Article e12: Data Corruption of an Electronic Record
a. “If an electronic record that has been received by a nominated bank acting on its nomination or not, confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank, appears to have been affected by a data corruption, the bank may inform the presenter and may request it to be re-presented.”
Explanation: This clause addresses the scenario where an electronic record, such as a digital document related to a letter of credit, becomes corrupted or otherwise compromised during its transmission or receipt. If the nominated bank, confirming bank, or issuing bank detects such data corruption, they have the right to notify the party who presented the record. The bank can then request that the presenter provide a new, uncorrupted version of the electronic record.
Example: Imagine a nominated bank receives an electronic bill of lading from the presenter, but upon review, it is found that some data is garbled due to a transmission error. The bank can notify the presenter of this issue and ask for a fresh copy of the electronic bill of lading to be sent. This ensures that the bank can process the document correctly and without errors.
b. If a bank makes such a request:
i. “the time for examination is suspended and resumes when the electronic record is re-presented;”
Explanation: When a bank requests a re-presentation of an electronic record due to data corruption, the period allocated for examining the document is temporarily halted. This means the bank does not count the time spent waiting for the re-presented record against the presentation deadline. The examination time clock only resumes once the corrected document is received.
Example: Suppose the original electronic record was supposed to be examined within 10 days. If the bank requests a re-presentation on the 5th day due to data corruption, the remaining 5 days for examination will pause until the new record is received. If the new record arrives after 3 days, the bank then has 5 days from the receipt of the new document to complete its examination.
ii. “if the nominated bank is not a confirming bank, it must provide any confirming bank and the issuing bank with notice of the request for the electronic record to be re-presented and inform it of the suspension;”
Explanation: If the nominated bank is not acting as a confirming bank, it is responsible for informing both any confirming bank involved and the issuing bank about the request for re-presentation and the suspension of the examination period. This ensures all relevant parties are aware of the situation and any changes to the timeline.
Example: If a nominated bank discovers data corruption and requests a re-presentation of the document, and it is not a confirming bank, it must notify the confirming bank and the issuing bank about the corruption issue and the resulting pause in the examination period. This keeps everyone in the loop and avoids confusion or delays.
iii. “if the same electronic record is not re-presented within 30 calendar days, or on or before the expiry date and/or last day for presentation, whichever occurs first, the bank may treat the electronic record as not presented.”
Explanation: Should the presenter fail to provide the corrected electronic record within 30 calendar days or before the expiration of the presentation deadline (whichever is sooner), the bank has the right to consider the electronic record as not having been presented. This means that the record would be treated as though it was never submitted, potentially affecting the processing of the related transaction.
Example: If the presentation deadline for a document is 15 days, but the presenter fails to send the corrected electronic record within this period or within 30 days of the original request, the bank can disregard the document as though it was never received. This ensures that the transaction remains on schedule and maintains the integrity of the process.