You need help, more information or a quote ?Help Centre
The DOCDEX system is a rapid and cost-effective means of resolving letter of credit disputes through an expert decision. Cases are decided by a panel of three impartial experts having experience in, and knowledge of, trade finance transactions. Said experts are selected from a list maintained by the ICC Banking Commission. The experts' decision is further scrutinized by the Technical Adviser to the ICC Banking Commission to ensure that it conforms to applicable ICC Banking Rules and/or international standard practice in trade finance.
Covering cases from 2013-2016, this is the fourth volume in the series of DOCDEX Decisions. It includes 30 Decisions providing valuable insights into the reasoning behind the experts’ final judgments on the disputes in question.
A significant development that has been introduced in this collection is the inclusion of an abstract for all decisions. This approach allows for an encapsulation of key information and summarises each conclusion.
Two important indices are also available:
Various versions of ICC rules have been covered: UCP 500/600, URC 522, URR 725, URDG 458/758 and ISBP 681/745. The majority of decisions have application to UCP (16), one of which applies to UCP 500. An analysis of the UCP articles that have attracted the most queries reveals that issues surrounding discrepant documents predominate, followed closely by the standard for examination of documents. It is clear that it is in this area that a lack of knowledge of key procedures can cause problems.
The e-pub includes a copy of:
The collection of DOCDEX Decisions 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 :||978-92-842-0420-5|
|Publishing date :||2017|
|Format in cm :||N/A|
Decisions by ICC experts on Documentary credits, collections and demand guarantees
DOCDEX Decision No. 321
URR 725 sub-article 8 (a) and article 4
Was the issuing bank liable to honour the drawings made under the L/C when it had accepted all of the presented documents? Was the reimbursing bank liable to pay after it had been instructed by the issuing bank to stop all payments under the L/Cs until further notice and when it had not issued any reimbursement undertaking?
DOCDEX Decision No. 322
UCP 600 articles 18 and 24; sub-articles 14 (d) and (f); and ISBP 681 paragraph 20
When a standby letter of credit was issued under UCP 600 and required the presentation of an unpaid commercial invoice and copies of one or more CMRs, was a bank required to examine such documents according to UCP 600 articles 18 or 24? Were assertions that the name of the carrier(s) on CMRs were not stated or incomplete or lacked a country name valid discrepancies? Did silence by the Initiator (as beneficiary under the credit) or the presenting bank constitute an agreement or acceptance of the discrepancies asserted by the Respondent?
DOCDEX Decision No. 333
URC 522 sub-articles 2 (a) (ii), 1 (c), 5 (a), 16 (a), 26 (c) (iii) and 1 (a), articles 26 and 6
Whether a collecting/presenting bank had the right not to pay, nor return original documents, based on the argument that the collecting/presenting bank had filed a police report.
DOCDEX Decision No. 334
URDG 758 articles 5 and 6, sub-articles 15 (a), 19 (a), 20 (a), 24 (d) and 24 (f)
Whether a claim lodged by the beneficiary was in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the guarantee and met the requirements of URDG? Did the issuing bank reject the demand in due time?
DOCDEX Decision No. 335
UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (a), 14 (b), 16 (c) (i), 16 (c) (iii) and 16 (f)
Whether an issuing bank was precluded from claiming that the documents did not constitute a complying presentation in accordance with UCP 600 sub-article 16 (f)?
DOCDEX Decision No. 337 ISBP 745 paragraph C8 and UCP 600 article 1 Was it correct for an issuing bank to refuse revised drafts and insurance certificates on the basis that an amendment under the credit had stated that all documents must comply on first presentation?
DOCDEX Decision No. 336
URDG 758 sub-articles 14 (a) and 25 (b) (i), article 2
Whether it was correct for an issuing bank to refuse a claim under a demand guarantee issued subject to URDG 758 on the basis that the demand was not presented within the time for presentation as provided by the guarantee?
DOCDEX Decision No. 337
ISBP 745 paragraph C8 and UCP 600 article 1
Was it correct for an issuing bank to refuse revised drafts and insurance certificates on the basis that an amendment under the credit had stated that all documents must comply on first presentation?
DOCDEX Decision No. 338
URDG 758 sub-article 15 (b) and article 22; URDG 758 sub-article 20 (b); URDG subarticles 24 (d), 24 (h) and 5 (b); URDG articles 34 and 35
Was there a requirement for the Initiator to present a copy of beneficiary’s claim? Was the alleged discrepancy made by the Respondent a valid discrepancy? Could the Respondent raise further discrepancies at a future date in respect of the copy of the beneficiary’s claim? Could the counter-guarantor withhold payment from or reimbursement to the Initiator pending receipt of presentation documents under the local guarantee of the Initiator? What was the governing law of the local guarantee, which was issued by the Initiator subject to URDG 758 as, requested and authorised by the Respondent?
DOCDEX Decision No. 339
URC 522 articles 4, 1 and 2
Whether or not the presenting bank was obligated to pay a collection in view of the fact that the documents had been released to the drawee, and the drawee had obtained delivery of the goods using the bill of lading?
DOCDEX Decision No. 341
UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (b), 14 (d), 14 (f) and16 (c), ISBP 745 paragraph A39
Was the Respondent precluded from claiming that the documents did not constitute a complying presentation, since they had not quoted a valid discrepancy and provided a single notice of refusal in accordance with UCP 600 sub-articles 14 (b) and 16 (c)? Did the inspection certificate comply?
DOCDEX Decision No. 342, No. 343, No. 344, No 345, No 346, No. 347, No 348, No. 349...
From Nov 1996 until June 2013, Gary Collyer was the Senior Technical Adviser to the ICC Banking Commission, where he was primarily responsible for providing numerous opinions related to the application and interpretation of ICC rules. In his ICC role, Gary has been chair of the ICC Working Group for the development of the ISP98, the strategy for a revision of UCP500 and a member of the ICC Working Groups for the development and subsequent revision of URR525 and e-UCP. More recently, he was Chair of the Working group for drafting UCP 600, ISBP681 and 745 and URBPO.
Editor of seven ICC opinion and DOCDEX publications, he is also editor of the 5th edition CDCS syllabus book Guide to Documentary Credits (2015), also editor of the International Trade Finance publication (9th edition) (2007). He has also producred eleven volumes of frequestly asked questions under UCP 600. He is a regular lead speaker at ICC and other external seminar events ona global basis. Gary also holds the title of “Visiting Professor” with LIBF.
Dave is the owner of TradeLC Advisory, an established trade consultancy business. He previously worked for Deutesche Bank in a number of international locations for more than 30 years in a trade career encompassing Operations, System Development, Sales and Product Management.
He is Senior Technical Advisor for the ICC Banking Commission and has been involved in numerous ICC drafting groups including e—UCP, ISP98, ISBP 745 and URBPO. Dave is an editorial advisory board member of Documentary World and a contributing editor to Trade Services update. Over the years, he has been a frequent coordinator and speaker at trade events globally providing workshops and training events to banks, corporates, logistics and technology partners.
Use eBook - How to download an .ascm format ADE eBook?Read more