The ICC Banking Commission conducted its final meeting of 2024 virtually via Teams on 20-21 November. Four separate portions of the event open to Banking Commission members and ICC National Committee representatives took place.
Three Draft Opinions were presented for discussion at the ICC Banking Commission’s latest quarterly meeting on 31 January 2023.
After considerable discussion, it was determined that Draft Opinion TA927 dealing with a query involving goods free of charge needs a re-write. An updated draft will be released to ICC National Committees in the weeks ahead and will be taken up for discussion at the next ICC Opinion session in April 2023.
Draft Opinion TA928 dealt with a query involving the signing of an insurance policy presented under a UCP600 LC that “does not appear to have been issued and signed by an insurance company, an underwriter or their agent or proxy”. After quoting UCP600 Article 28(a) and ISBP745 Paragraph K2, the Opinion’s Analysis went on to determine that relevant information contained in pre-printed text on the face of the presented insurance document evidenced that it was signed and issued by a branch of the insurer. Consequently, the document was not discrepant.
Draft Opinion TA929 involved a query about facsimile endorsement on a bill of lading. The query’s background featured a back-to-back LC in which the first LC was issued subject to eUCP and the second LC was issued subject to UCP600 alone.
As regards presentation under the LC subject to UCP600, the query asked if image signatures can be used to endorse a paper bill of lading pursuant to UCP600 Article 3 (Interpretations) wording that: “A document may be signed by handwriting, facsimile signature, perforated signature, stamp, symbol or any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication.” The Opinion determined that in the context of this query, the signature is deemed to be a facsimile signature and concluded that the image signature forming part of the endorsement is accordance with UCP600 Article 3’s interpretation of “signed”.
Some written comments received and considered in advance of the discussion suggested that Draft Opinion TA929 should bring attention to problems that may arise when a back to back LC involves one LC subject to eUCP and the other subject to UCP alone. It was noted that this consideration is beyond the scope of an ICC Opinion and should be covered in a bank’s normal operating procedures. Attention was also directed to the ICC Users Guide to the eUCP which addresses implications of eUCP use in certain circumstances.
