ICC Opinion R197 -
i was wondering whether this opinion is still valid under the UCP600. can anybody tell me whether there is any other opinion that superset this one?According to the conditions of the credit, the certificate was required: (i) to be duly signed by captain's vessel, and (ii) to state the cleanness of the tank steamer.
There were no further requirements with respect to a specific title of the certificate, a specific wording within the document, and any wording not allowed to appear on the document.
The document presented, entitled "Ship's Tanks Inspection Report", seems to have been signed by somebody "for vessel, and states that "vessel's tanks Nos. ... 'TANKS STEAMER'... were found to be in a clean condition to load...".
The title of the document does not show the term "certificate", nor does the document elsewhere bear a wording like "certificate", "we hereby certify", "it is certified", or the like, which one would expect under a credit that requires presentation of a certificate.
As far as the signing requirement is concerned, the document presented seems to have been signed by somebody "for vessel".
...
With respect to the "cleanness of the tank steamer" to be stated on the document, the wording contained in the document and quoted above satisfies the L/C requirement.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
Since a report instead of a certificate was presented, there is justification for claiming a discrepancy under the doctrine of strict compliance. Whether courts will follow such a conclusion is not predictable. Non-compliance with the signing requirements has not been noted by the remitting bank, nor claimed by the issuing bank, and is therefore irrelevant for their bilateral relationship.
regd
shahriar