News

SWIFT & Opus Advisory information paper: Digital Trade and Trade Financing

30/05/2016

Alexander R. Malaket, CITP, OPUS Advisory and SWIFT have worked on an Information Paper that is available here:

http://bit.ly/1PbQsyz

The digitisation of international trade and trade financing is now well underway, the inevitable result of a convergence of technological capability, commercial drivers and market adoption. Service providers, including trade finance banks, must make a strategic decision: commit to the development of digitised channels and propositions, or prepare to cede market share to a new generation of providers that have already seized the imperative to respond to market evolution in international commerce.

The primary objective of this paper is to provide a view of the state of digitisation in the financing of international trade, and to propose that there are significant opportunities for clients and finance providers to take a strategic posture and to actively shape the evolution of this critical dimension of international commerce.    


Back to recent news

Recent News

Letters of Credit Are Not Disappearing; They Are Evolving! 24/09/2026

1...more

Lloyds, SocGen turn to eUCP for digital letters of credit 18/09/2026

Société Générale and Lloyds have completed a fully digital trade transaction between the UK and France, using Enigio’s technology, in what the French lender describes as a first-of-its-kind deal...more

Latest Question

The credit stipulates: Field 44E: Karachi, Pakistan Field 44F: Cagliari, Italy Field 43T: Transhipment Allowed Field 46A: Full set 3/3 original clean on board Bills of Lading made out to the order of the applicant. The bill of lading presented shows: Port of Loading: Muhammad Bin Qasim, Pakistan Port of Discharge: La Spezia, Italy Place of Delivery: Cagliari Carriers CY20, Italy The issuing bank raised a discrepancy stating that both the Port of Loading and the Port of Discharge shown on the bill of lading do not comply with the locations stipulated in fields 44E and 44F of the credit. My questions are as follows: 1. Considering that Port Muhammad Bin Qasim is located within the Karachi port area, would a bill of lading showing "Muhammad Bin Qasim" instead of "Karachi" be regarded as conflicting data under UCP 600 sub-article 14(d)? 2. Given that the transport document shows: Port of Discharge: La Spezia, Italy Place of Delivery: Cagliari, Italy and that transhipment is expressly allowed under the credit, can the requirement in field 44F for "Cagliari, Italy" be considered satisfied? 3. Would your answer differ if the presented transport document is a multimodal bill of lading evidencing onward inland transportation from La Spezia to Cagliari? 4. In light of UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a)(ii), sub-article 14(d), ISBP 821 paragraphs E8(a) and E8(b), and ICC Opinion TA935rev2, would the discrepancy be considered valid where the location required in field 44F appears as Place of Delivery rather than as Port of Discharge? Any references to ICC Opinions, DOCDEX decisions, Banking Commission Opinions, or relevant ISBP practice would be greatly appreciated.