• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.177-197
• /
• 2013

The updated International Standard Banking Practice(ISBP), International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 745, was published to bring its contents in line with UCP 600. The ISBP 745 has dealt with A-Q that are commonly arising in the credit transactions and also explains in detail some of the articles of UCP 600 with the proper interpretation. The updated version ISBP 745 involved aligning it with UCP 600, making certain technical adjustments in expression of words such as "in conflict" instead of "inconsistent", etc. Despite the updated ISBP 745, there remains a question. Where the words "from" or "after" are used in regard to something other than a period of shipment or the maturity date of drafts, there is no guidance from the UCP as to its meaning. The party concerned in credit transactions is also required to have a full understanding of ISBP 745 and the articles of UCP 600 in order to acquire the documents preparation and examination facilitating the parties to minimize discrepancies.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.203-221
• /
• 2014

ICC Banking Commission have approved the new version of ISBP for UCP 600(Publication 745) on April 17, 2013. This is called the ISBP 745. This revised version of ISBP includes a lot of shipping documents including bill of exchange. These shipping documents stated in the ISBP 745, especially the certificate of origin is the document necessary for carrying out the customs formalities in FTA era. Particularly, practitioners such as bankers, buyers and sellers, lawyers, freight forwarders and carriers in import and export transactions have to know the UCP 600 and ISBP 745 (2013) thoroughly in order to avoid the disputes due to discrepancies of the documents with the terms and conditions of the credit. The purpose of this article is to reduce the disputes occurred in the credit transaction by providing the examination criteria and case study of the certificate of origin in ISBP 745.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.5
• /
• pp.87-114
• /
• 2014

The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) is a set of rules on the issuance and use of letters of credit. Historically, the commercial parties, particularly banks, have developed the techniques and methods for handling letters of credit in international trade finance. This practice has been standardized by the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) by publishing the UCP in 1933 and subsequently updating it throughout the years. The ICC has developed and moulded the UCP by regular revisions, the current version being the UCP600. This latest version, called the UCP600, formally commenced on 1 July 2007. During the revision process, notice was taken of the considerable work that had been completed in creating the International Standard Banking Practice for the Examination of Documents under Documentary Credits (ISBP), ICC Publication 745. This publication has evolved into a necessary companion to the UCP for determining compliance of documents with the terms of letters of credit. It is the expectation of the Drafting Group and the Banking Commission that the application of the principles contained in the ISBP, including subsequent revisions thereof, will continue during the time UCP 600 is in force. This paper focuses on documents including various certificates, Packing List, Weight List, Beneficiary's Certificate, Analysiis, Inspection, Health, Phytosanitary, Quantity and Quality Certificates, Courier Receipts, Shipping Advice etc. and suggests some implications in the field.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.131-154
• /
• 2014

The International Standard Banking Practice for the Examination of Documents under UCP 600 (ISBP 745) is the product by the Drafting Group of the ICC Banking Commission during a number of years. ISBP 745 is a practical complement to UCP 600, ICC's universally used rules on documentary credits. ISBP 745 does not amend UCP 600. Two rules should be read in their entirety and not in isolation. ISBP 745 explains, in explicit detail, how the UCP 600 rules are to be applied on a day-to-day basis. It fills a needed gap between the general principles announced in UCP 600 and the daily work of the documentary credit practitioners. It has developed into an invaluable aid to banks, corporates, logistics and insurance companies alike, on a global basis. By using ISBP 745, document checkers can bring their practices in line with those followed by their colleagues worldwide. The result should be a significant reduction in the number of shipping documents refused for discrepancies on first presentation. This study aims to summarize the reasons for revision of the ISBP rules and the key-points of ISBP 745, and to provide the documentary credit practitioners with some considerations under its practical application.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.261-283
• /
• 2013

ISBP745 has new provisions about sea waybill, road, rail or inland waterway transport documents which ISBP681 did not have provisions about. The main revisions of ISBP745 which were not existent or different from ICC Opinion are as follows: First, where B/L is required when multimodal transport is used as a modes of transport, the revisions stipulates that it is subject to UCP600 article19. this differs from previous ICC Opinion. Second, when a credit requires a transport document to indicate the name, address and contact details of a delivery agent, for the place of final destination or port of discharge, the address need not be one that is located at the place of destination or port of discharge or within the same country as that of the place of destination or port of discharge. Third, in case there exist a number of shippers and a consignee, multiple transport documents are issued. This rule has a clear stipulation on this case. Transport industry regards the indication of "LCL/FCL" or "CFS/CY" common in this case as that requiring multiple transport documents. However, ISBP745 does not regard it the case as that requiring multiple transport documents. This may cause some confusion in examination of documents. Forth, when partial shipment is allowed, and more than one set of original transport documents are presented as part of a single presentation made under one covering schedule and incorporate different dates of shipment, the earliest of these dates is to be used of the calculation of an presentation period.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.241-265
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Banks's Examination of Documents in the L/C Transactions. Most of all, this article deals with one of most important aspects of the law on documentary credits, namely, the compliance of documents presented with the terms and conditions of a letter of credit. In addition, the general principles of strict compliance will be considered and in the next, the requirements of specific documents such as invoices, transport documents and insurance policies. This area of letter of credit law is shaped not only by judge-made decisions but also the articles of Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, the International Standard Banking Practice(ISBP Publication No.745) prepared by the Banking Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce as well as the position papers and opinions of the latter. Whether a document complies with the terms of a letter of credit is essentially a matter of examination and construction of the document in question against the terms of the letter of credit under which it is presented, articles of the UCP, ISBP as well as the opinions and statements of the Banking Committee. Most of all this article was focused on provisions of UCP600. Comparison with provisions of UCP500 have been drawn where appropriate.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.205-225
• /
• 2017

The study attempts to verify the case related to the notice of payment refusal by issuing bank regarding discrepancy in transport document under L/C(Letter of Credit) transaction. Considering the high portion of trade between Korea and China, Korean companies and banks in L/C transaction should be careful about many unpredictable situations. The case of this study is that Chinese seller(beneficiary) initiated a civil suit against Industrial Bank of Korea to Chinese court and Chinese courts in the first and second trials judged that the notice of payment refusal by Industrial bank of Korea doesn't satisfy Article 16, (c) (ii) (iii) in UCP 600. However, Industrial Bank of Korea implements the judgement even though the judgement is highly biased to Chinese seller. Considering the judgement by Chinese courts, the study suggests some countermeasures to Korean companies and banks which opened L/C. First, the issuing bank should describe the contents of discrepancy specifically based on Article 16, (c) in UCP 600. Second, it is necessary to insert a clause regarding governing law in the L/C contract like sales contract. Third, considering the biased judgement by Chinese court and difficulty in execution of foreign judgement in China, it is recommended to using arbitration as a method of dispute resolution such as ICLOCA and DOCDEX Rules which are international system operated by international instruments because it has legal effects to parties in L/C contracts if the issuing bank inserts arbitration clause in L/C.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.70
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2016

This study is to find the accurate interpretations for the UCP600 by integrating, ISBP745, Official Opinions of ICC Banking Commission and some Case Laws suggesting the reasonable implication for the upcoming UCP. Major results analyzed by this study are as follows. First, The preclusion rule, UCP600 Article 16(c), is closely connected with the doctrine of documentary cure, so the banks requirement of Single Notice must state all the discrepancies of the documents presented. Exceptionally if the cured documents by the presenter are happened to be inconsistent the initial notice the bank can require the presenter to re-tender within the expiry date or the last day for presentation. Secondly, The Issuing Bank can utilize the right of seeking a waiver of documentary discrepancies from the applicant with the time limit of 5 banking days. If the bank wants to require an applicant to report discrepancies promptly, he may include a provision in the reimbursement engagement limiting the time limit within which the applicant must give notice of facial discrepancies. Thirdly, if a credit contains a non-documentary condition, banks will deem such condition as not states and will disregard it. According to the principle of private autonony if a credit contains a non-documentary condition to be consistent with by the parties concerned in a credit the non-documentary condition can be treated, as an effective condition itself. Fourthly, according to the Korean Supreme Court's decision, negotiation includes the method of crediting the credit amount and then transfers such funds into a special account and controls the account. Finally, UCP600 Article 33 states a bank has no obligation to accept a presentation outside of its banking hours. However, there is no rule in UCP600 in regard to a presentation after the close of business. Hopefully the upcoming UCP has to stipulates a sort of definite article to determine such ambiguous.