News

Free access to ICC Academy's 'Introduction to trade finance compliance' e-training course until 31 March 2022

08/03/2022

Further to our news item of 2 March concerning the re-publishing of the ICC’s guidelines on sanction clauses, please find below the latest from ICC including access to the ICC Academy e-training course ‘Introduction to Trade Finance Compliance’ until 31 March and the establishment of a dedicated email address for enquiries relating to sanction compliance and any border disruptions arising from the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

Quote

In light of the escalation of sanctions on Russia, we have taken the decision to make available the ICC Academy e-training course “introduction to trade finance compliance” free of charge until 31 March 2022. We hope that this will be particularly helpful to small and medium-sized companies and banks in navigating the new regulatory environment for cross-border trade. 

This follows our previous correspondence reminding the market on established best practices on use of sanctions clauses in documentary trade transactions.

Further queries from members

In addition, we have taken the decision to establish a dedicated "helpdesk" email to receive any queries from ICC members arising from sanctions compliance and/or border disruptions to trade arising from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 

Please send any questions or queries to tradefinance@iccwbo.org. As you will appreciate, we may not be able to respond to each individual query directly -- but please be assured that we will take all issued raised into careful consideration in making interventions to support the market.

On a related note, the ICC Banking Commission is following closely any repercussions linked to the Ukraine conflict and we stand ready to act, as appropriate, in providing further guidance and tools to facilitate legitimate trade. 

Unquote


Back to recent news

Recent News

26/11/2024

The latest newsletter is now available in the members trade information section under the category of 'Newsletters'...more

ICC release Technical Advisory Briefing No. 11 - Definition of Trade Finance 19/09/2024

Recognising that there is no global standard for the defining Trade Finance, this Briefing document provides a suggested text and has been recommended for use by the ICC Banking Commisison Steering Committee...more

Latest Question

We, as the issuing bank, requested the below document, under field 46A. “Insurance policy/certificate for 10.00 percent above CIF value payable to the order of Sampath bank PLC, covering institute cargo clauses (a), institute war clauses (cargo), institute strike clauses (cargo), transshipment risks marked premium paid claims payable in Colombo irrespective of percentage.” Insurance certificate is presented containing below wording on the face side of the document. “The settlement of loss and damage will be effected, unless otherwise provided, through the intermediary of Marsh SA/NV to whom all documents are to be forwarded for this purpose, and will collect the indemnity under deduction of a commission of one percent” Also, it indicates the LC conditions as a mirror image as follows under the heading of "letter of credit conditions" whereas insurance conditions are incorporated separately in the certificate: "covering institute cargo clauses (A), institute war clauses (cargo), institute strike clauses (cargo), transshipment risks marked premium paid claims payable in Colombo irrespective of percentage" Having considered the above clauses, we have quoted below discrepancies. 1) Insurance policy indicates a deductible of 1 pct instead of irrespective of percentage. 2) Insurance not marked premium paid Beneficiary’s bank disagrees with our discrepancy and raised below argument: “Insurance policy/certificate does not indicate a deductible of 1 pct irrespective of percentage on the face of the document and banks will not examine terms and condition in insurance document as per ISBP paragraph K22 and marked as premium paid under the LC conditions. Considering above, may we have your opinion on the discrepancy quoted by us and the counter argument raised by the beneficiary’s bank.