iccdocument470ta89rev.docVIP

ICC Document 470/TA89 rev. 　 Disclaimer 　 The names of the parties, as well as the data and information in the cases stated below, have been sanitized in order to protect the identity of the parties involved. The complexities of the cases have also been simplified to facilitate easy understanding of the key issues involved. Our experts opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICC or the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice. No legal imputation should be attached to any of the contents of the cases and no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements or opinions caused by negligence or otherwise. Our experts opinions are given for your reference only and you should not rely upon or act on our opinions, of which we are not held liable. You should consult your legal counsel or other experts for their opinions in your specific cases. No case can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission. 　 May 6, 1998 Mr. Gary CollyerTechnical AdviserICC Banking CommissionParis. Dear Gary, ICC Document 470/TA89 rev. We refer to the captioned ICC document providing an amended draft response to a query from Bunge Corporation, USA, dealing with the following three key issues: The definition and scope of multimodal transport. 　 Which Article (Article 23 or 26) of the UCP 500 should be applied in the examination of transport documents when Multimodal transport documents and transhipment are allowed in the documentary credit. 　 Unimodal transport or port to port shipment is shown on the multimodal transport bills of lading? and 　 In situations (1) and (2) above, whether it would be deemed as a discrepancy if in the multimodal transport bills of lading presented, the port of discharge is different from the port named in SWIFT field 44B in the documentary credit? Whilst we do not entirely object to the generalised statement in the second paragraph of the ANALYSIS section in the a