The DOCDEX system is a rapid and cost-effective means of resolving letter of credit disputes through an expert decision.
'Collected DocDex Decisions 2009-2012' included a panel of three experts appointed by ICC’s Centre for Expertise who render decisions based on documents submitted by the disputing parties. The Experts must make their decision within only 30 days after receipt of all documents. In most cases, a DOCDEX decision has deterred parties from going to court.
Covering cases decided from 2009-2012, this is the third volume in the series of DOCDEX Decisions. 35 Decisions provide valuable insights into the reasoning behind the experts’ final judgments on the disputes in question.
Decisions presented in this volume are about some of the most controversial provisions of the latest revision of ICC’s universally used rules on letters of credit, UCP 600. The collection also contains cases dealing with UCP 500, UCP 222, URC 522 and URDG 458. It gives answers to complex questions like :
- Does the fact that the Respondent delivered the documents to the applicant make it liable to pay an amount in excess of the documentary credit value?
- Is the issuing bank entitled to claim a refund, with interest, of reimbursement made to the respondent when its refusal notice does not accord with the requirements stated under UCP 600?
- Can an error in the commercial invoice, packing list and certificate of quality – which constituted a reversal of the order of the route of shipment covered by the L/C – be accepted as a typing error?
The DOCDEX Decisions collections complement the ICC Banking Commission Opinions. Together, they are indispensable aids to practitioners seeking to understand how ICC rules are applied in daily practice.
| Code ISBN : | 978-92-842-0203-4 |
| Publishing date : | 2012 |
| Language : | English |
DOCDEX Decision No. 278
UCP 500 sub-articles 14(d)(ii), 14(e) and 13(b); article 14
Did the fact that the Respondent delivered the documents to the applicant make it liable to pay an amount in excess of the documentary credit value? Was an instruction regarding delivery of the documents to the applicant clear and precise? Where the drawing under the credit was in excess of the amount permitted by the credit, did the Respondent handle the discrepant documents correctly?
DOCDEX Decision No. 280
UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (a) and (c), 16 (a) and (c)
Whether the “Analysis and conclusion” of Banking Commission Opinion TA 657 was effective in the light of the full knowledge of all the details of this dispute; whether the refusal by the Respondent to honour three drawings on the grounds of (1) late presentation and (2) invoice evidencing “payment out of this documentary credit” was a valid refusal
DOCDEX Decision No. 281
UCP 600 sub-article 31 (b); articles 3 and 16
Was the date to be used to calculate the price the actual “B/L date” for each presented set of bills of lading? By calling for shipment from “any port”, did the credit effectively open the possibility that more than one B/L could be presented showing different B/L dates? Did the goods description in the invoice correspond with the goods description mentioned in the credit?
DOCDEX Decision No. 282
UCP 600 article 16; sub-articles 14 (b), 16 (c) (i), 16 (c) (iii), 16 (f) and 7 (b)
Was the FCR presented under the credit discrepant? Did the beneficiary require the issuing bank’s authorization to submit revised documents following a discrepant presentation? Was the issuing bank entitled to claim a refund, with interest, of reimbursement made to the respondent when its refusal notice did not accord with the requirements stated under UCP 600 sub-articles 16 (c) (i) and 16 (c) (iii)?
DOCDEX Decision No. 283
URC 522 sub-articles 1 (c), 1 (a) and 4 (a) (i)
Whether by accepting the collections received, the Respondent (collecting bank) had agreed to perform the collection in accordance with URC 522 and the conditions stated in the collection instructions when the Respondent argued that payment related to the goods covered by the collection was paid direct to the Principal by advance payment according to earlier accepted usage between the contract parties
DOCDEX Decision No. 284
UCP 600 sub articles 22 (a) and (a) (i); ISBP 681 paragraph 118
Did the signature on the B/L fail to comply with the applicable provisions of sub-article 22 (a) of UCP 600 and paragraph 118 of ISBP 681?
DOCDEX Decision No. 285
UCP 600 Miscellaneous
Whether alleged discrepancies noting commercial invoices are not based on theoretical weight basis; packing lists: theoretical weight in total missing; beneficiary’s certificate: mentioning insurance policy or certificate I/O one of them only; and Mill’s test certificate: values of tensile missing were valid
DOCDEX Decision No. 286
UCP 600 sub-articles 16 (c) (iii), 14 (e) and 18 (c); ISBP paragraphs 58 and 59
Whether the materials were as per the L/C description; whether the insurance certificate had expired; whether the bill was negotiated after the expiry of the L/C
....
Customers who bought this product also bought
