First introduced in 1997, DOCDEX is a rapid, cost-effective dispute resolution system intended to resolve disputes involving ICC rules on documentary credits (UCP 500). Expanded in 2002 to cover the ICC Uniform Rules for Collections (URC) and the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG), the process normally takes 30-60 days, with most cases resolved within 30 days.
DOCDEX has been used by practitioners worldwide who need quick decisions on outstanding conflicts to avoid lengthy and expensive court cases.
Now, for the first time, all of the DOCDEX decisions taken over a seven-year period have been collected in a single volume. This indexed volume of DOCDEX decisions gives the reader an insight into the thinking of ICC experts who must judge difficult cases involving ICC rules. As such, it’s an invaluable companion to the rules themselves.
| Code ISBN : | 978-92-842-1334-4 |
| Language : | English |
| Format in cm : | N/A |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD 3
DOCDEX DECISIONS 1997–2003
DECISION No. 201.......................................................................... 11
UCP 500 Articles 1, 2, 13; sub-Article 13(b); Articles 21 and 4
Can a standby letter of credit subject to UCP 500 also be the subject of a DOCDEX case? Is a copy of a CMR compliant if any discrepancy therein cannot be ascertained from the terms and conditions of the standby and the documents alone? Is a copy of a compensation invoice concerning costs of return of goods compliant if it appears to be signed by the beneficiary?
DECISION No. 202.......................................................................... 16
UCP 500 Articles 21 and 23
Packing list presented by a party other than the beneficiary; “certificate of quality” as the required certificate; whether banks should investigate the means of delivery on a B/L.
DECISION No. 203.......................................................................... 18
UCP 500 Article 21, sub-Articles 37(c) and 13(a)
Whether there was an inconsistency between the commercial invoices, packing lists and bills of lading under the documentary credits in question.
DECISION No. 204.......................................................................... 21
UCP 500 sub-Article 13(a); Articles 21, 28, 41; sub-Article 37(c)
Where a CMR mentioned two different companies for consignment; claimed discrepancies in a packing list and an invoice; stamp of carrier missing; claim of shipping schedule not respected; weight list with no description of the goods.
DECISION No. 205.......................................................................... 24
UCP 500 sub-Articles 13(a) and 37(a); Article 21
Typographical errors in a credit; missed weight on packing list; notify details on AWB that are different from L/C terms.
DECISION No. 206.......................................................................... 31
UCP 500 sub-Article 13(a); Article 21; sub-Article 5(b); Article 12
Whether an invoice showing a DC quantity of goods was discrepant when the L/C indicated under field 45A of the SWIFT MT 700 a different quantity; whether a certificate of origin produced by the manufacturer showing one invoice number was consistent with the beneficiary’s invoice which showed number(s) in a different form.
DECISION No. 207.......................................................................... 35
UCP 500 sub-Articles 5(b) and 13(a)
Whether the certificate of origin and the shipping company certificate had to show the production and expiry date; whether all documents should have shown the L/C number; whether there was an inconsistency in the dates on the shipping certificate and the B/L.
DECISION No. 208.......................................................................... 38
UCP 500 sub-Articles 37(c) and 13(c)
Whether an amended Incoterm in an invoice was a discrepancy.
DECISION No. 209.......................................................................... 40
UCP 500 Articles 2, 9 and 4
Must the issuing bank pay when one of the documents, an inspection certificate, is not presented to it?
DECISION No. 210 ........................................................................ 42
UCP 500 sub-Articles 14(e), 9(a) and (b)
Implications of failing to hold documents at the disposal of the beneficiary or to send them back; indication of intention to deal with non-complying documents; effect of instruction from the issuing bank authorizing acceptance of discrepancies.
DECISION No. 211 ........................................................................ 47
UCP 500 sub-Article 13(a), Articles 2, 20 and 38
Whether an issuing bank is required to accept the combination in one document of individual independent documents stipulated in the letter of credit; whether by having taken up previously a set of documents with a specific discrepancy, an issuing bank is prejudiced to take up a further presentation of documents with the same specific discrepancy under the same credit.
DECISION No. 212.......................................................................... 51
UCP 500 sub-Article 3(a)
Where a letter of credit contained a clause permitting the issuing bank to deduct certain amounts from payments under the letter of credit.
DECISION No. 213.......................................................................... 53
UCP 500 Articles 21, 13 and 4
Whether the provisional weight and moisture certificate and provisional certificate of assay was required to show the issuing date; the right to treat each set of documents independently; impact of goods being cleared by the applicant; status of ICC publication no. 535.
DECISION No. 214.......................................................................... 56
UCP 400 Article 3
Documents that did not state the master list; description of goods that did not match description in the invoices, packing lists and master lists; different correction stamps on the bill of lading.
DECISION No. 215.......................................................................... 58
UCP 500 sub-Articles 13(b), 14(d)(i), 20(b)
Invoice and packing list not showing “original”; cargo receipt not showing place of delivery; company chop in the cargo receipt showing deletion without authentication; cargo receipt showing alteration without bearing an initial on the correction chop; draft and invoice showing issuing bank’s name different from L/C; beneficiary’s telephone number in invoice different from L/C; question of whether seven banking days was reasonable.
DECISION No. 216.......................................................................... 63
UCP 500 sub-Article 13(a); Article 23
Where a master’s receipt was properly rejected for a discrepancy when signed “for the master”.
DECISION No. 217.......................................................................... 65
UCP 500 sub-Articles 9(a) and 13(a)
Issuing bank’s refusal to accept documents timely received; issuing bank’s statement that it did not receive a timely authenticated reimbursement claim.
DECISION No. 218.......................................................................... 68
UCP 500 sub-Articles 23(a) and 13(a)
Bill of Lading not indicating on board date; telefax not showing exact quantity, invoice amount; shipping company agent’s certificate not showing any reference to the shipment; whether documents have fraudulent representation based on the facts as supported by the documentary evidence.
DECISION No. 219......................................................................... 73
Note: DOCDEX Decision 219 is not being published, since the Experts’ Decision was that the standby letter of credit which was the subject of the case, being issued under the International Standby Practice rules (ISP98), could not be decided by DOCDEX, which applies only to the UCP, the ICC Uniform Rules for Bank-to-Bank Reimbursement under Documentary Credits (URR) and the ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG).
DECISION No. 220.......................................................................... 74
UCP 500 sub-Articles 13(a), 9(a), 14(b), 14(d)(i), 14(f), 19(a), 19(c)
Whether the issuing bank had an obligation to take up documents and to pay subject to UCP 500 despite the fact that the negotiating bank used a cover letter also to be used for collection, stating the credit number of the issuing bank; that documents were negotiated; that the negotiation was marked on the reverse of the L/C.
DECISION No. 221.......................................................................... 78
UCP 500 Article 13, sub-Article 13(a), Articles 15 and 14, sub-Article 14(e)
Whether a misspelling in a bill of lading constituted a discrepancy; whether allegations of forgery and fraud in an “Experts Report”, which were not mentioned in the Respondent’s rejection notice, were relevant.
DECISION No. 222.......................................................................... 83
UCP 500 sub-Article 14(d)(iii), Article 14 and Article 4
Whether the applicant is within his rights to claim repayment of an amount which the 1st Respondent has debited his account in cover of a payment it has made to the 2nd Respondent against a set of documents presented under the credit and which contain discrepancies
DECISION No. 223.......................................................................... 86
UCP 500 sub-Article 28(a)(iii)
Several alleged discrepancies concerning a railway bill and a commercial invoice
DECISION No. 224.......................................................................... 93
UCP 500 sub-Article 13(a); Article 21
App arent contradictory punctuation on an invoice; a certificate of inspection with an inconsistent attached log list; a quantity of a stated commodity – based on a total of partial shipments – that was claimed to be outside of tolerance levels.
DECISION No. 225....................................................................... 100
UCP 500 sub-Article 13(a)
Whether an air waybill, on its face, complied with the terms and conditions of the credit.
DECISION No. 226....................................................................... 102
UCP 500 Article 21; sub-Article 13(a)
Whether a difference in the draft between the amount in figures and the amount in letters was a discrepancy; whether a manual signature on the certificate of origin different from the manual signature appearing on other documents produced by the beneficiary justified the rejection of the certificate of origin.
DECISION No. 227....................................................................... 104
UCP 500 Article 37; ISBP paragraphs 59 and 9
Invoices not marked “commercial invoice” as per L/C terms; unit of quantity omitted in packing lists; alterations on the certificate of fumigation less authentication; payment of a subsequent drawing under the same L/C; returning the sight drafts to the Initiator separately after the return of other. documents presented
DECISION No. 228....................................................................... 108
UCP 500 sub-Article 37(c)
Invoices said to show different merchandise from the L/C; invoice number not shown on invoice; extra word in the L/C that did not appear in the invoice.
DECISION No. 229....................................................................... 111
UCP 500 sub-Article 37(c); Articles 42, 14, 15, 19; sub-Articles 10(d), 9(d)(iii); Article 21; sub-Articles 13(a) and 20(b)
Several claimed discrepancies by the Respondent regarding commercial invoices, packing lists, beneficiary’s certificates and bills of lading; impact of an alleged forgery of a B/L; refusal of an FCR and a certificate of origin; alleged forgery of a certificate of origin.
DECISION No. 230....................................................................... 122
UCP 500 sub-Article 9(a); Article 15; sub-Articles 13(a); 14(b)
Whether the issuing bank had a right to refuse documents because (i) there was a claim the air way bill was forged, and (ii) because there was an inconsistency in the document as to whether a company was the carrier or an agent of the carrier.
DECISION No. 231....................................................................... 126
UCP 500 sub-Article 37(c); ISBP paragraphs 195 and 24
Documents showing different goods description from L/C; inspection certificate not dated prior to shipment date; AWB showing invoice number not found on commercial invoice; invoice showing different description of merchandise from L/C stipulated; certificate of inspection not dated prior to shipment date as L/C requires; whether re-presentation of the documents is to be considered a new and independent presentation.
DECISION No. 232....................................................................... 132
UCP 500 Articles 14, 30, 27, 9 and 15; sub-Article 13(a); ISBP paragraphs 164, 165 and 9
Whether an air waybill (AWB) was corrected by a person without authority to correct; whether it is relevant if an AWB is forged; whether a valid notice of a discrepancy was received by the seventh banking day.
DECISION No. 233...................................................................... 137
UCP 500 Articles 21 and Article 23
A certificate of origin authenticated in another country, said to not be as per L/C terms; shipment port in a bill of lading not mentioning clause “Black Sea”, said to not be as per L/C terms; appearance of the name of the actually shipped commodity in the certificate instead of “wheat”.
DECISION No. 234...................................................................... 141
UCP 500 Article 4; sub-Article 14(b); ISBP paragraph 28
Whether the omission of the letter G in the description of goods on the air waybill constituted a valid discrepancy enabling the Respondent to refuse payment
INDEX by UCP Article and ISBP paragraph numbers 146
ICC DOCDEX RULES (publication 811) 151
ICC UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS 157
(UCP) (publication 500)
SUPPLEMENT TO UCP 500 FOR ELECTRONIC PRESENTATION 179
(eUCP) (version 1.0) (publication 500/3)
ICC AT A GLANCE 183
SELECTED ICC PUBLICATIONS 184