News

ICC republishes guidelines on sanction clauses

02/03/2022

Following the escalation of sanctions on Russian businesses, individuals and financial institutions over the past few days, we have taken the decision to reissue the previous ICC guidance on the use of sanctions clauses in documentary credits in consolidated form.

To reiterate our core guidance:

Sanctions law and regulations are generally mandatory, and thus may override the ICC rules applicable to that instrument. As such, the addition of a clause, stating the bank’s commitment to respect such sanctions law or regulation applicable to it by law may be unnecessary and lead to confusion.

Nevertheless, in circumstances where a bank determines it wants to include a sanctions clause in a documentary instrument, it is recommended that the clause should be drafted in clear terms, restrictively, to limit the reference only to mandatory law applicable to the bank, and not be extended beyond that. Banks may refer to the addendum in the consolidated guidance for the drafting guidance which is combined with the guidance paper and available in the above page.

It is further reiterated that banks should refrain from issuing trade finance-related instruments that include sanctions clauses that purport to impose restrictions beyond, or conflict with, the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements. It is also advisable for practitioners to be aware of the risks posed by such clauses if included by other banks involved in their transactions, and be prepared to reject such clauses where it brings to question, the irrevocable, independent nature of the credit, demand guarantee or counter-guarantee, the certainty of payment or the intent to hour obligations. 

Further guidance/capacity building 

We are committed to supporting the market in navigating the challenges posed to legitimate trade by the recent sanctions escalation, and will consider further interventions, as appropriate, to ensure that any and all new instruments are implemented in the most efficient manner possible.

To further support the market, we will be making the ICC Academy’s introductory course on compliance available free of charge to members throughout March. Further details on how to access this complementary e-training module will be circulated later this week.


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

A credit required: “1 COPY OF APPL'S CERTIFICATE OF CONFIRMATION OF THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID (THE REMAINING CLAIMING AMOUNT). THE REMAINING CLAIMING AMOUNT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FINAL PURCHASE PRICE AMOUNT AND EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) INVOICE AMOUNT OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE. WITHIN FIVE (05) BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF COPY OF FINAL INVOICE FROM THE BENEFICIARY THROUGH ELECTRONIC MAIL, THE APPLICANT SHALL SEND COPY OF APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATE OF CONFIRMATION OF DRAWING CERTIFYING THAT THE DRAWING AMOUNT IS IN ORDER. IN THE EVENT THAT APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATE OF CONFIRMATION IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN ABOVE MENTIONED TIME, THE BENEFICIARY SHALL PRESENT 20% LC DOCUMENT AGAINST DISCHARGE PORT DOCUMENTS WITHOUT APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATE OF CONFIRMATION OF DRAWING.” Beneficiary presented their confirmation with amount to be paid being the difference between the final purchase price amount and 80% invoice amount of the provisional invoice. Can issuing bank raise a discrepancy of: 1. Certificate of confirmation not issued by the applicant as LC required or 2. Unpresentation 1 copy of applicant’s certificate of confirmation unpresentation. Because issuing bank received applicant’s confirmation that amount to be paid differs with amount to be paid by beneficiary (applicant showed deduction which is not mention under LC) plus applicant provided proof that applicant sent email to beneficiary within 5 banking days as LC required and amount to be paid. Whether or not applicant is protected by any terms or conditions of UCP, ISBP or ICC opinions,… because they presented applicant’s confirmation to beneficiary but beneficiary did not present applicant's document under their presentation?