News

ICC releases Guidance paper on the impact of COVID-19 on trade finance transactions issued subject to ICC rules

07/04/2020

Responding to the urgent need to address the disruptions facing the trade finance market as the world grapples with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has today provided holistic guidance to the market, governments and regulators through the publication of this paper.

Trade finance transactions rely almost exclusively on hard-copy paper documentation to process payments and, ultimately, clear the release of goods to buyers. This is because, in many jurisdictions, electronic trade documents are either prohibited or their legal status is unclear. Yet with banks unable to handle documents in-person as government authorities seek to limit COVID-19 transmission, there is a risk that the underlying trade in goods, including essential medical and food products, will be further disrupted.

ICC has responded to this issue with technical guidance to practitioners.

The Guidance paper on the impact of COVID-19 on trade finance transactions issued subject to ICC rules, provides technical guidance to the market on elements to consider in adapting ICC rules for specific trade finance instruments, gives a certain level of flexibility in the monitoring of transactions in respect of ICC rules, and outlines common scenarios experiences in the delivery of documents during the public health measures undertaken in response to COVID-19.

Comprehensive in its guidance, the paper reviews provisions from several ICC rules, namely the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) and its eRules (eUCP Version 2.0), the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG 758), the Uniform Rules for Collections (URC 522) and its eRules (eURC Version 1.0), the Uniform Rules for Bank-to-Bank Reimbursements under Documentary Credits (URR 725) and the Uniform Rules for Bank Payment Obligations (URBPO 750).

Gary Collyer was a major contributor to this paper.


Back to recent news

Recent News

Spurious Emails 24/11/2025

There appears to be some spam messages circulating apparently from an email address                                      no-reply@collyerconsulting...more

Autumn 2025 Newsletter added to the Members Trade Information section 31/10/2025

This newsletter covers the 6 opinions that were approved by the ICC Banking Commission on 21 October...more

Latest Question

We, as issuing bank, issued a credit for importing 4 sets of machines under 2 contract Nos. The first and second delivery under one contract No., the third and the fourth delivery under another contract No. Partial shipment is allowed for 4 shipments only and each shipment to cover 1 set. In field 46A, quote +SECOND AND FOURTH DELIVERIES: TWO ORIGINALS OF WARRANTY GUARANTEE ISSUED BY L/C BENEFICIARY'S BANK IN FAVOR OF L/C APPLICANT COVERING EUR14,400.00 (i.e., 5pct of contract value), WHICH SHOWS THE EXPIRY DATE IS 12 MONTHS AFTER VESSEL DELIVERY, OR 28 MONTH AFTER THE LAST DELIVERY OF EACH RUDDER SYSTEM, WHICH ONE COMES EARLIER.unquote Under the second presentation, we recevied 2 copies of the warranty guarantee issued by SWIFT sent to us. Under the fourth presentation, we only recevied ONE copy of the warranty guarantee issued by SWIFT sent to us. Questions: 1. Under the fourth presentation, can we raise the discrepancy '1 copy instead of 2 copies of warranty guarantee presented’? (we know that according to ICC Opinion TA900, if a credit is silent as to the issuance method of the guarantee, the guarantee either in paper form or in electronic means is acceptable) and why? 2. Suppose that beneficiary presented the guarantee in paper form, how to understand the requirement of the credit ‘+SECOND AND FOURTH DELIVERIES: TWO ORIGINALS OF WARRANTY GUARANTEE ISSUED BY... ’? does it mean that 2 originals of the guarantee are required separately for the second delivery and fourth delivery or that one original for the second delivery and one original guarantee for the fourth delivery, which understanding is correct? 3. If the credit clearly requires “2 originals of warranty guarantee issued by beneficiary’s bank IN PAPER FORM covering ....” , is it reasonable for issuing bank to call for a guarantee which is issued in paper form in  TWO originals under the second delivery and fourth delivery separately and why?  Does ISDGP paragraph 97 have something helpful in analysing this issue?