Uluslararası ödeme şekli olan Akreditif ve akreditife ilişkin kuralları oluşturan UCP (Uniform Custom and Practise), akreditifli ödeme metodu üzerine çalışan tüm ihracatçılar ve ithalatçılar tarafından detaylı olarak bilinmesi gereken kurallardır. Akreditife ilişkin kuralların sonuncusu olan UCP 600 kapsamında getirilen yenilikler, bir önceki versiyon olan UCP 500’e göre epey farklılıklar göstermiştir. Bu çalışma kapsamında dış ticaret sürecinde ödeme aracı olarak akreditif’in, UCP kuralları çerçevesinde önceki versiyon olan UCP 500 ve son versiyon olan UCP 600, karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilip, yeni kavram, yorum ve uygulamaların bu kapsam içerisinde kısa bir değerlendirilmesine yer verilecektir.

The effect of international rules laid by International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is considerably strong on performing international trade freely as national trade in today’s global trade environmet. One of the rules established by ICC in foreign trade is letter of credit practice. This paper will try to compare and identify the differences between UCP 500 and UCP 600, which are the latest two versions of Letter of Credit practice. This paper will be based on practices while making the said comparison. First of all, this paper will mention brief history of Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits within the scope of International Chamber of Commerce. After that, various definitions of Letter of Credit will be given to determine its scope. Particularly, some issues considered inaccurately will be highlighted notably. For example, nonconsideration of sale contracts within the scope of letter of credit. This paper will also address version changes of letter of credits and reasons of such changes. For example, the version change in 1974 was as a result of changes in container and combined transportation, revision in 1983 was due to new technical improvements in transportation and communication and UCP version in 1993 resulted from developments in viewing documents by printing and computer systems and in communication. Moreover, UCP 500 was updated for the first time without any revision. However, another important issue to consider herein is that the reason shown for revision works was the reserves given to Letter of Credits by banks. For example, while the one of the reasons for revision in UCP 500 was that the percent of reserves given to Letter of Credits by banks was 50%, the reason to create UCP 600 was increase in reserves given to letter of credits by banks in UCP 500 up to 70%. This paper also examines why no revision works had been made for 14 years despite the reserves reaching up to 70% in UCP 500. The section prior to results and suggestions will be on comparative analysis of UCP 500 and UCP 600 to identify their differences. Primarily in this paper, the systematic tables of UCP 500 and UCP 600 are given comparatively. UCP 500 consists of forty nine articles within seven main titles. These main titles are as follows: a) General Provisions and Definitions, b) Form and Notification of Letter of Credits, c) Liabilities and Responsibilities, d) Documents, e) Miscellaneous, f) Transferable Letter of Credit and g) Assignment of Moneys Arising from Letter of Credit. Above listed main titles and articles were replaced under UCP 600. While UCP 500 consists of forty nine articles, UCP 600 consists of thirty three. In addition, all the main titles under UCP 500 were removed within the systematic structure of UCP 600. The most important change within the scope of UCP 600 is in the first article. This article, which is criticized by us, makes it possible to exclude one or several of the rule(s) under UCP 600 and article(s) within these rules. In spite of the fact that this article intents to make letter of credits flexible, the negative effects of this article is more than positive ones due to lack of knowledge and bad intentions in the process. It is also considered that it harms the standard operation systematic in foreign trade letter of credit procedures. Another change brought under UCP 600 is new notions. The definitions in the article two and comments in the article three are highly remarkable. The most important of these notions is “Honour”. The notion “Honour” explains the liability of banks towards beneficiaries in three different ways. The first is “to pay at sight if the credit is available by sight payment”, the second is “to incur a deferred payment undertaking and pay at maturity if the credit is available by deferred payment”, and the third is” to accept a bill of exchange drawn by the beneficiary and pay at maturity if the credit is available by acceptance”. In addition, the term “Presenter” is included and a broader explanation is made for the term “Negotiation” as to the previous version. Moreover, “Revocable Letter of Credit” available under UCP 500 was removed and it was highlighted that all letter of credits to be opened would be “Irrevocable Letter of Credit”. The term “another bank” under UCP 500 was replaced as “separate bank” under UCP 600. Therefore, it was stressed that the branch offices of bank in foreign country would not be considered as branch office but would be considered as a separate bank. Another change is in the article four, which is a recommendation. Under the title “Letter of Credits v. Contracts”, it is stated not as a provision but as a recommendation that “an issuing bank should discourage any attempt by the applicant to include, as an integral part of the credit, copies of the underlying contract, proforma invoice and the like”. Another significant change brought under UCP 600 is that any change after opening of any letter of credit should be accepted by the beneficiary, namely the exporting company, and no change would occur unless this change is accepted. Another change brought with UCP 600 is that in deferred or confirmed letter of credits, the banks assigned to accept the policy though they are not authorized to negotiate can make pre-payment by purchasing the letter of credit and policies before due date or make pre-payment to the beneficiary before due date. One of other significant changes is regarding banking date related with examination of documents in UCP 500. The reasonable period stated as banking day in UCP 500 was cancelled and the banking date was clearly stated as five banking days under UCP 600. Another change for application is related with address notification of the parties. It is stated that “when the addresses of the applicant (importer) and the beneficiary (exporter) appear in any stipulated document, they need not be the same as those stated in the credit or in any other stipulated document, but must be within the same country as the respective addresses mentioned in the credit”, and such a different address cannot be matter of reserve. In the results and suggestions sections, which are the final stages of our paper, the transition stage from UCP 500 to UCP 600 is assessed to emphasise positive and negative sides brought by changes to UCP 600. The first critical approach is towards the fact why the revision work had not been drawn forth and revised for four years despite the reserves available up to 70% from enforcement to abrogation date of UCP 500. One of the significant criticisms is that it is possible to exclude one or several of the rules and the articles within these rules included in the article one and given within the letter of credit under UCP 600, if required. The remaining articles of UCP are detailed in terms of application; especially the process becomes more comprehensible as the terms are clarified.