LC NUMBER and DATE

QUESTION

Hi

Can a bank contest a discrepancy claim based on ICC banking commission opinion?

LC required a Railway Receipt to mention LC no and date ( In clause 47 of MT 700). However, it was not mentioned, and the issuing bank raised a discrepancy.

Nominated bank has contested the said discrepancy citing “ICC Banking Commission Opinion R289”

Is this claim valid or Issue bank should stay with their opinion and claim that the documents are discrepant?

Please suggest. As always thanks a lot for your opinion and prompt response

Regards,

Siddhartha Sharma

———-

ANSWER

Hi,

ICC Opinions are official opinions given by Banking Commisssion of ICC to answer specific queries. They are official interpretation relevant articles of UCP, URDG, URC… and considered international standard bank practice.

A discrepancy should be cited against a relevant article of UCP instead of an ICC Opinion. However, when the cited discrepancy is disputed, an ICC Opinion can be referred to prove it correct or not.

Back to the question as to whether it is a discrepancy if the railway receipt does not indicate LC number and date as required in the LC. I ever answered a similar question, and my answer was as follows:

“ICC has repeated several times in opinions R289, R645, R578, TA774… that the request for insertion of L/C numbers is usually at the instigation of the issuing bank to facilitate the collation of documents when one or more go astray. The ICC has commented in the past that a refusal based on the absence of a LC number on a document, where requested in the L/C, is not grounds for refusal”.

I retired and cannot access ICC Opinions in ICC Digital Library but as far as I remember, R289 said it was not a discrepancy.

Please check again.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man