR provides conflicting information regarding the , two carriers are named for the same routing and goods.
Explanation:
In Box 16 (the name of the Carrier) of the prented CMR document the name quote [Company S] unquote was inrted.
In Box 23 (signature and name of the Carrier) the name quote [Company C] unquote was inrted. There was a signature placed in this box.
Box 17 (the name of the successive carrier) was not completed.
Second discrepancy
手掌画The date of receipt of the goods and the date of issuance have been corrected and should be authenticated by the party making the change.
Department of Policy and Business Practices
Explanation
Box 4 (the place and date of receipt of the goods) was filled in with the typed wording quote France….11-2007unquote and box 21(the place and the date of issuance)was filled in with the typed wording quote Breda…..11-2007unquote. In both boxes was manually written, in blue ink and on the dots, quote 28 unquote.
We informed beneficiary about the two discrepancies obrved by us and we agreed to nd the documents to Bank X for payment. Later, we received an ‘advice of refusal’ from Bank X mentioning veral discrepancies from which we quote two:
1.CMR Field 16 contradictory and not complete.
2.CMR Corrections and additions not signed.
Although Bank X drafted the wording of the two discrepancies in a different way, we understood that it endord the two discrepancies obrved by ourlves, which we had communicated to the beneficiary.
Later the documents were returned to us by Bank X and we returned the documents to the beneficiary. Beneficiary, however, now opines that the two discrepancies obrved by the issuing bank and by ourlves are absolutely not material and it demands immediate payment from us, as the confirming bank.
Plea let us know whether you endor the two discrepancies.
UNQUOTE
We discusd the two items within our Organization and we concluded as follows
QUOTE
First discrepancy
Analysis
Sub-article 14 (d) of UCP 600 reads:
Data in documents, when read in context with the credit, the document itlf and international standard banking practice need not be identical, but must not conflict with data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit.
ICC opinion R 466 states that a CMR mentioning both quote the carrier unquote and quote the successive carrier unquote is not considered discrepant.
Department of Policy and Business Practices
As per Sub-article 24 (a) (i) of UCP 600 Box 23 is correctly completed by stating the name and the signature of the carrier, being apparently Company C.
Conclusion
A. The CMR provides conflicting information regarding the , two carriers are named for the same routing and goods.
B. Box 17 (the name of the successive carrier) is not filled in on the CMR document and conquentl
y ICC Opinion R 466 is not applicable.
We endor the opinion of the Dutch bank.谈恋爱聊天技巧
One member has voted against this endorment by arguing as follows: In daily practice the shipper issues the CMR on its own stationary. At time of issuance of the document the shipper apparently thought that Company S would act as the carrier and conquently this name was filled in (in Box 16.). Later, the driver of the truck stamped the document with his company stamp (Company C) and signed the document as carrier in Box 23. Whereas this procedure is normal daily practice, banks should facilitate and not refu a CMR for that reason provided the document is signed in accordance with sub-article 24 (a) (i) of UCP 600.
Second discrepancy
Analysis
ICC Opinion R533/TA.103 reads:
Quote The Commission was invited to comment. In the discussion the following comment was made "that corrections or additions on a transport document must be authenticated by a correction stamp a
s well as a signature or initials. The Commission agreed it should be clear who has corrected the document and on what authority.
Such documents are only acceptable if this procedure is, in fact, followed." [emphasis added] The adding of a freight paid stamp or an annotation of an on board date are not considered to be additions .Unquote
ISBP paragraph 9 reads:
Quote Corrections and alterations of information or data in documents other than documents created by the beneficiary must appear to be authenticated by the party who issued the document or by a party authorid by the issuer to do so. Unquote
Department of Policy and Business Practices
Conclusion
郊游的企图
Within our National Committee we have differing views.
Several of our members opine as follows:
In line with ICC opinion R533, the manual adding of an issuing date or the date of receipt of the goods in a transport document is not considered to be an addition or correction and conquently there is no need for such dates to be authenticated by the issuer of the document. Especially, in ca of a CMR, it is daily practice that the driver manually fills in CMR with the date of receipt of the goods. Furthermore, ISBP paragraph 11 reads Quote The u of multiple type styles or font sizes or handwriting in the same document does not, by itlf, signify a correction or alteration. Unquote
Other members opine as follows:
The date of issue and the date of receipt/on board of the goods are crucial information on any transport document and banks must be able to ascertain that the issuer of the document completed this information. Therefore, the carrier or its agent must authenticate manual alterations or additions i
招商是什么工作n this respect. Since ICC Opinion R533/TA103 was published prior to ISBP, the Banking Commission is invited to reconsider ICC Opinion R533 in such a way that a manually inrted
‘issuing date’ or ‘date of receipt of the goods’ or ‘on board date’ on any transport document is to be considered a correction or alteration as prescribed in ISBP paragraph 9.
UNQUOTE
Plea let us know whether you endor our opinion with regard to the first discrepancy and which of the two opinions with regard to the cond discrepancy you endor.
ANALYSIS奖惩制度范本
Discrepancy 1.
The CMR evidences two carrier names and therefore there is no clear indication of the party that is acting as carrier. Sub-article 24 (a) (i) requires the road transport document to indicate the name of the carrier. ICC Opinion R.466 is not applicable in this ca.
