ISBP 821 Review

ICC Global Banking Commission Steering Committee mandate to review ISBP 821 in order to assess content in line with current market practice.

Ref PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS COMMENT

1 Sanctions CONCLUSION: Potential new Preliminary Consideration – however below comments* to be taken into account:
ICC Opinion 884rev R906 • Issuing banks are, on occasion, reported for including a sanction clause in their credit. Through such a clause, an
The impact of a sanction clause that also referred to issuing bank purports to withhold the payment of a complying presentation if they determine that a sanction
the internal policies of the issuing bank, but without regulation has been breached by the data appearing on one or more documents. ICC discourages the use of a
explaining what those policies included, and the sanction clause in a credit, as it does in a standby letter of credit. The use of a sanction clause may put into
subsequent refusal of documents where the issuing question the irrevocable nature of the issuing bank or confirming bank’s undertaking and may be considered as a
bank is using the internal policies as justification for non-documentary condition. A sanction clause is, at best, a repetition of overriding mandatory rules applicable to
the refusal. the credit regardless of its terms or the applicable law, whereupon such a clause would be redundant and
unnecessary. In certain situations, a sanction clause may also raise issues of liability of the issuing bank for
ICC Opinion 930rev violation of anti-discrimination laws and counter-measures. Inserting a sanction clause in a credit cannot be
The issue of sanctions clauses in documentary credits considered as international standard banking practice.
(and other instruments) has been addressed in several
ICC resources, most specifically in the Guidance Paper Whilst not directly pertinent to document examination, sanctions clauses do have a tangential impact on the
on the Use of Sanctions Clauses in Trade Finance- examination process.
related Instruments Subject to ICC Rules (2014) and
the subsequent Addendum dated May 2020. Paragraph * Whilst sanction review is part of the examination process any comment should be structured around examination
1.4 of the Guidance Paper highlights that where according to the regulations indicated in the credit which should only be drafted in respect of the applicable country,
sanctions laws and regulations are determined to be region, regulatory body and not internal bank policy. Need to look at this from the perspective of the clause already
applicable to a credit, they are considered as being being incorporated into the credit rather than how it should be structured. Structuring the clause should be for an
mandatory and, depending on the exact nature of the extended ISBP or one solely covering issuance/advising.
law/regulation, may override the ICC rules applicable
to that credit and, more generally, the underlying con-
tract terms as well.
More recently, this issue has been addressed in ICC
Opinion TA.920rev, wherein it is stated that the
Banking Commission cannot comment on specific
sanctions or regulations and their application in
respect of the involved parties, and that any delay in,
or refusal to pay due to a sanctions clause is outside of
the UCP 600. It was further stated that, unless
mandatory law or regulation prohibits the issuing bank
from honouring, it must do so if a complying
presentation is made.

The Addendum to the Sanctions Guidance Paper,

Introduction 2nd paragraph, states that sanctions

ICC Global Banking Commission 1

ISBP 821 Review

clauses are non-documentary conditions for the

purposes of the UCP and the URDG and recommends
that banks should refrain from issuing trade finance-
related instruments that include sanctions clauses that
purport to impose restrictions beyond, or conflict with,
the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements.
2 Excessive detail in documentary credits specifically CONCLUSION: Recommend new Preliminary Consideration to be inserted after existing Preliminary Consideration
meant to cause discrepancies. (iv):
• Credits which contain excessive details such as lengthy elements in the description of goods and/or have included
terms which only belong in an underlying agreement/contract, for example “goods to comply with such
agreement/contract”, should be avoided as these often cause unintended consequences and payment delays. Only
documents that are necessary (e.g. for customs clearance purposes) should be required by a credit.

Ensures alignment with the “Guidance Notes for Documentary Credit Formats”.
3 With regard to ICC Opinions R332 (TA212), R556 CONCLUSION: Recommend new Preliminary Consideration:
(TA525), and TA936 (not yet approved) propose to • The fact that a bank may have previously accepted discrepant documents, with or without an applicant waiver,
insert the following: does not bind that bank to accepting a similar discrepancy on any future drawing unless local law states otherwise.
“The fact that a bank may have previously accepted
discrepant documents, with or without an applicant Precedents cannot be created because, whilst circumstances may be superficially the same on the documentation
waiver, does not bind that bank to accepting a similar level, each transaction (i.e., each credit or drawing thereunder) is separate from each of its predecessors and is
discrepancy(ies) on any future drawing(s).” considered independent.
4 UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d) CONCLUSION: Recommend new Preliminary Consideration:
Data in a document, when read in context with the • As used in UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d), the text “when read in context with” means that the requirements of the
credit, the document itself and international standard documentary credit, the structure and purpose of the document itself, and international standard banking practice
banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not need to be assessed, understood and be taken into consideration in determining compliance of a document.
conflict with, data in that document, any other
stipulated document or the credit. The above wording is consistent with that stated in the “Commentary on UCP 600”.

Comments have been noted regarding correct

interpretation of the text “read in context with” – there
appears to be some uncertainty in the market.

The term “read in context” acts as an additional

qualification for the phrase “not conflict”. Whilst this
would be a suitable issue for a future Briefing Paper, it
is also considered appropriate for inclusion within
ISBP.
5 Preliminary Consideration v) CONCLUSION: Add further text at the end of Preliminary Consideration v)

ICC Global Banking Commission 2

ISBP 821 Review

The current wording “The applicant bears the risk of • In the event that an issuing bank issues a credit or amendment that is ambiguous or conflicting in its terms and
any ambiguity ...” may be misleading in some cases. conditions, it bears the risk of such ambiguity or conflict. The same applies to a confirming bank, if any, which
As as soon as an issuing bank issues a credit or, if confirms a credit which is ambiguous or conflicting in its terms and conditions.
applicable, a confirming bank confirms a credit, such
bank is then responsible for any ambiguity in the credit The existing text already states that the issuing bank should ensure that any credit or amendment it issues is not
so issued / confirmed. ambiguous or conflicting in its terms and conditions; however, further clarification is to be considered, plus extension
to the confirming bank.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES COMMENT

1 Define “all documents” CONCLUSION: Recommend new General Principle in A19 “Expressions not defined in UCP 600”:
ICC Opinion R883 / TA853rev • Include reference to “all documents” in the opening paragraph, and add new sub-paragraph (h):
When a credit requires all documents to indicate the • “all documents” – all documents required by the credit except drafts. A draft is an unconditional order in writing
contract number and date, does this include the draft and not a document for the purposes of examination of documents under a documentary credit subject to UCP 600.
and courier receipt?
Whilst ISBP 821 paragraph B1 (b) mentions that banks only examine a draft to the extent described in paragraphs
B2-B17, this does not directly help when a credit includes a reference to "all documents".
2 Technical Advisory Briefing No. 2 CONCLUSION: Recommend new General Principle: “Without delay”:
Subject: Meaning of ‘without delay’ in UCP 600 • Reference in the UCP 600 to “without delay” means that the concerned bank must complete an action as soon as
practicable for that activity and with due consideration to any given circumstance(s).
UCP 500 sub-article 14 (d) (i) made reference to a
notice of refusal being given “without delay”. This is Consistency with Briefing Paper No. 2
no longer relevant under UCP 600 which, in sub-article
16 (d), refers to the close of the fifth banking day
following the day of presentation. Whilst UCP 600 still
refers to “without delay” in articles 8, 9, 10 and 11,
none of these references directly relate to the
examination of documents. “Without delay” is a
recognised term within UCP 600, but is deliberately
not defined due to the fact that, as stated in various ICC
Opinions, the precise interpretation of this term would
depend upon the circumstances of each case. The

ICC Global Banking Commission 3

ISBP 821 Review

incorporation of a specific timeline would require an

indication of the consequence (i.e., penalty) for failure
to comply, in order for it to have any effect. It is clear
that whilst the term without delay does not signify an
immediate action, or that an action is to be completed
“at once”, it does imply a degree of urgency and
attention that the concerned bank should apply.
3 Technical Advisory Briefing No. 1 CONCLUSION: Recommend new paragraph in General Principle A26 “Non-documentary conditions and conflict of
Subject: Non-documentary conditions in Documentary data”
Credits subject to UCP 600 • The applicant and beneficiary should carefully consider the content of any non-documentary conditions. Where a
non-documentary condition is incorporated into a documentary credit, banks and the beneficiary should pay
attention to UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (d) and 14 (h).

Consistency with Briefing Paper No. 1

4 Technical Advisory Briefing No. 9 subject: Direct CONCLUSION: Recommend new General Principle: “Direct presentation of documents”:
presentation of documents to an Issuing Bank under a a. The obligation and undertaking of the issuing bank remain the same whether documents are presented via a
documentary credit subject to UCP 600. nominated bank or directly to the issuing bank. In both scenarios, the issuing bank must honour provided the
stipulated documents have been presented and that they constitute a complying presentation.
When a documentary credit stipulates a nominated b. In the interests of good practice it is strongly recommended that, in the event a documentary credit is available
bank (which may also be a confirming bank), it is with a named nominated bank and documents are presented directly to the issuing bank, the issuing bank should
usually expected that presentation of documents will be contact the nominated bank to inform them of the direct presentation (so that the nominated bank’s records can be
made to the stated nominated bank. updated) and to enquire of the details of any presentation(s) that have been made for which the issuing bank may
be unaware.
However it has been observed that, on occasion, a c. For the purposes of this General Principle, "direct" presentation includes presentation through a bank other than a
presenter may deliver the documents directly to the nominated bank'.
issuing bank, bypassing the nominated bank.
Consistency with Briefing Paper No. 9
5 The notion of “detailed” in front of a CONCLUSION: Add to preamble and new paragraph in General Principle A19: “Expressions not defined in UCP
document/certification e.g., detailed P/L or detailed 600”:
weight certificate shall have no meaning and will be • The expressions “shipping documents”, “stale documents acceptable”, “third party documents acceptable”, “third
disregarded unless otherwise defined in a credit. party documents not acceptable”, “exporting country”, “shipping company”, "detailed" and “documents acceptable
as presented” should not be used in a credit, as they are not defined in UCP 600. If, nevertheless, they are used,
and their meaning is not defined in the credit, they shall have the following meaning under international standard
banking practice:
• “detailed” – when used in the context of qualifying a document, e.g., “detailed Packing List” or “detailed Weight
List”, and unless otherwise defines in the credit, it has no meaning and is to be disregarded.
6 ISBP paragraph A31 (b): Consider deletion of the word CONCLUSION: NCs to decide on inclusion, or not, of the word “manually”. Take note of Opinion 470/TA.842rev3
“manually”. This paragraph should also apply to the

ICC Global Banking Commission 4

ISBP 821 Review

situation where the credit demands that “All documents In addition, address the consideration that the paragraph does not apply to the situation where the credit requires a
must be signed” without using the word “manually”. photocopy of an original document and the original document is required to be signed; in such case should the
photocopy show that the original document was signed?

DRAFTS COMMENT
1 Guidance Paper “Use of Drafts under Documentary CONCLUSION: Recommend new opening paragraph B1 “Recommendation”:
Credits” • Ordinarily, a UCP 600 documentary credit need not require a draft to be presented together with the stipulated
documents. Accordingly:
A number of recommendations were directed to the a. It is recommended that the habit of requiring a draft for a documentary credit available at sight be curtailed,
market. particularly sight drafts drawn on an issuing bank, confirming bank, or a bank nominated to pay.
b. UCP 600 article 2 allows for negotiation to occur under a documentary credit available by negotiation with or
without a presentation of a draft. It is recommended that the habit of requiring a sight draft for a documentary
credit available by negotiation be reviewed and that negotiating banks be encouraged to rely, not on
negotiable instruments’ law, but instead on specific agreements with beneficiaries evidencing negotiation and
their respective recourse and other rights and remedies.
c. UCP 600 sub-article 12 (b) supports the prepayment of a deferred payment undertaking. As such, it is
recommended that banks issue usance documentary credits available by deferred payment as an alternative to
availability by acceptance of a draft, unless there is specific commercial, regulatory or legal reason to create a
bankers’ acceptance.

The ICC cannot mandate market practice; however it can make recommendations. Accordingly, the conclusion from
the Guidance Paper should be reflected in the ISBP.
2 ICC Opinion TA939 CONCLUSION: Recommend new paragraph under “Basic Requirement”, B1 c):
If a requirement for a draft is repeated in the • In the event that a documentary credit is issued using an authenticated SWIFT message, the requirement for a
designated fields in the MT700 (i.e., field 42C (Drafts draft, if needed under a documentary credit, should only appear in the designated fields of the SWIFT message. If,
at...) and field 42a (Drawee) as well as in field 46A however, a requirement for a draft is repeated in more than one designated field and includes the same tenor and
(Documents Required) or field 47A (Additional drawee, this will be regarded as a repetition of the details and is to be disregarded.
Conditions,) and includes the same tenor and drawee,
this will be regarded as a repetition of the details in Recommended to deter the nonsensical interpretation that two drafts may be required.
fields 42C and 42a, and the requirement in field 46A or
47A is to be disregarded.
3 Paragraph B15 Endorsement of a draft. CONCLUSION: Recommend revised paragraph “Endorsement of a draft”
• Content and precise wording to be agreed.
Despite the protests of the drafting group for ISBP 745
the National Committees voted to have the wording Early draft versions of ISBP 745 stated, “A draft need not be endorsed.”
that exists today “A draft is to be endorsed, if
necessary.” Who decides? How does this describe a

ICC Global Banking Commission 5

ISBP 821 Review

practice when banks are required to examine Other alternatives include replacing “if necessary” with “unless required by local law” or “unless expressly required
documents on their face. by the credit.”

Although this may be perceived primarily as a legal Deletion of the paragraph, on the basis it is subject to applicable law, also to be considered. However, it is considered
issue rather than practice, the text “if necessary” is far that the only way to correctly address this issue is to state: “A draft need not be endorsed” or “A draft need not be
too vague and needs to be addressed. endorsed, unless required by the credit”.

INVOICES COMMENT
1 Technical Advisory Briefing No. 7 CONCLUSION: Recommend new paragraph C1 (c) under “Title of invoice”
Subject: Title of Invoice. • The terms “invoice” and “commercial invoice” are, for the purpose of documentary credits and UCP 600,
interchangeable. If a credit requires presentation of simply an “invoice”, UCP 600 article 18 still applies. The
Frequent observations have been made by practitioners, crucial characteristic is that the content of an invoice must appear to fulfil the function of the required document.
and on social media, as to the types of invoice that are,
or are not, acceptable for presentation under a Consistency with Briefing Paper No. 7
documentary credit.

Unfortunately, a number of misinterpretations have

been observed.
2 ISBP 821 paragraph C13 (b) CONCLUSION: Recommend revised paragraph C13:
An invoice is not to indicate goods, services or • An invoice is not to indicate:
performance not called for in the credit. This applies a. over-shipment (except as provided in UCP 600 sub-article 30 (b)), or
even when the invoice includes additional quantities of b. goods, services or performance not called for in the credit.
goods, services or performance as required by the • Unless specifically allowed by the credit, any items which are stated to be free of charge are not allowed. This
credit or samples and advertising material and are includes additional quantities of goods, services or performance as required by the credit or samples and
stated to be free of charge. advertising material.

ICC Opinion TA927rev2 The above provides a workable and transparent approach to the issue.
• Withdrawn as requested by ICC China
(initiator).
• Recommended for consideration in any
future ISBP updates.

The issuing bank refused a presentation stating that

“free of charge” goods were not allowed by the credit.
The nominated bank considered, as the credit did not
stipulate a price for the spare parts, that “free of
charge” spare parts were acceptable under the credit.

ICC Global Banking Commission 6

ISBP 821 Review

It was queried as to whether the discrepancy was valid,

and whether an invoice stating goods free of charge
was acceptable.

No consensus could be obtained on the handling of

“free of charge” (FoC) goods.
3 ISBP 821 paragraph C9 CONCLUSION: REVISED WORDING
Reference to Incoterms 2010 is outdated. When a trade term is stated as part of the goods description in the credit, an invoice is to indicate exactly that trade term, and
when the source of the trade term is stated, the same source is to be indicated. For example, a trade term indicated in a credit
Now published as Incoterms 2020. as “CIF Singapore Incoterms 2010 2020” is not to be indicated on an invoice as “CIF Singapore” or “CIF Singapore
Incoterms”. However, when a trade term is stated in the credit as “CIF Singapore” or “CIF Singapore Incoterms”, it may
also be indicated on an invoice as “CIF Singapore Incoterms 2010 2020” or any other revision.

Ensures current applicability.

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT COMMENT

1 Finetuning ISBP 821 paragraph D7 - It has been CONCLUSION: It should be explored if it is possible to clarify ISBP 821 paragraph D7 so that the practice is more
observed that some banks apply an incorrect fully aligned with that reflected in ISBP 821 paragraphs E6 (b), (c) & (d).
interpretation to ISBP 821 paragraph D7. The wording
“a multimodal transport document is to indicate a dated
on board notation” may be interpreted (wrongly) to
enforce stricter requirements than is outlined in ISBP
821 paragraphs E6 (b), (c) & (d).
2 Multimodal transports where the main transport leg is CONCLUSION: It should be explored if ISBP 821 section D can be expanded to cater for the relevant air transport
by air. practice when the main leg of the transport is by air – reference D1 (c)..
It has been observed that there are documentary credits
that, for example require the following transport route:

44E Port of loading/Airport of Departure: Any airport

and/or Seaport in Europe
44F Port of discharge/Airport of destination: Any
airport or seaport in Egypt
44B Place of final destination/For transportation
onto…/Place of delivery: [company name XXXX]
warehouse

ICC Global Banking Commission 7

ISBP 821 Review

According to ISBP 821 paragraph D1 (c), UCP 600

article 19 is to be applied in the examination of that
document, and ISBP 821 section D would determine
the applicable practice.
If an air waybill is presented, this may cause
unexpected issues, as ISBP 821 section C does not
reflect the air transport practice that is reflected in ISBP
821 section H.
This issue may also have an impact of ISBP 821
paragraph D1 (c).
3 Draft Opinion TA935 - ISBP 821 paragraph E8 (b) CONCLUSION: To be considered for update.
notation evidencing that the port of discharge is that
stated under “Place of final destination” or words of
similar effect.”

BILL OF LADING COMMENT

1 Determining the applicable transport article - paragraph CONCLUSION: Recommended that the equivalent be added to ISBP section E.
D1 (c) is also (perhaps primarily) relevant for a Bill of
Lading.
2 Cities mentioned as airports - this issue has been CONCLUSION: Recommended to be aligned with ICC Opinion TA937 in respect of airports mentioned (only) as
addressed in draft Opinion TA937 but is also relevant cities.
for bills of lading according to UCP 600 article 20.
3 D17 - consider clear clarification that when a credit CONCLUSION: To be considered for update, and potential applicability to E13 and G12.
requires a (multimodal) bill of lading consigned “to
order” of a named entity, whether a bill of lading issued
“to order” or to order of another entity and then
endorsed to the order of that entity stated in the credit is
acceptable.

NON-NEGOTIABLE SEA WAYBILL COMMENT

1 Determining the applicable transport article - paragraph CONCLUSION: Recommended that the equivalent be added to ISBP section F.
D1 (c) is also relevant for a non-negotiable Sea
Waybill.
2 Original NNSWB - many issues relating to the non- CONCLUSION: It should be explored if paragraph F10 can be expanded to cover more acceptable scenarios without
negotiable sea waybill are around originality, as it is contradicting UCP 600 sub-article 21 (a) (iv).
common practice to only issue sea waybills as PDF
documents.
3 Cities mentioned as airports - this issue has been CONCLUSION: Recommended to be aligned with ICC Opinion TA937 in respect of airports mentioned (only) as
addressed in draft Opinion TA937 but is also relevant cities.

ICC Global Banking Commission 8

ISBP 821 Review

for non-negotiable sea waybills according to UCP 600

article 21.

CHARTER PARTY BILL OF LADING COMMENT

NO ISSUES

AIR TRANSPORT COMMENT

1 Cities mentioned as airports - this issue has been CONCLUSION: Recommended to be aligned with ICC Opinion TA937 in respect of airports mentioned (only) as
addressed in draft Opinion TA937. cities.
Also consider for other transport documents, e.g., Bills of Lading and Sea Waybills.

ROAD, RAIL OR INLAND WATERWAY COMMENT

1 Explore if section J should be split into 3 separate CONCLUSION: ISBP 821 section J to be re-appraised.
sections.
For example, in recent times, virtually no actual
practice exists in respect of Inland Waterway transport
documents.

INSURANCE COMMENT
NO ISSUES

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN COMMENT

1 ICC Opinion R816 / TA772 - appeared to be an CONCLUSION: Add new paragraph under “Basic requirement and fulfilling its function”.
intention of the issuer of the certificate to refer to the
information in the box titled "observations" as an
indication of the origin of the goods. However, this box
merely referred to the entity that had produced the
goods. While the country of the producer may be a
criterion in establishing the origin of the goods, it does
not necessarily equate to the country of origin.

ICC Global Banking Commission 9

ISBP 821 Review

PACKING LIST COMMENT

1 Add a general statement relative to: Any indication CONCLUSION: Add new paragraph under “Content of a packing list”.
relative to the goods packaging/packing will fulfill the
function of a packing list. For example, when a LC Consider adding 'or "loose" or "loose in container" or the like'.
calls for goods to be packed in sacks/bags and the P/L
notes the number of pallets versus the number of bags,
this does not represent a conflict. Additionally, having
a statement that goods are shipped “in bulk” is
sufficient.
Any review to include the question of containerisation,
and consider circumstances wherein a credit is silent
regarding the way goods are to be packed.

WEIGHT LIST COMMENT

NO ISSUES

BENEFICIARY’S CERTIFCATE COMMENT

NO ISSUES

CERTIFICATES COMMENT
NO ISSUES

GENERAL ISSUES COMMENT

1 Pressure on document examiners to find PRIORITY CONCLUSION:
“discrepancies”. As stated in “Technical Advisory Briefing No. 3 Subject: Reducing discrepancy rates under Documentary Credits”,
it is apparent that significant attention should be paid to the distribution of, and guidance in the content of, the ISBP.
It is acknowledged that this problem exists, which
emphasises the critical need for the ISBP publication to The question of online access, digital availability, pricing, regular updates in line with Opinions, etc., must be
be easily accessible. Whilst most LC practitioners have addressed.
a copy of UCP 600, this is not the case for the ISBP.
A new dialogue on this issue must be established between the ICC Banking Commission, ICC Paris Secretariat, and ICC
The ISBP needs to be more widely available to the Publishing.
market; in order for this to happen, attention must be
focused on affordable pricing. Workshops, seminars and webinars should be considered on the subject of the ISBP by ICC National Committees
and by individual members of the ICC Banking Commission.

ICC Global Banking Commission 10

ISBP 821 Review

Online ICC training sessions/webinars also need to be HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED BY AN ISBP REVISION – IT IS STRONGLY
considered. RECOMMENDED THAT THE ICC BANKING COMMISSION STEERCO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE
PROJECT TO COVER THESE ISSUES – TO BE REFERRED TO STEERCO

DIGITAL ISSUES COMMENT

1 Format of electronic documents CONCLUSION: A separate approach for “digital” in, or separate to, ISBP needs to be considered in respect of the
eUCP sub-article e7 (c), by placing the risk of failure to below two issues:
specify a format on the issuing bank, follows from • Where not defined or modified in the current version of eUCP, definitions given in UCP 600 will continue to
eUCP article e5 which provides that an eUCP credit apply.
‘must indicate the format of each electronic record’. • In respect of a credit subject to the current version of eUCP, the applicant and beneficiary should also ensure that
Article e5 assumes that the issuing bank will designate any eUCP credit (or amendment thereof) indicate the required format of each electronic record. If the format of an
a format that a bank is able to access. Sub-article e7 (c) electronic record is not indicated, it may be presented in any format.
so provides, indicating that the failure to indicate a
format, or indication of a format that cannot be
accessed is not a basis for refusal of the electronic
record. This sub-article underlines the importance of
giving due consideration in advance to the format to be
required in the credit.

Reference is made in eUCP to terms that also appear in

UCP 600, but have a different meaning when applied to
an electronic record presented under an eUCP credit.

Definitions in UCP 600 continue to be applicable for

eUCP.

The eUCP is technology neutral and does not specify

the use of any particular format. The format is to be
stated in the eUCP credit in a manner that is
comprehensible to the presenter.
2 Electronic Documents CONCLUSION: A separate approach for “digital” in, or separate to, ISBP needs to be considered in respect of the
Under the eUCP Version 2.1, an electronic record below two issues:
means data created, generated, sent, communicated, • Should the involved parties consider it to be of benefit to allow for emailed presentations and file attachments, the
received or stored by electronic means, including ideal solution is for any relevant credits to be issued subject to the current version of eUCP. The UCP 600,
where appropriate, all information logically associated although being invaluable in a paper world, provides limited protection when applied to emailed presentations.
with or otherwise linked together so as to become part Usage of the eUCP extends the mitigation of risk from a paper environment to one that is electronic, whilst

ICC Global Banking Commission 11

ISBP 821 Review

of the record, whether generated contemporaneously or explicitly and unambiguously supporting the usage of electronic file attachments and scanned images, as well as
not, that is (a) capable of being authenticated as to the electronic records.
apparent identity of a sender and the apparent source of • Credits that require presentation of electronic documents should be issued subject to the current version of eUCP
the data contained in it, and as to whether it has with the wording of the credit stating the required format of the electronic document, with an additional condition
remained complete and unaltered, and (b) capable of that if the electronic document is presented in a paper format, any caveats/notations that are added to the paper
being examined for compliance with the terms and document, e.g., “print without legal value”, are acceptable. If any exceptions are required, these must be stated
conditions of the eUCP credit. separately in the credit.

As mentioned under article e1, the intent of the eUCP Based upon Digital Commercialisation Briefing Paper No. 1.
rules is that they function by reference to UCP 600, and
do not stand as a set of self-contained rules, such as The mode of presentation to the nominated bank, confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank, by or on behalf of the
ISP98 or URDG 758. Sub-article e2 (a) provides that beneficiary, of electronic records alone or in combination with paper documents, is outside the scope of the eUCP.
there is no need to expressly incorporate UCP 600 Nevertheless, it is a practice that requires a clarifying reference.
within an eUCP credit. Such credits are automatically
also subject to UCP 600. Question whether an email and/or attachment needs to be authenticated.

As used throughout UCP 600, the term ‘document’ Refer also suggested new General Principle below: “Email presentations and file attachments”
suggests format in a paper medium. Unless specifically
allowed under the terms and conditions of a UCP 600
credit, it is expected that all presentations under such a
credit be in a paper format.

Under eUCP Version 2.1 sub-article e3 (a) (ii), the

term ‘document’ shall include an electronic record.
3 Digital Commercialisation Briefing Paper No. 1 CONCLUSION: A separate approach for “digital” in, or separate to, ISBP needs to be considered in respect of the
Subject: Risk of email presentations and file below issue:
attachments under Documentary Credits subject to • The presentation of documents under documentary credits via email should be avoided. However, if such practice
UCP 600 is to proceed then, at the minimum, careful note should be taken of the following:
a. Format of the emails and file attachments to be agreed up-front by all parties to the transaction.
b. Availability and maintenance of an appropriate data processing system.
c. Updated operational risk management policy.
d. Dedicated email addresses and resources.

As highlighted in the Briefing Paper, the trade finance industry has seen an increase in the number of documentary
credits allowing for email presentations.

The delivery of documents by, or on behalf of, a beneficiary is outside the scope of the UCP 600. Nevertheless, it is a
practice that requires a clarifying reference. Consideration to be given for addition of examples in bullet (a), e.g.
"pdf", "doc(x)"; "xls"; "bat", etc.

ICC Global Banking Commission 12

ISBP 821 Review

4 Presentation of paper document only. CONCLUSION: Consider clear statement in either Preliminary Considerations or General principles that whenever
the credit is subject to UCP 600, as opposed to eUCP, presentation of paper documents is required.

Unless expressly allowed by the credit. receipt of the documents by e-mail, e.g., as attachments, or provision of a link
to an external source from which the documents may be retrieved or generated and printed does not meet the
requirement for presentation of paper documents.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION COMMENT

1 Encourage the use of the MMTD - when drafting UCP CONCLUSION: It should be explored if it is feasible – within an updated ISBP – to encourage and increase the
600, the “Transport Document Covering at Least Two usage of the “Transport Document Covering at Least Two Different Modes of Transport”.
Different Modes of Transport” was placed as the first
of the transport documents – to encourage the usage of
this (more flexible) transport document. Based on
industry information, and the queries raised to the ICC,
it still appears as if the traditional “port-to-port” bill of
lading is the dominant transport document required
under documentary credits.
2 On board notations - ICC Guidance Paper, CONCLUSION: Consider if Sections D, E, F & G should be updated to reflect the practices in respect of on board
“Recommendations in respect of the requirements for notations (and any other relevant issues) and include a relevant reference to the Guidance Paper.
an on board notation”.
3 Numbering of a transport document - it has been CONCLUSION: Suggested that a paragraph in each applicable section of ISBP address this issue. May only be an
observed that some banks refuse presentations on the issue for CPBL’s.
basis that the page with the actual shipping information
is numbered as “page 2”.
Rationale is that page 2 is generally the page with the
terms and conditions and considered as “page 1”. The
refusal then (wrongly) states that “page 1 is missing”.
4 Add a general statement that a bank’s neglecting to CONCLUSION: Whilst not strictly an issue to be covered by the existing scope of ISBP 821 (i.e., examination of
immediately add an endorsement to a document such as documents), this should be addressed in some format. However, this is an issuing bank / applicant issue.
an insurance policy, transport document, etc., payable Also to consider whether any update should cover endorsements of transport documents and, maybe, insurance
to, or consigned to it, may delay but cannot cause non- document (in more detail). If so, for transport documents, it should include what is becoming quite common - a
payment/non-reimbursement under a complying CPBL that shows the shipper as ABC and the consignee field as “To order” with no endorsement. Effectively,
presentation. making it a bearer document. The document is then endorsed by DEF in favour of LMN. This would comply,
certainly in law.

ICC Global Banking Commission 13

ISBP 821 Review

In such cases, a bank will have the opportunity to add

endorsement, even if the correction occurs after an
expiration date.
5 Presentation indicating “Extend or Pay”: ICC Opinion CONCLUSION: Whilst a presentation which includes a reference to extending a credit or paying the presentation, it
R869 / TA841rev2 does not provide sufficient should include the expected new expiry date/period. As such, it must be examined for compliance with the
guidance on this topic. terms/conditions of the credit and, if non-compliant, refused in accordance with UCP 600 Article 16; or, if compliant,
Suggest inclusion in ISBP and alignment to the ISDGP. and the confirming bank and/or issuing bank agree to an extension, such decision must be completed within the
This was deliberated upon in the ISBP 745 Opinions maximum days allowed for the examination of a presentation.
review in 2023 and considered not to be an ISBP issue
under the current scope. It can be considered by Consider that this is primarily a standby credit issue which may not be relevant for UCP and ISBP, as it rarely
National Committees if approval is given by the occurs under standby credits subject to UCP. Incorporation in ISBP may lead to misunderstandings whether and to
SteerCo in April to proceed with a revision. what extent it would apply to "commercial" credits.
6 Add a clause similar to paragraph 143 (additional CONCLUSION: Whilst this is a very rare event under a documentary credit subject to UCP 600 and is more suited
implications added by a bank) in the ISDGP. to ISP98 and Standby Credits, the option should be considered for inclusion in ISBP.
No ICC Opinion for UCP 600 and/or ISBP has ever
been raised on this issue.
7 Covering Letter Statements - a presenting bank’s CONCLUSION: Consider adding guidance similar to: “When a covering schedule indicates that documents sent on
covering schedule date is not to be considered as the ‘collection’ or ‘approval’ basis, the presentation is still governed by UCP 600. [reference ICC Opinion R537/TA77]
presentation/receipt date of the presenting bank. In the However, in instances where the cover letter indicates that the presentation is subject to URC 522, the issuing bank
majority of cases, it is presumed that the presentation is must process the presentation in accordance with URC 522.
received prior to the covering schedule date. When a
covering schedule is dated after the latest permitted
date of presentation and/or expiry date, any statement
certifying that the terms and conditions have been
complied or that documents were presented within
validity, etc., will be sufficient evidence of presentation
that the presentation occurred within the expiry date
and/or last date for presentation.
Under the current scope, this is not within the remit.
8 Document mailing – there are a number of opinions on CONCLUSION: Although the presentation of documents is not strictly within the current scope of ISBP 821, to be
this topic. Potential to add guidance, e.g.: deliberated if such inclusion is warranted.
- When silent, documents should be sent in one If this type of issue is to be added, it may better be included be in a section at the very end, recognising that it is an
lot. Less than a full presentation is a event after the examination is concluded.
discrepancy.
- Credits requiring two mailings: the
nominated/presenting bank should send the
first lot consisting of at least one original of
all of the required documents (including any
sole original). The second lot will consist of

ICC Global Banking Commission 14

ISBP 821 Review

all remaining originals if any, and copies of

the documents required by the Credit.
[reference ICC Opinion R415/TA501]
- When the beneficiary is forwarding
documents directly to the issuing bank, the
issuing bank must receive the full
presentation (both lots) within the last date of
presentation and/or expiry date of the Credit
[reference ICC Opinion R787 / TA785rev].

ICC Global Banking Commission 15