Perlindungan Terhadap Bank dalam Transaksi Perdagangan dengan Sarana Letter of Credit UCP-DC 600

  • Sarah Deborah Linkawene Roeroe Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado, Indonesia
  • Delasnova Sonya Susan Lumintang Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado, Indonesia
  • Kathleen Catherina Pontoh Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado, Indonesia
  • Maikel Kuntag Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado, Indonesia
  • Steven Semuel Gugu Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado, Indonesia
Keywords: Letter of Credit, UCP 600, Bank Protection, Autonomy, Strict Compliance, International Trade

Abstract

The Letter of Credit (L/C) governed by UCP 600 is a critical instrument in international trade, designed to facilitate secure payment by using banks as intermediaries. While its primary function is to assure payment to the seller (beneficiary), the system's stability equally depends on robust protections for the banks involved. This journal article analyzes the legal mechanisms within the UCP 600 framework that safeguard issuing, confirming, and nominated banks from undue risks and liabilities. Employing a normative legal research method, this study conducts a critical examination of the UCP 600 text, supported by relevant legal principles and scholarly literature.The analysis identifies three core protective doctrines. First, the principle of autonomy (Article 4) strictly separates the L/C from the underlying sales contract, shielding banks from disputes between the buyer and seller. Banks deal only with documents, not goods or services. Second, the doctrine of strict compliance (Article 14) mandates that banks examine documents solely on their facial conformity. This provides an objective standard for honoring or refusing presentations, protecting banks from subjective claims and the risks of wrongful payment. Banks are granted a safe harbor for refusing non-complying documents under Article 16. Third, UCP 600 contains explicit disclaimer clauses (e.g., Articles 34, 35, 37) that insulate banks from liabilities concerning the form, sufficiency, accuracy, genuineness, or legal effect of any document, as well as forces majeure.The study concludes that these interconnected mechanisms—autonomy, strict compliance, and disclaimers—form a comprehensive defensive framework. They are not merely procedural rules but essential risk-allocation tools that enable banks to fulfill their payment undertakings with predictable liability. This protection is fundamental to maintaining the reliability and efficiency of the documentary credit system as a whole. The findings underscore the importance for banking practitioners to adhere strictly to these UCP 600 provisions to mitigate operational and legal risks in international trade transactions.

 

References

American Bell International Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 474 F. Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

Banco Santander SA v. Banque Paribas [2000] C.L.C. 906

Bridge, Michael. The International Sale of Goods: Law and Practice, edisi ke-4. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2017.

BSI v. Banque Indosuez, dipublikasikan dalam Bulletin of the Swiss Arbitration Association (2000): 746

Byrne, James E. The Comparison of UCP 600 & UCP 500. Institute of International Banking Law & Practice,

Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Dawson Partners Ltd., (1927) 27 Ll. L. Rep. 49.

Fortis Bank SA/NV v. Indian Overseas Bank [2011] EWCA Civ 58.

Goode, Sir Roy. Commercial Law, edisi ke-4. London: Penguin Books, 2010.

Griffiths, Lionel A.J. “The Evolution and Future of the Letter of Credit.” Journal of International Banking Law and Review 28, no. 5 (2013): 185–195.

Group Josi Re v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1152

ICC Banking Commission. Opinion TA 858rev. Paris: ICC Services, 2009

ICC Documentary Credit Dispute Resolution Expertise. Decision No. 297. Paris: ICC Services, 2005

International Chamber of Commerce. eUCP Version 2.0, ICC Publication No. 750E. Paris: ICC Services, 2019

International Chamber of Commerce. International Standard Banking Practice for the Examination of Documents

under UCP 600, ICC Publication No. 745. Paris: ICC Services, 2007

International Chamber of Commerce. Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, ICC Publication No. 600. Paris: ICC Services, 2007

Kredietbank Antwerp v. Midland Bank plc [1999] C.L.C. 1018.

Lee, R. “The UCP 600: A Documentary Credit Revolution or Merely an Evolution?” Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, no. 3 (2007): 335–348.

Mundy, R. “Blockchain and the Future of Letters of Credit.” Journal of International Banking Law and Review 33, no. 4 (2018): 145–152

Ramberg, Jan C. ICC Guide to Incoterms 2010. Paris: ICC Publication, 2010.

RG Grain Trade LLC v. Swiss Lebanese Bank [2007] EWCA Civ 751.

Shamsuddin, H.S. Law of Bankers' Documentary Credits, edisi ke-3. Kuala Lumpur: LexisNexis, 2001

Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. [2002] UKHL 43.

Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp., 31 N.Y.S.2d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

Tukan Timber Ltd v. Barclays Bank plc [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 171

United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd v Royal Bank of Canada (The American Accord) [1983] 1 AC 168

United Trading Corp. v. Allied Arab Bank [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 554.

Xiang, Gao, dan Ross P. Buckley. “The Unique Jurisprudence of Letters of Credit: Its Origin and Sources.” San Diego International Law Journal 4, no. 1 (2003): 91–167.

Published
2025-11-18