Pre-established BL

pchammas · 2011-09-10

I would care to get opinions of TF and martime specialists (shippers, shipping companies...) on the current pratice used by large sghipping companies and consisting in providing for pre-establisehd BL including the signature (presumably scanned text) thru their representative bureaus scatterred throughout the world.
To clarify my case, we are receiving from large shipping companies amongst the documents presented under an LC more and more BL's wereby the content and the signatures are not original (manual signature) but presumably the text and the signature are prescanned and are printed on an original blank BL. In view of the difficulties to determine if a document (the blank BL used to print the scanned text and signature) is an original one or not we feel unsecure and at risk.
What would your comments and opinions be? is this practice covered by UCP? noting that UCP does cover "facsimile signatures" but this is not the case any longer since the whole BL may be a reproduction of a scanned original. Should we add to the LC opening text (MT700) that we do not accept unsigned original documents? and what would be our situation in case the verifier of the documents does not notice that such document is a reproduced print of a scan instead of being an original?
Thank you for your feedbak

Mr. Smith · 2011-09-12

I'll try to let you have my fuller thoughts later in the week (a bit busy at the moment), if I can, but in essence I believe that the BLs you describe meet the requirements of (sub-) Articles 20(a)(i), 17(a) & 2 (definition of a signature) and follow the same principles for insurance documents that have been widely accepted by banks, as complying, for some years now.

pchammas · 2011-09-13

Thanks, waitng for your feedback

Mr. Smith · 2011-09-15

Paul,

Here are my fuller thoughts.

The BLs you describe sound to me like insurance documents that we (at my company) are seeing, which are completed on line and include an image of the insurer’s signature, and are then printed. These certificate do include the word ‘original’ at the top but whether or not this is material (see later) I doubt.

As you probably know “The determination of an "Original" document in the context of UCP 500 sub-Article 20(b)”, a ‘decision’ the Commission on Banking Technique and Practice approved on 12 July 1999, continues to represent international standard banking practice as referred to in the definition of a ‘complying presentation’ in UCP600 Article 2.

I was concerned that these documents were indistinguishable from photocopies and thus fell within point ii of section 4. "What is not an "Original"?”, i.e. “a photocopy of another document which has not otherwise been completed by hand marking the photocopy or by photocopying it on what appears to be original stationery”.

I raised this in January with my local ICC national committee and no one on it, both bankers and lawyers, could see the problem. As far as they were concerned the document was signed per Article 3. My main ‘protagonists’ described the seemingly scanned/copy signature as an ‘electronic’ signature although to me ‘facsimile’ signature would be a more accurate description. Through the correspondence I exchanged with my local ICC national committee, and they in turn with the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice, I learned that my concerns are being dealt with as part of the ISBP revision (see also my last but one paragraph below).

I do not know if you monitor ICC ‘official opinions’ but the last batch included Opinion 470/TA.737rev. In summary a documentary credit called for:

“Certificate of Origin issued and certified by the Chamber of Commerce in Beneficiary’s country indicating xxx origin of the goods.”

The document presented to meet this requirement had the following features:

A. the stamp and signature of the Chamber of Commerce in what appeared to be scanned form (the issuer’s name (logo) “ ***** Chamber” was printed in two colours – orange and blue – on the document).

B. contained the statement “For online verification of this Certificate, please visit our website” and included the name of the website from where it could be verified as well as a “Verify ID”.

The enquirer asked if the document was “acceptable as an original according to UCP 600 article 17”.

The Commission:

1. stated as UCP 600 sub-article 14(a) requires that a bank examines a presentation on the basis of the documents alone, reference on the certificate of origin to it being capable of being verified online, and to the website where such verification can be made, must be disregarded by banks for the purposes of determining compliance of the document.

2. noted that from what was stated by the enquirer, the document did not profess to be a copy of an original or bear any evidence to that effect.

3. asserted that the intent of the issuer was seemingly to produce an original document for the purpose of the underlying transaction and the credit.

4. noted that the reference to a scanned signature would appear to indicate a facsimile style signature being appended to the document.

5. concluded that the document was compliant.

The Commission’s Technical Adviser has commented separately that “this query raises the wider issue of how to determine whether a document has been completely reproduced or not, given the quality of prints that are obtained from printers today. The ISBP drafting group will be looking at the ICC Decision on Original Documents (dated 12 July 1999) as part of the ISBP revision process to update it for reference under UCP 600 and this will need to be one of the issues that are reviewed”.

Overall, based on the information you provide, my view is that the BLs you describe would be regarded as meeting the requirements of UCP600.

Regards, Mr. S

pchammas · 2011-09-16

appreciate your feedback which was of high added value
we approached the ICC commission in this concern and waiting for their primary opinion
Best from Paul

Mr. Smith · 2011-09-16

A correction to my posting above. Where I say "I learned that my concerns are being dealt with as part of the ISBP revision" I should have said "I learned that the Technical Adviser of the Banking Commission is envisaging a revised Decision on Original Documents, which may be prepared before year end".