News

ICC issue paper regarding the roll-out and commercialisation of ICC digital rules

28/05/2019

On 6 June 2017, the ICC Banking Commission provided a press release announcing the launch of a Working Group to anticipate and accompany the digitalisation of trade finance. One core activity was to evaluate existing ICC rules in order to assess e-compatibility and ensure they are ‘e-compliant’, i.e. enabling banks to accept data vs. documents. It was identified that this was required in order to accommodate evolving practices and technologies. 

A Drafting Group was established, co-chaired by David Meynell and Gary Collyer, with the initial aim of reviewing the e-compatibility of existing ICC rules. As a result of this review, a mandate was received from the ICC Banking Commission Executive Committee to:

Update the existing version 1.1 of eUCP in order to ensure continued digital compatibility; and

Draft eURC in order to ensure continued digital compatibility for presentation of electronic records under Collections.

After a 16-month long drafting and revision process, both sets of rules were approved with 100% (eUCP) and 97.5% (eURC) by ICC Banking Commission members and National Committees through ICC’s first-ever e-voting. 

The eRules have been intentionally developed with version numbers so they can be updated regularly without impacting upon other existing ICC rules, thereby reducing the time required to develop any potential identified revision. The new e-rules will come into force on 1 July 2019. 

ICC will make the eUCP and eURC rules available for download, free of charge, on its website prior to 1 July 2019.

Moreover, the UCP 600 and URC 522 publications will be amended with new eUCP version 2.0, and eURC version 1.0, respectively and will be available for sale by the ICC Store shortly.  

Furthermore, on 5 December 2018, the ICC Banking Commission Executive Committee approved a proposal for the drafting of a new set of rules with the working title “Uniform Rules for Digital Trade”. The provisional intention is to have the first draft available to ICC National Committees before the October 2019 Banking Commission Technical Meeting in Paris. An update on progress and outline of next steps will be given during the Paris meeting. 

With regard to the URBPO, the rules are unaffected by the SWIFT decision to shut down the TSU. Other industry solutions are being looked into for TSU replacement.  

The ICC has issued a paper outlining the current status of its rules in the digital environment. Details can be found in the following file Commercialisation of ICC Digital Rules.pdf

 


Back to recent news

Recent News

Letters of Credit Are Not Disappearing; They Are Evolving! 24/09/2026

1...more

Lloyds, SocGen turn to eUCP for digital letters of credit 18/09/2026

Société Générale and Lloyds have completed a fully digital trade transaction between the UK and France, using Enigio’s technology, in what the French lender describes as a first-of-its-kind deal...more

Latest Question

The credit stipulates: Field 44E: Karachi, Pakistan Field 44F: Cagliari, Italy Field 43T: Transhipment Allowed Field 46A: Full set 3/3 original clean on board Bills of Lading made out to the order of the applicant. The bill of lading presented shows: Port of Loading: Muhammad Bin Qasim, Pakistan Port of Discharge: La Spezia, Italy Place of Delivery: Cagliari Carriers CY20, Italy The issuing bank raised a discrepancy stating that both the Port of Loading and the Port of Discharge shown on the bill of lading do not comply with the locations stipulated in fields 44E and 44F of the credit. My questions are as follows: 1. Considering that Port Muhammad Bin Qasim is located within the Karachi port area, would a bill of lading showing "Muhammad Bin Qasim" instead of "Karachi" be regarded as conflicting data under UCP 600 sub-article 14(d)? 2. Given that the transport document shows: Port of Discharge: La Spezia, Italy Place of Delivery: Cagliari, Italy and that transhipment is expressly allowed under the credit, can the requirement in field 44F for "Cagliari, Italy" be considered satisfied? 3. Would your answer differ if the presented transport document is a multimodal bill of lading evidencing onward inland transportation from La Spezia to Cagliari? 4. In light of UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a)(ii), sub-article 14(d), ISBP 821 paragraphs E8(a) and E8(b), and ICC Opinion TA935rev2, would the discrepancy be considered valid where the location required in field 44F appears as Place of Delivery rather than as Port of Discharge? Any references to ICC Opinions, DOCDEX decisions, Banking Commission Opinions, or relevant ISBP practice would be greatly appreciated.