|
918 - Case laws - Miscellaneoous
ICC Original documents Decision affirmed in Voest-Alpine/Bank of China case |
| The branch of the Bank of China in the Voest-Alpine case is the same branch that started the original problem in the UK case of Glencore International A.G. v. Bank of China. In ruling for Voest-Alpine, the court, referring to Bank of China's claim that the bill of lading had to be stamped original said: It should be noted that neither the letter of credit nor any provision of UCP 500 requires such stamping. In fact the ICC Banking Commission expressly ruled that duplicate and triplicate bills of lading did not need to be marked original and that failure to label them as originals did not justify refusal of the documents. The Court goes on to say: While it is true that this clarification [meaning the Decision on original documents] by the ICC came after the transaction at issue in this case, it is clear from the face of the documents that these documents are three originals rather than one original and two copies. The documents have signatures in blue ink, vary slightly, bear original stamps oriented differently on each page and clearly state on their face that the preparer made three original bills. As to the packing list, the Court added: Bank of China claimed that the failure to stamp the packing list documents as original was a discrepancy. Again, these documents are clearly originals on their face as they have slightly differing signatures in blue ink. There was no requirement in the letter of credit or the UCP 500 that original documents be marked as such. The ICC's policy statement on the issue provides that, banks treat as original any document that appears to be hand signed by the issuer of the document. The failure to mark obvious originals is not a discrepancy. There were other notable references and quotations in the Court's decision, among them: Accordingly, the Court will look to the UCP for guidance in analyzing whether the actions of the Bank of China were in conformity with Standard practice of financial institutions. The UCP does not provide guidance on what inconstancies would justify a conclusion on the part of a bank that the documents are not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit or what discrepancies are not a reasonable basis for such a conclusion. The UCP 500 does not mandate that the documents be a mirror image of the requirements or use the term strict compliance. It should be noted that the Court's opinion has a URL link to the ICC Decision on original documents on the ICC web site, where the Decision can be found under Banking at www.iccwbo.org. |