MT700 Field 71a — Contradictions with Other Fields

Introduction

SWIFT MT700 Field 71a specifies the allocation of charges between the parties to a documentary credit. When Field 71a contains information that contradicts other fields in the same MT700 message, disputes arise over who bears the cost of bank charges, commissions, and fees. These contradictions can delay payment, create interbank friction, and damage commercial relationships.

Failure Modes

1. Field 71a States "All Charges for Beneficiary's Account" But Field 53 Names Reimbursing Bank That Charges the Applicant
If Field 71a allocates all charges to the beneficiary but the reimbursing bank's charges are borne by the applicant under a separate agreement, a cost allocation contradiction arises.

2. Field 71a Contradicts Field 47A (Additional Conditions)
If Field 47A contains conditions that imply a different charge allocation than Field 71a, the receiving bank cannot determine the true intent.

3. Field 71a Specifies "OUR" But Field 53 Bank Charges Are Not Accounted For
When Field 71a states that all charges are for the applicant's account ("OUR"), but the reimbursing bank charges are not included in the applicant's cost estimate, the actual cost allocation differs from the stated allocation.

4. Field 71a Contradicts Field 78 (Instructions)
Field 78 may contain instructions that implicitly affect charge allocation (e.g., directing that charges be deducted from proceeds). If Field 71a specifies a different allocation, the two fields conflict.

Resolution Steps

1. Cross-reference Field 71a against Field 53 to ensure that reimbursing bank charges are properly accounted for in the charge allocation.

2. Review Field 47A for any conditions that affect charge allocation and confirm consistency with Field 71a.

3. When Field 71a specifies "OUR", verify that all foreseeable charges (including reimbursing bank fees, SWIFT charges, and correspondence costs) are covered under the applicant's allocation.

4. Establish a charge allocation checklist that maps Field 71a against all fields that affect cost distribution, including Fields 49, 53, and 78.

5. When a charge allocation contradiction is detected, issue an MT799 clarification request to the issuing bank before processing the transaction.

6. Maintain a charge benchmark database for common Field 71a scenarios to identify unusual or contradictory allocations.

7. Train operators on the three standard Field 71a codes (BEN, OUR, SHA) and their implications for each party's cost obligations.

Conclusion

Field 71a contradictions create disputes over cost allocation that can escalate into interbank conflicts. They are typically caused by incomplete charge analysis, failure to account for all parties' fees, or inconsistencies between Field 71a and other instructional fields. Comprehensive charge analysis and cross-field validation are essential to preventing these contradictions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What are the three standard Field 71a codes?
BEN (beneficiary pays all charges), OUR (applicant pays all charges), and SHA (charges shared between applicant and beneficiary).

Q2: Is Field 71a mandatory?
No, but it is highly recommended. When omitted, charge allocation defaults to the applicable UCP provisions and local banking practice.

Q3: Can Field 71a be amended after issuance?
Yes, via MT707. The amendment must be accepted by the beneficiary under Article 10.

Q4: How does Field 71a interact with Field 71B (Charges)?
Field 71a and Field 71B both address charges. Field 71a is the SWIFT field for charge allocation; Field 71B is used for additional charge details. They should be consistent.

Q5: Who bears the cost of SWIFT messaging fees?
SWIFT messaging fees are typically borne by the sender. This is separate from the credit's charge allocation in Field 71a and is governed by the banks' SWIFT subscription agreements.

Source Notes

The following sources were consulted as context only:

• Trade Finance Global, "UCP 600 – ultimate 2026 guide" (Jun 2020)
• Trade Finance Global, "ICC briefing addresses the topic of reducing discrepancy rates" (Aug 2022)
• The Daily Star, "The cost of a comma: Documentation errors are the 'hidden tax'" (Mar 2026)
• Trade Finance Global, "SWIFT Messaging Types | TFG 2026 Guide" (Apr 2020)
• ICC, "Examination of Documents, Waiver of Discrepancies and Notice" (Mar 2023)