Home About us Pay subscription Contact

Register

News

News Categories
Recent News

News by Month

ISP98 rules not to be revised

14/12/2015 As reported at the Institute of International Banking Law & Practice (IIBLP) Standby & Guarantee Forum, the ISP98 rules will not be revised, but efforts are underway to revise the ISP98 Official Commentary.

The IIBLP also reported that the Council on the International Standby Practices will also be issuing official interpretations of questions regarding ISP practice.

Back to recent news

Recent News

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

Collyer Consulting Trade Finance Masterclass to return to Dubai in 2026 18/09/2025

The widely acclaimed MasterClass event (a two-day event) will return to Dubai in 2026...more

Latest Question

UCP 600 sub-article 22 (a) (iii) states: indicate shipment from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the credit. The port of discharge may also be shown as a range of ports or a geographical area, as stated in the credit. ISBP821 paragraph G9 states: When a credit indicates a geographical area or range of ports of discharge (for example, “Any European Port” or “Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp Port”), a charter party bill of lading may indicate the actual port of discharge, which is to be within that geographical area or range of ports, or it may show the geographical area or range of ports as the port of discharge. Question: When the credit calls for port of discharge as “Main Port, China” under charter party bill of lading, presented charter party bill of lading indicates “Main Port, China” in the port of discharge field. In my opinion, “Main Port, China” is not a range of ports or a geographical area and an actual port of discharge, so the document is not in order and the document must indicate actual port of discharge, such as Shanghai port. Please confirm.