At its first quarterly discussion session of 2026 on 27 January, the ICC Banking Commission finalized ICC Opinion TA958rev. It also provided updates on the status of Technical Advisory Briefings, the future of UCP & ISBP, and meeting dates.
ICC Opinion TA958rev involves a query about a commercial LC requiring presentation of a full set negotiable bill of lading marked “freight prepaid”. Among information on the presented B/L, it stated "Freight prepaid- payable at D" under the section "description of packages and goods as stated by the shipper …". Additionally, the B/L contained a pre-printed field titled "freight to be paid at" where "D" was also stated.
The confirming bank refused the presentation, citing a discrepancy based on inclusion of “payable at D” alongside “freight prepaid”. Referencing two UCP600 sub-articles, including Article 14(d), the confirming bank contended that while "freight prepaid" indicates settlement of freight charges, the addition of "payable at D" introduces an element of doubt or a conditional aspect to the prepayment and creates a direct contradiction as to the “prepaid” status of the freight.
In its Analysis, the Opinion said that in commercial and shipping usage, "freight prepaid – payable at [place]" is not inherently contradictory, explaining that the statement merely combines two distinct notions: 1) "freight prepaid”, indicating the status of charges (i.e., settled); and 2) “payable at [place]", indicating the geographical reference for the carrier’s billing or settlement office.
The Analysis mentioned a similar issue was addressed in ICC Opinion R691/TA604rev (2006) which found no inconsistency or contradiction. That Opinion referred to ICC Publication 371, ICC Doc 470/309 [ICC Opinion] R. 21 which also decided there was no discrepancy. However, mention of ICC Opinion R. 21 was deleted from the TA958 draft because ICC deemed ICC Publication 371 to be no longer available nor accessible. (Following the session, the ICC Banking Commission was provided a scanned image of ICC Opinion R. 21 decided in 1977, but its mention could not be restored in Final ICC Opinion TA958rev prior to its release.)
Opinion TA958rev concluded that the cited discrepancy is not valid, adding that the statement “Freight prepaid – payable at D” does not conflict with an LC requiring “freight prepaid” and should be regarded under international standard banking practice as compliant, unless the context explicitly suggests freight remains to be settled with a statement such as “freight collect at …” or “freight payable at destination”.
Attendees of the session were then informed that Technical Advisory Briefing No. 17 (“Surrendered Bills of Lading”) will soon be published[[1]] and precede release of TAB No. 15 (“Force Majeure under documentary credits subject to UCP 600”) and TAB No. 16 (“Third party documents: usage, examination and acceptance under UCP 600”) which are still being drafted.
Regarding the ICC Banking Commission Steering Committee’s request for views on possible revision of UCP600 and/or ISBP, Senior Technical Advisor Dave Meynell reported that an abundance of very useful responses were received and are currently with the Steering Committee. Thereafter, the consolidated feedback will be sent to ICC National Committees to decide what’s next. Any NC advocating for UCP revision will be expected to explain why – supported by specific use cases, articles, or practical examples – a revision might be warranted. Given the quality and quantity of feedback collected, the sense is that something should be done; if not a rules revision, then an educational initiative. NCs will also be asked to determine whether the Banking Commission should continue with its ISBP revision process or focus on its ISBP Education Project.
The next ICC Banking Commission meeting will be 17 March followed by sessions in July 2026 and November 2026 (dates to be determined).
[[1]]: TAB No. 17 was issued 27 January 2026. For overview, see here in DCW
