Language of Documents under LCs – Keep It Simple

A recurring question in document examination is whether the flexibility allowed by ISBP on language may, in practice, create more problems than it solves—especially in an era of AI-driven translations.

QUESTION

Dear Mr. Old Man,

ISBP 821 A21(b) states that when a credit is silent regarding the language of documents, they may be issued in any language.

In practice, could this lead to discrepancies—particularly where technical descriptions of goods are translated (e.g. via AI or online tools) and may not precisely match the wording in the credit?

In your view, is it advisable for LCs to include a clause such as:
“All documents must be issued in English”?

Thank you.
Best regards,
XX

________

ANSWER

Dear XX,

Thank you for raising a very practical concern.

ISBP 821 A21(b) does allow documents to be issued in any language when the credit is silent. While this supports trade facilitation, it can introduce uncertainty at the examination stage—especially where technical descriptions are involved.

From a practical banking perspective, the simplest and most effective approach is:

State clearly in the credit that all documents must be issued in English (or the language of the credit).

This avoids reliance on informal or AI-assisted translations and allows banks to examine data directly against the credit in accordance with UCP 600.

At the same time, ISBP 821 A21(e) provides necessary flexibility. Elements such as names, stamps, endorsements, legalization, and pre-printed text may still appear in another language without issue.

In practice, such a clause is particularly useful in transactions where documents are likely to be issued in local languages. In more standardised trade flows, parties may choose to remain silent.

In short:

Don’t regulate translation—just control the language where it matters.

For a fuller understanding of how language is treated in document examination, reference may be made to ISBP 821 A21 (a–e).

Best regards,
Mr. Old Man