A Critical Review of ICC Opinion TA.948
Since a draft was included in the presentation at issue in ICC Opinion TA.948, it prompts important questions about examination not only under UCP but also under bills of exchange law.
ICC Banking Commission Opinion TA.948 (2024) addressed a Query involving two discrepancies in a particular presentation. One was on drafts. The other was about a packing list. This analysis restricts itself to the matter impacting drafts.
Background of the Discrepancy
The LC required, among others:
BENEFICIARY DRAFT DRAWN ON (ISSUING BANK) AT 90 DAYS FROM INVOICE DATE …
According to the Query, the nominated bank “received from the beneficiary documents containing, among others, drafts, issued to the order of the beneficiary”. The drafts were not further endorsed by the beneficiary to anyone in particular.
Read next
DCW Monthly: April 2026
The ICC Banking Commission decided not to revise UCP 600 or ISBP 821. The argument: the rules are fine, what&
Diverse Views Define UCP Revision Voting
There will be no revision of the UCP 600 rules undertaken by the ICC Banking Commission at this time. Additionally,
ICC Unveils Two-Year UCP, ISBP Action Plan
Billed as a deliberate shift from rule revision to rule optimisation, the ICC Banking Commission’s 2026-2027 Action Plan – UCP/
The Hidden Risks of Varying a Confirmation's Terms
Exactly what is an issuing bank authorizing or requesting a nominated bank to do when it requests the bank to “add its confirmation” to a credit? Several considerations and questions should be weighed by a would-be confirmer.
