Home About us Pay subscription Contact

Register

News

News Categories
Recent News

News by Month

Bank Payment Obligation (BPO) using electronic documents

28/04/2015 To date, BPO transactions have been completed based on the submission of data extracted from paper documents.

On 17 April, essDOCS announced the successful conclusion of the first BPO transaction involving the completely electronic submission of data. For details Click Here

Back to recent news

Recent News

Enabling digital trade through legal reform: A guide for policymakers and practitioners 12/05/2026

The ICC’s Digital Standards Initiative recently published a new MLETR implementation guide “Enabling digital trade through legal reform: A guide for policymakers and practitioners”, to support adoption of legally recognised electronic transferable records...more

Is your automatic extension (evergreen) clause as specific as it should be? 21/04/2026

Case: Starr Indemnity & Liability Co...more

Latest Question

We issued a Documentary Credit (DC) containing the following condition in field 47A-15): “ALL DOCUMENTS EXCEPT DRAFTS, COMMERCIAL INVOICE, BILL OF LADING AND SHIPMENT ADVICE TO INSURANCE COMPANY AND APPLICANT AND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BENEFICIARY MUST BE MADE IN THE NAME OF ‘ABC LIMITED, UK’.” Under the presentation, the beneficiary’s certificates were made out in the name of ‘ABC LIMITED, UK’. Based on this, we raised the below discrepancy: “CERTIFICATES PRESENTED ISSUED BY THE BENEFICIARY MADE IN THE NAME OF ‘ABC LIMITED, UK’ WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED AS PER DC 47A-15.” The negotiating bank is disputing this discrepancy and has referenced ICC Opinion R746, stating that the DC clause does not refer to any prohibited information and therefore the documents should not be treated as discrepant on this basis. Could you please confirm whether ICC Opinion R746 is applicable in this scenario, and whether the discrepancy raised is valid given the wording of field 47A-15?