长期以来,关于审单的结果一直存在两派观点:一派坚持“严格相符”的标准,认为审单的结果要么相符要么不符,不存在其他标准;另一派则认为只有“实质不符”时才应该提不符点,不应拘泥于“严格相符”。某种意义上,“严格相符”过于机械,使得银行审单人员如同机器人一般审核单据,一定程度上动摇了信用证充当付款保证的作用,使得信用证低效、费用较高且流程缓慢,不利于其发展。国际商会也注意到“严格相符”的潜在后果,因此在其每年公开和未公开的权威意见中逐渐倾向于以“实质相符”的尺度判断不符点。但是,这种“实质相符”标准对银行审单人员的专业水准有了更高的要求,且无法彻底解决审单中可能存在的同一单据不同审单结果的争议。如一信 For a long time, there have been two opinions on the outcome of trial orders: one faction adhered to the criterion of “strict conformity”, that the results of the trial of the trial either matched or did not conform to each other, that there were no other standards, and that the other group believed that only the “ ”When it should be made discrepancies, should not rigidly adhere to “ Strict compliance ”. In a sense, “Strictly Complying ” is too mechanical, which makes the bank examiner and employee unanimously examine the documents as a robot, to a certain extent, shake the role of the L / C as a payment guarantee, making the L / C inefficient, expensive and the process slow , Is not conducive to its development. The International Chamber of Commerce also noticed the potential consequences of “exact conformity ”, so in its annual public and undisclosed authoritative opinions, it gradually tended to judge discrepancies on the basis of “substantive match ”. However, this kind of “substantial conformity” standard has higher requirements on the professional standards of bank examiners and can not completely solve the dispute over the results of different examinations of the same documents that may exist in the trial. Such as a letter