At its quarterly meeting on 21 July 2026, the ICC Banking Commission reviewed and finalized six Opinions, including four dealing with queries submitted by ICC Czech Republic. The Banking Commission’s Technical Advisory Team commended the group of 32 ICC National Committees (NCs) that commented on the set of draft opinions in advance of the meeting.
ICC Opinion TA959
ICC Opinion TA959 involves a demand under a URDG 758 counter-guarantee that was deemed non-compliant and refused. Thereafter, the counter-guarantee expired without any formal release being received from the guarantor. The query asks whether the counter-guarantor may cancel its counter-guarantee and close its records without having received any release notice from the guarantor.
The Analysis first noted the need to consider whether the refusal was justified. The counter-guarantee required the guarantor to state it had received a complying demand under the guarantee, but the guarantor’s statement merely acknowledged receipt of the beneficiary's demand and statement of breach. As a result, the counter-guarantor was entitled to reject the guarantor’s demand.
After quoting URDG 758 Article 25(b), the Analysis explained that termination is automatic on expiry and there is no URDG requirement for a release to be issued when the counter-guarantee has already expired. As a result, the counter guarantor may close its counter-guarantee on expiry.
The Analysis also stated that since the counter-guarantee did not require the advance payment to refer to the guarantee number as a condition of its effectiveness, this part of the counter-guarantor’s refusal is not supported by the counter-guarantee’s wording but does not affect the Opinion’s Conclusion regarding termination following expiry.
In ICC NC comments received, some remarks maintained that implementation clauses quoted in the query constituted non-documentary conditions. The TA Team emphasized that the scope of this Opinion is limited to expiry, cannot opine on additional background information contained in the query, and can only answer the question asked in the query.
In discussion, one NC member suggested the Opinion might go one step further to affirm that when two reasons are given for refusal – one valid, one not – the demand is still rejected. This suggestion was accepted and incorporated into the final Opinion.
ICC Opinion TA960
ICC Opinion TA960 deals with a UCP600 LC under which a valid claim was made. The issuing bank sent a MT756 (Advice of Reimbursement or Payment) to the advising bank, confirming payment with the claimed value date. Payment through the issuing bank’s USD correspondent bank, however was delayed due to two rounds of sanctions review by the correspondent for which issuing bank responded promptly with the requisite information. After payment was made, advising bank sent a claim to the issuing bank for delayed payment interest. Issuing bank forwarded the claim to its correspondent who would not honour the claim. The query asks if the advising bank is entitled to this interest, and if so, from which party. The query also inquired if there is any timing standard for sanctions review and whether use of a sanctions clause within the LC would have made a difference.
The Analysis explained that UCP600 does not address the allocation of responsibility for delays arising from banks’ sanctions screening or other regulatory compliance reviews and that responsibility would “depend on the arrangements between the parties and any applicable law or regulation.” Additionally, UCP 600 does not contain any timing standard for such reviews, nor does it have a basis for assessment of any resulting delay. Inclusion of a sanctions clause would be immaterial as regulatory obligations apply in any event. The Analysis also referenced the ICC Guidance Paper on the Use of Sanctions Clauses. It further added that banks “should ensure that any potential delays (arising from sanctions screening) are minimised and that transparency is maintained throughout the process.” The Opinion concluded that the matter of “interest for delayed payment due to sanctions and compliance screenings is not covered by UCP600 or ISBP 821 and is outside the scope of the credit.”
In discussion, some ICC NC commenters suggested that the issuing bank is responsible for loss of interest and lamented that some banks use sanctions screening as an excuse for delay. While that may need addressed, it cannot be done within this Opinion. The TA Team explained that UCP600 Article 13(b)(iii) cannot be relied upon in this instance and emphasized that the question in this query is purely about sanctions and compliance screening.
ICC Opinion TA961
ICC Opinion TA961 deals with a set of transferable LCs subject to UCP600 for which presentations were deemed compliant by the nominated bank but non-complying by the issuing bank. Discrepancies cited by the issuing bank related to four aspects of the invoice, including that the invoice’s stated fulfillment date differed form that on the CMR. It also cited the absence of a required consignee address on the CMR and that presentation of a delivery note instead of a packing list contravened ISBP Paragraph A39. The query asks whether any of the stated discrepancies are valid.
The stated discrepancies pertaining to the invoice were not valid as the referenced wording in each instance did not create conflict and satisfied UCP600 Article 14(d). As regards a “fulfillment date” on the invoice, the Analysis noted that this is not a defined term in UCP600 and the LC did not require such date to be on any document. Therefore, there is no basis under Article 14(d) that this date needs compared to any date on the CMR.
As for absence of consignee’s address on the CMR, the LC did not require consignee details, including an address, be shown. Thus, ISBP 821 Paragraph J10 applies and such transport document need not indicate address details. Regarding presentation of a “Delivery Note” instead of a “Packing List”, such document needs assessed by reference to its function rather than its title and the document presented contained details which fulfilled the function of a packing list. The Analysis cited UCP600 Article 14(f) and ISBP 821 Paragraphs A39 and M1. These discrepancies were also determined to be invalid.
ICC Opinion TA962
ICC Opinion TA962 deals with a bank presenting documents under a UCP600-issued LC and disputing two discrepancies cited by the issuing bank: “Total quantity of shipped goods not mentioned in commercial invoice and [packing list]” and “Country of origin does not comply LC field 46A(4)”. Presenting bank argued that neither the LC nor UCP600 required the documents show the total quantity and that its presented certificate of origin listed the relevant countries of origin. The query asks a series of questions regarding proper understanding of ISBP 821 Paragraphs M6 and A22, whether the issuing bank was correct in applying ISBP 821 Paragraph M6 and UCP600 Article 18(c), and if the issuing bank was right that the origin of the goods need stated separately for each item.
On the absence of a stated total quantity in the invoice and packing list, this does not create a discrepancy in either case. The Analysis pointed out that UCP600 Article 18(c) does not require a total quantity be stated in a commercial invoice, ISBP 821 Paragraph A22 (Mathematical calculations) provides that “banks only determine the stated total … does not conflict with the credit or any other stipulated document”, and ISBP 821 Paragraph M6 (Content of a packing list) provides that “Banks only examine total values, including but not limited to, total quantities … .” The Analysis went on to explain that banks are not obligated to perform calculations to determine if there is a conflict and that these ISBP paragraphs do not require that total amounts must be included in the presented documents. The Analysis further added: “Nor do [ISBP 821 Paragraphs A22 and M6] prevent a bank from performing a simple calculation in order to verify that the stated quantities do not conflict with the requirements of the credit.”
On the country of origin matter, the LC did not require an origin be stated separately for each individual item. The presented certificate of origin listed the relevant countries of origin and referred to the invoice, thus establishing a clear link to the goods. Summarizing ISBP 821 Paragraph L1 on a certificate of origin’s basic requirement, the Analysis went on to say UCP600 and ISBP 821 do not require that the origin of goods be stated on an item-by-item basis unless the credit requires such detail. The cited discrepancy is not valid.
ICC Opinion TA963
ICC Opinion TA963 involves questions about use of MT700 Fields 71D (Charges) and 78 (Instructions to the Paying/Accepting/Negotiating Bank). A UCP600 LC issued via Swift MT700 stated in Field 71D: “All banking charges – yours inclusive – are for applicant's account” and a lengthy one-sentence clause in Field 78: “An amount of EUR 100.00 or equivalent will be deducted from the amount paid, as handling charges generated by the discrepancies on the documents presented, if any more our Swift fees being: EUR 35.00”.
After a complying presentation was made by the presenting bank, the issuing bank paid but deducted EUR 35.00. The query asks whether the wording in Field 78 entitles the issuing bank to deduct its Swift fee and whether the Field 78 wording, that is a bank-to-bank instruction, may modify the wording contained in Field 71D.
The Analysis said the Field 78 wording is unclear how the Swift fees are to apply and explained that such ambiguity cannot disadvantage the beneficiary or presenter. Further, the Swift User Handbook provides that Field 78 is intended to specify bank-to-bank instructions and should not be used for conditions impacting the beneficiary. About the Field 71D wording, the Analysis said “it would be reasonable for the beneficiary and presenter to understand that all banking charges, including Swift charges, were for the applicant’s account.” As a result, the Analysis went on to add the Field 78 wording does not displace the express allocation of charges specified in Field 71D.
The Opinion concluded that the referenced Field 78 wording applies only for a discrepant presentation. In any event, it added that Field 78 “does not clearly establish an entitlement for the issuing bank to deduct Swift charges from the proceeds”, regardless of discrepancies or under a complying presentation.
ICC Opinion TA964
ICC Opinion TA964 involves a transferable LC subject to UCP600 and the substitution of documents. In response to circulation of its Draft Opinion TA964 to ICC NCs, ICC Technical Advisors received many pages of comments which signaled to the TA Team there is a great deal of confusion in the market how UCP600 Article 38 (Transferable Credits) works.
As stated in the query, a transferring bank received a timely presentation from the second beneficiary’s bank on the expiry date and last day of the presentation period. After examining and determining the presentation complied, the transferring bank contacted the first beneficiary for substitution of their invoices in accordance with UCP600 Article 38(h). These documents were received three days later, subsequently examined, deemed compliant, and forwarded to the issuing bank. Issuing bank refused, stating discrepancies “Credit expired” and “Late presentation (later than 20 days after shipment)”. Transferring bank contested, but issuing bank maintained its stance, stating the transferring bank only had five business days for examination, as per UCP600 Article 14(b). The query asks timing-related questions about the substitution of documents and examination thereof by the transferring bank and whether the issuing bank was correct in its reliance on UCP600 Article 14(b).
The Analysis explained that these UCP rules “necessarily contemplate” that when a complying presentation is made by the second beneficiary that is within the validity of the transferred credit, “an additional operational period may arise, after expiry, for the examination of the second beneficiary’s presentation; communication with the first beneficiary; receipt of the substituted documents; and the examination thereof.” The Analysis went on to add that these steps “do not constitute a new presentation under the credit but rather form part of the substitution mechanism expressly contemplated by article 38.”
Based on the query’s details, the first beneficiary substituted its documents on the third day from the date requested. The Analysis stated this period of time is not unreasonable and does not violate UCP600 Article 38. Conversely, the issuing bank erred in its reliance on UCP600 Article 14(b) which “does not prohibit the operational steps contemplated under article 38 following a substitution on first demand by the first beneficiary.”
The Opinion determined that the issuing bank did not have the right to disregard the nominated and transferring bank’s affirmation of timely presentation and cited past ICC Opinions R373, R481, and TA933rev that support this position.
Opinion TA964 also advises that: ”Although, in the circumstances described, the transferring bank acted in accordance with UCP 600 article 38, transferring banks should, where practicable, consider insisting upon the curtailment of the expiry date and/or presentation period when transferring a credit.”
In review of the written ICC NC comments, the TA Team emphasized that nothing contained in UCP600 Article 38 states that the substitution right expires upon expiry of the LC. Rather, UCP600 Article 38(h) and 38(i) preserve the first beneficiary’s right to substitute its invoice and draft, if any, after expiry. Evidencing that this has been long-standing UCP practice, the TA Team pointed to the final paragraph of ICC Opinion R83 (1980) and urged specialists to review it:
The Commission decided that the time-limits established in [UCP290 Articles 37 (Expiry Date) and 41 (Presentation)] applied to presentation of documents by the second beneficiary and not to the substitution of the first beneficiary’s invoices for those of the second beneficiary, noting that [UCP290 Article 46 (g) (Transfer)] permitted, but not specifically require, reduction or curtailment of the period of validity, and that [UCP290] Article 46 (g) specifically allowed transfer ‘up to and including the expiry date of the original credit, and without prejudice to the first beneficiary’s right subsequently to substitute his own invoices for those of the second beneficiary …’. Therefore, such substitutions must be made ‘on first demand’ in the terms of [UCP290] Article 46 (f) and can validly take place after the expiry of the time-limits set by [UCP290] Articles 37 and 41.
In discussion, some NC commenters said there should be a stipulated time period for the substitution of documents. But there is no defined time frame; it is reasonable practice. Similar to without delay, UCP cannot define it. Another commenter acknowledged that the first beneficiary has the right to substitute documents, but suggested this brings into question whether certain other UCP600 articles do not apply. In their view, it is unclear and needs to be articulated.
For one TA Team member, the most important message emerging from this Opinion is that “a transferring bank should, at the time of transfer, clearly inform the first beneficiary of their expectations as to the period within which they expect any documents to be substituted following the transferring bank’s advice to them of receipt of the second beneficiary’s documents. In other words, an advice of the transferring bank’s ‘first demand’ period.”
Concluding the discussion, the TA Team underscored the need for clarification: This ICC Opinion TA964 is the first step. A Technical Advisory Briefing on transferable credits will be produced in the coming months.
