In the latest rollout of its Technical Advisory Briefings (TABs), the ICC Banking Commission has issued TAB No. 13, “Confirmation of a documentary credit under UCP 600” and TAB No. 14, “Procedure for payment under documentary credits subject to UCP 600”.
Both TABs were released on 18 August 2025 and are freely available at the ICC Digital Library along with all previously issued technical advisory briefings.
TAB No. 13 – Confirmation
Acknowledging that confusion can arise regarding confirmation of a UCP600 credit in certain instances, TAB-13 first references the UCP600 Article 2 definition of confirmation, common reasons why a beneficiary requests confirmation, and what a bank undertakes when it adds its confirmation to a credit. It ends by underscoring the important added layer of security confirmation affords beneficiaries and emphasizing the need for confirming banks to adhere to UCP600 Article 8 and international standard banking practice.
The bulk of TAB-13 examines seven proven stumbling blocks for some practitioners in this area and offers clarification in hopes of increasing understanding.
1) When a confirmation becomes binding
A confirming bank becomes irrevocably bound to honour or negotiate without recourse as of the time it adds its confirmation to the documentary credit following an instruction or authorisation to confirm. The TAB-13 Analysis then details the process, including treatment of any amendment.
2) Discrepant documents
Noting that confirmation depends on presentation of complying documents and that discrepant documents fall short of this measure, the Analysis reminds that a confirming bank must separately decide whether to “reinstate” its confirmation should the issuing bank accept the discrepant documents. Since UCP600 does not explicitly address the reinstatement process, it is left to the confirming bank’s discretion and its agreement with the beneficiary.
3) Reinstatement of a confirmation
In addition to discrepant documents, the Analysis addresses three other situations where a confirmation may cease to be applicable including a confirming bank opting not to confirm an amendment, a beneficiary refusing an amendment impacting the confirmation, and a credit that expires or is cancelled.
4) Conditional confirmation
Although not formally covered in UCP600, conditional confirmation is used in practice as a means of allowing a confirming bank to manage its risk and operational capabilities while still providing some level of confirmation to the beneficiary. The TAB-13 Analysis mentions five examples. It emphasizes that these types of modification apply only to the confirmation and not to the original terms and conditions of the credit to which the issuing bank remains bound.
5) Double confirmation
Although uncommon, double confirmation can occur whereby two banks add their confirmation to a single documentary credit. The Analysis references situations when it can happen. In instances of double confirmation, the TAB recommends that the issuing bank and two confirming banks agree on the roles that each confirming bank is to perform and their respective advice of confirmation should clearly outline those roles.
6) Confirmation added to a transferred credit
Citing UCP600 Article 38(g), the Analysis reminds that when a transferable credit has been confirmed, any transferred credit must also be treated as confirmed. This should be expressly communicated to the second beneficiary. The Analysis also points out this is not to be seen as a “doubling-up” of confirmation.
7) Confirmation authorised or requested
The Briefing also seeks to dispel confusion over what the terms “authorization” and “request” – as used in the UCP600 Article 2 definition of Confirming Bank – mean and how each is conveyed in a credit. Referring to MT700 field 49 confirmation instruction options, the Analysis explains that a request to add confirmation is when field 49 states “CONFIRM”. A confirming bank adding its confirmation need not obtain beneficiary consent to fulfil this requirement. An authorization to add confirmation is when field 49 states “MAY ADD”. In this case, the Analysis says: “international standard banking practice is that the documentary credit will be advised unconfirmed with a clause indicating that the bank has been authorised to add confirmation upon receipt of a request from the beneficiary.”
TAB No. 14 – Procedure for payment
Under recent prior versions of UCP, it was expected that the beneficiary was to receive payment under a credit. Under UCP600, this is not necessarily the case as the payment process under credits can be more complex. TAB-14 explains that the current rules reflect a shift in actual practice norms “towards a more document-centric, bank-intermediated payment process, rather than a direct payment to the beneficiary.”
Noting UCP600’s focus on an issuing bank’s undertaking to honour a complying presentation, TAB-14 goes on to review specific situations how payments are made through intermediary banks. The Analysis addresses circumstances when an issuing bank has a primary undertaking to reimburse the nominated bank and when its undertaking is directly to the beneficiary or to a presenter that is acting on the beneficiary’s behalf. The Analysis also posits: “It is good international standard banking practice for a confirming bank or any other nominated bank to indicate in its covering schedule whether it has honoured or negotiated or will do so once the issuing bank provides an acceptance of the documents.”
TAB-14 further addresses scenarios involving an assignment of proceeds and transferable and transferred credits. In each case, the payment priority is not altered. Rather, an assignment of proceeds directs where proceeds should go once they are payable to the beneficiary. For a transferable and transferred credit, the Analysis explains that a new payment structure within the existing credit is created whereby the transferring bank becomes an intermediary between the original credit structure and the second beneficiary, while the original payment undertakings remain in place.
TAB-14 concludes by informing that it does not address legal considerations which could impact the sequence of payment priority.
