News

News Categories
Recent News

News by Month

ICC release latest version of Trade Register Report

17/12/2015

The ICC today released the latest Trade Register Report. This report covers an analysis of over 13 million transactions from 2007-2014, with a total exposure of over USD7.6 trillion. The report highlights that the exposure-weighted default rate for export letters of credit was only 0.02% over the period 2008-2014, with a transaction default rate as low as 0.01%. The default rate for short term loans for import and export, which is the highest across the products analysed, was only 0.06%.

Trade Register Report 2015.pdf 


Back to recent news

Recent News

26/11/2024

The latest newsletter is now available in the members trade information section under the category of 'Newsletters'...more

ICC release Technical Advisory Briefing No. 11 - Definition of Trade Finance 19/09/2024

Recognising that there is no global standard for the defining Trade Finance, this Briefing document provides a suggested text and has been recommended for use by the ICC Banking Commisison Steering Committee...more

Latest Question

Air waybill is issued by Ethiopian Airlines and signed by ABC Co Ltd as agents for carrier Ethiopian Airlines. In a specific field for insertion of “Air Line Name”, the insurance certificate shows "Emirates" as the airline. ARGUMENTS PUT FOR WHY THIS IS NOT VIEWED AS A DISCREPNCY: 1. In air freight, it is common for shipments to be arranged through multiple airlines, codeshares, or cargo agreements. The AWB might be issued by one airline, while the goods are carried wholly or in part by another. Insurers often name a major airline as a notional or assumed carrier without contradicting actual transport. 2. The insurance document is not obliged to mirror transport details, unless the credit so states. As long as it covers the goods for the intended journey, it is compliant. 3. There is no indication that the credit requires the insurance document to state the same airline as the AWB. Therefore, the mere difference in airline names does not constitute a conflict as understood under sub-article 14 (d). 4. The inclusion of “Emirates” does not imply that Ethiopian Airlines is excluded from coverage, nor does it undermine the validity of the document on its face. Had the certificate stated “only valid if shipped by Emirates”, then that would conflict with an AWB showing a different carrier. We do not agree with the assessment above basis the following sub-articles: - UCP 600 sub-article 14 (a) - we determine compliance on the basis of the documents alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Point 1 is going beyond the document in our view. - UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d) - that the data between the AWB and insurance document is in conflict with each other. Is our understanding correct?