Response to ICC Document 470/834 - "Original" Documents under UCP sub Article 20 (b)

Response to ICC Document 470/834
"Original" Documents under
UCP sub Article 20 (b)

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 expert's 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 expert's 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 article, opinion, or comment can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.

15 January 1999
Mr. Gary Collyer, Technical Adviser
ICC Commission on Banking Technique & Practice
Paris
Dear Gary,

Response to ICC Document 470/834
"Original" Documents under UCP sub Article 20 (b)
We would like to provide our response to questions in ICC Document 470/834 as follows:

Q 1 What do members believe is the UCP requirement under sub-Article 20 b of UCP 500 in relation to original documents?

R 1 I believe the UCP sub Article 20 (b) only refers to, and governs, those documents which are:

wholly (referring to the whole document on its face) and exclusively (referring to the means of production and/or reproduction) produced and/or reproduced by computerised and/or reprographic means [such as those documents in the "Glencore International AG v. Bank of China" case (hereinafter called the "Glencore" case)];

using 100% blank sheets of paper [this condition may be automatically covered by the word "wholly" as stated in (i) above]; or

without any original signature(s), whether necessary or not by the nature of the documents.

I also believe that this sub Article does not cover, or govern, those documents which are partly (not wholly and exclusively) produced or reproduced by computerised and/or reprographic means

using corporate letterheads, documents with pre-printed titles; or

by filling pre-printed forms with words, figures, signs, symbols, data and/or information by computerised or reprographic means (e.g. by feeding pre-printed forms into the input tray of a laser tray of a laser printer or a copier).

Q 2 What is an "original" document in the context of a letter of credit wording?

R 2 An "original" document is one that

is deemed to be an "original" unless it appears on its face to have been reproduced from an original [ISP98 sub Rule 4.15 (c) (i)];

has an original signature(s), even if it appears to have been reproduced from an original [ISP98 sub Rule 4.15 (c) (ii)];

appears to have any other means of authentication complying with UCP 500 sub Article 20 (b) (ii);

is deemed as an original by the nature of the document itself, according to trade practice (such as currency notes, pay cheques, stock and shares, government bonds and the like which may be wholly and exclusively produced by printing, and reprographic means? Please clarify);

is marked as "duplicate", "triplicate" and the like in the case of a bill of lading; or

is considered as such by common sense (to cover other situations as they surface later which are not yet covered by the UCP 500 or the ISP98).

Q 3 What is a reprographic document?

R 3 A reprographic document is one that is wholly and exclusively reproduced by reprographic means, such as by a copier, except those which are, are regarded, or otherwise are used as originals in trade practice, such as currency notes. A document partly reproduced by reprographic means is not necessarily a reprographic document (such as filling a pre-printed form with a copier).

Q 4 How do you ascertain that it has been reproduced reprographically?

R 4 I can ascertain this on the face of the document, by its appearance [UCP 500 sub Article 13 (a)], the ink used, the typesetting, other features of a reprographic product, and, most importantly of all, by common sense (to cover those "not-yet-surfaced" situations).

Q 5 What are your own individual bank/country requirements for the marking of documents as original?

R 5 Only those documents, that are wholly and exclusively produced or reproduced by computerised and/or reprographic means, using 100% blank sheets of paper, need to be marked as original, except those documents which are, are regarded, or otherwise are used as originals in trade practice, (such as currency notes).

Q 6 Would your opinion/view be different if the paper on which the document is produced is in a coloured format in respect of the heading and/or title and/or content of the document - this being used to insert the detail required to make the document conform under the credit?

R 6 These documents, by their nature, are already originals, and hence need not be marked as original, because they are not wholly and exclusively produced or reproduced by computerised and/or reprographic means, not using 100% blank sheets of paper, and are in fact deemed as originals in trade practice for many years prior to the "Glencore" case.

To avoid confusions, I suggest ICC to define the terms "produce" and "reproduce" and to further clarify whether "reprographic means" includes "printing" (I mean those bulk quantity printing by printing houses rather than those small scale printing by a computer laser printer).

Wishing You A Happy New Year of 1999!

Yours sincerely,
T. O. Lee Consultants Ltd.
T. O. Lee
Managing Director

This document is the 1st episode of T.O. Lee's response to ICC Document 470/834

Go to the next episode (dated 18 Jan 1999) >>

Q 1	What do members believe is the UCP requirement under sub-Article 20 b of UCP 500 in relation to original documents?
R 1	I believe the UCP sub Article 20 (b) only refers to, and governs, those documents which are: wholly (referring to the whole document on its face) and exclusively (referring to the means of production and/or reproduction) produced and/or reproduced by computerised and/or reprographic means [such as those documents in the "Glencore International AG v. Bank of China" case (hereinafter called the "Glencore" case)]; using 100% blank sheets of paper [this condition may be automatically covered by the word "wholly" as stated in (i) above]; or without any original signature(s), whether necessary or not by the nature of the documents. I also believe that this sub Article does not cover, or govern, those documents which are partly (not wholly and exclusively) produced or reproduced by computerised and/or reprographic means using corporate letterheads, documents with pre-printed titles; or by filling pre-printed forms with words, figures, signs, symbols, data and/or information by computerised or reprographic means (e.g. by feeding pre-printed forms into the input tray of a laser tray of a laser printer or a copier).
Q 2	What is an "original" document in the context of a letter of credit wording?
R 2	An "original" document is one that is deemed to be an "original" unless it appears on its face to have been reproduced from an original [ISP98 sub Rule 4.15 (c) (i)]; has an original signature(s), even if it appears to have been reproduced from an original [ISP98 sub Rule 4.15 (c) (ii)]; appears to have any other means of authentication complying with UCP 500 sub Article 20 (b) (ii); is deemed as an original by the nature of the document itself, according to trade practice (such as currency notes, pay cheques, stock and shares, government bonds and the like which may be wholly and exclusively produced by printing, and reprographic means? Please clarify); is marked as "duplicate", "triplicate" and the like in the case of a bill of lading; or is considered as such by common sense (to cover other situations as they surface later which are not yet covered by the UCP 500 or the ISP98).
Q 3	What is a reprographic document?
R 3	A reprographic document is one that is wholly and exclusively reproduced by reprographic means, such as by a copier, except those which are, are regarded, or otherwise are used as originals in trade practice, such as currency notes. A document partly reproduced by reprographic means is not necessarily a reprographic document (such as filling a pre-printed form with a copier).
Q 4	How do you ascertain that it has been reproduced reprographically?
R 4	I can ascertain this on the face of the document, by its appearance [UCP 500 sub Article 13 (a)], the ink used, the typesetting, other features of a reprographic product, and, most importantly of all, by common sense (to cover those "not-yet-surfaced" situations).
Q 5	What are your own individual bank/country requirements for the marking of documents as original?
R 5	Only those documents, that are wholly and exclusively produced or reproduced by computerised and/or reprographic means, using 100% blank sheets of paper, need to be marked as original, except those documents which are, are regarded, or otherwise are used as originals in trade practice, (such as currency notes).
Q 6	Would your opinion/view be different if the paper on which the document is produced is in a coloured format in respect of the heading and/or title and/or content of the document - this being used to insert the detail required to make the document conform under the credit?
R 6	These documents, by their nature, are already originals, and hence need not be marked as original, because they are not wholly and exclusively produced or reproduced by computerised and/or reprographic means, not using 100% blank sheets of paper, and are in fact deemed as originals in trade practice for many years prior to the "Glencore" case.

(416) 298-5881

(416) 292-5535

Response to ICC Document 470/834 "Original" Documents under UCP sub Article 20 (b)

Response to ICC Document 470/834
"Original" Documents under
UCP sub Article 20 (b)