APPROVED ICC OPINIONS – NOVEMBER 2026

Approved on 9 November at the London meeting

The ICC Banking Commission approved four Opinions at its London meeting on 9 November 2026: TA.965rev, TA.966rev, TA.967rev and TA.968rev. (tradefinance.training)

These Opinions address four practical issues in documentary credits, ranging from insurance coverage and war-risk exclusions to advising a credit and identifying a container number.

A common theme runs through all four Opinions: banks must examine what the documents actually evidence, without adding requirements that are not found in the credit or relying on external assumptions.

Interestingly, TA.965rev and TA.968rev both deal with war-risk insurance exclusions but reach different conclusions. The distinction lies in what the insurance document actually states.

1. TA.965rev – Five Powers War Clause

The credit required insurance covering specified risks without exclusions. The insurance policy referred to a “Five Powers War Clause”, but did not reproduce the clause or explain its effect.

The Opinion concludes that the presentation is not discrepant.

Under UCP 600 sub-article 14(a), banks examine documents on their face. The mere reference to the name of an insurance clause does not establish that the required coverage is excluded. Determining the meaning or effect of the clause would require external information or knowledge of insurance practice.

Key point: What matters is what the document itself evidences—not what an examiner may know about the clause. (tradefinance.training)

2. TA.966rev – Advising a Credit Directly Despite Field 57A

The credit identified Bank A as the nominated and confirming bank, while Field 57A instructed that the credit be advised through Bank B. The beneficiary, who had a direct relationship with Bank A, asked Bank A to advise the credit directly.

The Opinion concludes that UCP 600 does not prevent Bank A from advising the credit directly.

Article 9 does not require a nominated or confirming bank to use the bank identified in Field 57A for advising. Informing the issuing bank of the decision would normally be prudent operational practice, but it is not an obligation imposed by UCP 600. (tradefinance.training)

3. TA.967rev – Identification of a Container Number

The credit required the bill of lading to indicate the container number and seal number. The container number appeared alongside the wording “1 40’ HC CONTAINER SAID TO CONTAIN…”, but was not specifically labelled “Container No.”

The issuing bank considered this a discrepancy.

The Opinion disagrees. Under UCP 600 sub-article 14(d), documentary data must be read in context. The number was identifiable as the container number from its position and relationship with the surrounding information.

Neither UCP 600 nor the credit required a particular label.

Key point: Banks should examine the document as a whole rather than impose a labelling requirement that the credit does not contain. (tradefinance.training)

4. TA.968rev – War-Risk Exclusions and the Route of Transport

The credit required war-risk insurance “without any exclusion.” Unlike TA.965rev, the insurance document expressly stated geographical exclusions affecting the required war-risk cover.

The shipment was by air, and it was argued that the actual flight route did not pass through the excluded territories.

The Opinion concludes that the issuing bank’s refusal was valid.

The express exclusions meant that the insurance document did not evidence the coverage required by the credit. The fact that the actual transport route might have avoided the excluded territories did not change the conclusion. Banks are not required to reconstruct transport routes or determine whether an exclusion would actually become operative during a particular journey.

The Opinion also highlights the importance of careful LC drafting where particular insurance exclusions are unacceptable. (tradefinance.training)

The important distinction: TA.965rev vs TA.968rev

These two Opinions are particularly interesting because they concern almost the same subject—war-risk insurance exclusions—but reach opposite conclusions.

In simple terms:

“Five Powers War Clause” does not, by itself, evidence an exclusion.

But:

An insurance document that expressly states geographical exclusions does evidence an exclusion.

That distinction is a very useful reminder of the documentary nature of examination under UCP 600.

Overall takeaway

Taken together, the four Opinions reinforce one fundamental principle:

Examine what the documents actually evidence. Do not introduce additional requirements or rely on assumptions that are not apparent from the documents.

For practitioners, the four Opinions can be reduced to four practical rules:

1. Do not infer an exclusion from a clause title alone.
2. Field 57A does not necessarily prevent another bank from advising the credit directly.
3. Do not require a particular label when the required data is identifiable from context.
4. Do not disregard an express insurance exclusion merely because it may not affect the actual shipment.