Chapter VI
General Rules of Evidence
under the WTO Jurisprudence


OUTLINE

I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
(ⅰ) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
(ⅱ) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
(ⅲ) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
(ⅳ) Summary and Conclusions
II Admissibility of Certain Evidences
(ⅰ) Evidence Obtained from Prior Consultations
(a) Procedural Concern: Confidentiality of Consultations
(b) Substantial Concern: Necessity or Relevance of Evidence
(ⅱ) Arguments before Domestic Investigative Authorities
(ⅲ) Arguments Submitted after the First Substantive Meeting
(a) There is a significant difference between the claims and the arguments supporting those claims.
(b)There is no provision establishing precise deadlines for the presentation of evidence.
III Panel’s Right to Seek Information
(ⅰ) A Grant of Discretionary Authority
(ⅱ) The Admissibility of Non-requested Information
(ⅲ) Summary and Conclusions
IV Adverse Inferences from Party’s Refusal to Provide Information Requested
(ⅰ) The Authority of a Panel to Request Information from a Party to the Dispute
(ⅱ) The Duty of a Member to Comply with the Request of a Panel to Provide Information
(ⅲ) The Drawing of Adverse Inferences from the Refusal of a Party to Provide Information Requested by the Panel
V Concluding Remarks

I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
Generally, the question of whether a member acted in accordance with the agreement hinges frequently on whether and to what extent that member must demonstrate compliance or the complaint must demonstrate a lack of compliance. It is demonstrated that the burden of proof is a procedural concept which speaks to the fair and orderly management and disposition of a dispute. This is the issue of “the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”. In this respect, the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160) states, “[w]hile a duty rests on all parties to produce evidence and to cooperate in presenting evidence to the Panel, this is an issue that has to be distinguished from the question of who bears the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”.1
(i) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
Art. 3.8 of the DSU provides that in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement -- that is, in cases where a violation is established -- there is a presumption of nullification or impairment. However, the issue of burden of proof here is not what happens after a violation is established; the issue is which party must first show that there is, or is not, a violation. In this respect, a number of GATT 1947 panel reports contain language supporting the proposition that the burden of establishing a violation under Article XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1947 was on the complaining party, i.e., it was for the complaining party to present a prima facie case of violation before a panel. This rule is taken on by the DSB.
With regard to the issue of burden of proof, the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33) rules that: “In addressing this issue, we find it difficult, indeed, to see how any system of judicial settlement could work if it incorporated the proposition that the mere assertion of a claim might amount to proof. It is, thus, hardly surprising that various international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, have generally and consistently accepted and applied the rule that the party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. Also, it is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.” 2And this ruling is demonstrated to be well established in subsequent cases as a general rule concerning burden of proof.
For example, in Argentina-Leather (DS155), the Panel states: “The relevant rules concerning burden of proof, while not expressly provided for in the DSU, are well established in WTO jurisprudence. The general rule is set out in the Appellate Body report on United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, wherein it is stated that: ‘It is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption’.” 3
And in US-Cotton Yarn (DS192), the Panel rules in pertinent part: “The Appellate Body and subsequent panels endorsed this principle that a complainant bears the burden of proof. For example, the Appellate Body, in EC - Hormones, states as follows: ‘… The initial burden lies on the complaining party, which must establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the SPS Agreement on the part of the defending party, or more precisely, of its SPS measure or measures complained about. When that prima facie case is made, the burden of proof moves to the defending party, which must in turn counter or refute the claimed inconsistency. This seems straightforward enough and is in conformity with our ruling in United States - Shirts and Blouses, which the Panel invokes and which embodies a rule applicable in any adversarial proceedings.’” 4
As a whole, on the one hand, as ruled by the Panel in Argentina-Ceramic Floor Tiles (DS189), “[w]e recall that the burden of proof in WTO dispute settlement proceedings rests with the party that asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. It implies that the complaining party will be required to make a prima facie case of violation of the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, which is for the defendant…to refute. In this regard, the Appellate Body has stated that ‘... a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case’…”; 5 on the other hand, as noted in the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160), “[t]he same rules apply where the existence of a specific fact is alleged. We note that a party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. It is for the party alleging the fact to prove its existence. It is then for the other party to submit evidence to the contrary if it challenges the existence of that fact”. 6
In sum, with respect to the general rules of burden of proof in the context of violation complaints, as ruled by the Panel in Japan-Film (DS44): “[w]e note that as in all cases under the WTO/GATT dispute settlement system - and, indeed, as the Appellate Body recently stated, under most systems of jurisprudence - it is for the party asserting a fact, claim or defence to bear the burden of providing proof thereof. Once that party has put forward sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden of producing evidence then shifts to the other party to rebut the presumption.…”. 7Certainly, as noted by the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), “[i]n the context of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement precisely how much and precisely what kind of evidence will be required to establish such a presumption will necessarily vary from measure to measure, provision to provision and case to case”.8
(ii) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
As discussed above, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts a fact or the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. As to be shown, this rule applies equally even in case of invoking an exception.
In this context, it is a general principle of law, well-established by panels in prior GATT/WTO practice, that the party (the defendant) which invokes an exception in order to justify its action carries the burden of proof that it has fulfilled the conditions for invoking the exception. However, in the author’s view, to understand the issue concerning burden of proof in case of invoking an exception, which is different from the relatively clear burden of establishing a prima facie case of violation on the complaining party, it’s helpful to stress some points here, among which the key point is to be cautious while determine which defence is “affirmative” and therefore burdens the defendant to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the challenged violation.
In United States-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), India argues that it was “customary GATT practice” that the party invoking a provision which had been identified as an exception must offer proof that the conditions set out in that provision were met. The Appellate Body acknowledges that several GATT 1947 and WTO panels have required such proof of a party invoking a defence, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i), to a claim of violation of a GATT obligation, such as those found in Arts. I:1, II:1, III or XI:1. Arts. XX and XI:(2)(c)(i) are limited exceptions from obligations under certain other provisions of the GATT 1994, not positive rules establishing obligations in themselves. They are in the nature of affirmative defences. It is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence, i.e. invoking an exception in the nature of affirmative defences, should rest on the party asserting it. 9
However, as ruled by the Appellate Body in EC-Hormones (DS26/DS48), “[t]he general rule in a dispute settlement proceeding requiring a complaining party to establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a provision of …[the covered agreements] before the burden of showing consistency with that provision is taken on by the defending party, is not avoided by simply describing that same provision as an ‘exception’. In much the same way, merely characterizing a treaty provision as an ‘exception’ does not by itself justify a ‘stricter’ or ‘narrower’ interpretation of that provision than would be warranted by examination of the ordinary meaning of the actual treaty words, viewed in context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose, or, in other words, by applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation. It is also well to remember that a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case.” 10
In short, during the process of the establishment of a violation, it’s generally up to the complainant to provide evidence concerning inconsistency, and only in case of limited exceptions the burden of proof rests upon the defending party invoking a defence in the nature of affirmative defences, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT 1994.
(iii) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
As suggested by the corresponding provisions, the most significant difference between violation complaints under Art. XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and non-violation ones under Art. XXIII:1(b) is, while, when violation complaints are brought under Art. XXIII:1(a), the infringement of an obligation of the agreements is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment, from the fact of violation alone, by establishing a formal presumption, such a presumption does not exist in non-violation cases.
With the lack of such a presumption, and given the nature of the factually complex disputes and particular claims of non-violation nullification or impairment, the resolution of issues relating to the proper allocation of the burden of proof is of particular importance. In case of non-violation nullification or impairment, i.e., where the application of Art. XXIII:1(b) is concerned, Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU and panel practice in the context of the WTO Agreement and GATT jurisprudence confirm that this is an exceptional course of action for which the complaining party bears the burden of providing a detailed justification to back up its allegations.
This requirement has been recognized and applied by a number of GATT panels. For example, the panel on Uruguayan Recourse to Art. XXIII noted that in cases “where there is no infringement of GATT provisions, it would be ... incumbent on the country invoking Article XXIII to demonstrate the grounds and reasons for its invocation. Detailed submissions on the part of that contracting party on these points were therefore essential for a judgement to be made under this Article”. And the panel on US - Agricultural Waiver noted, in applying the 1979 codification of this rule: “The party bringing a complaint under [Article XXIII:1(b)] would normally be expected to explain in detail that benefits accruing to it under a tariff concession have been nullified or impaired”.
Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU codifies the prior GATT practice, which provides in relevant part: “the complaining party shall present a detailed justification in support of any complaint relating to a measure which does not conflict with the relevant covered agreement ...”.
国际商会


国际商会托收统一规则


国际商会（ICC）出版物第522号

　　一、总则和定义
　　第一条：URC 522之适用
　　（1）本国际商会第522号出版物《托收统一规则》1995年修订本，应适用于第二条界定的、并在第四条“托收指示”中列明适用该项规则的所有托
　　收项目，且除非另有明确的相反约定，或与无法规避的某一国家、政府或地方法律及/或法规相抵触，本规则对所有的当事人均具有约束力。
　　（2） 银行没有义务必须办理某一托收或任何托收指示或以后的相关指示。
　　（3） 如果银行无论出于何种理由选择不办理它所收到的托收或任何相关的托收指示，应毫不延误地采用电讯，或者如果电讯不可能时，采用其它快捷的工具，通知向其发出托收或指示的当事人。
　　第二条 ：托收的定义
　　就本规则各项条款而言：
　　（1） 托收是指银行依据所收到的指示，处理下述第（2）款所界定的单据，以便：
　　a.取得付款及/或承兑；或
　　b.付款交单及/或承兑交单；或
　　c.按照其他条款和条件交付单据。
　　（2） 单据是指金融单据及/或商业单据。
　　a.金融单据是指汇票、本票、支票或其他类似的可用于取得款项支付的凭证；
　　b.商业单据是指发票、运输单据、所有权单据或其他类似的单据，或者不属于金融单据的任何其他单据。
　　（3） 光票托收是指不附有商业单据的金融单据项下的托收。
　　（4） 跟单托收是指：
　　a. 附有商业单据的金融单据项下的托收；
　　b.不附有金融单据的商业单据项下的托收。
　　第三条：托收当事人
　　（1） 就本规则各项条款而言，托收当事人有：
　　a.委托人，即委托银行办理托收的当事人；
　　b.托收行，即委托人委托办理托收的银行；
　　c.代收行，即除托收行以外的任何参与处理托收业务的任何银行；
　　d. 提示行，即向付款人提示单据的代收行。
　　（2） 付款人，即根据托收指示向其提示单据的人。
　　二、托收的形式和结构
　　第四条：托收指示
　　（1） a.所有送往托收的单据必须附有一项托收指示，注明该项托收将遵循《托收统一规则》第522号出版物，并列出完整和明确的指示。银行只准根据该托收指示中的命令和本规则行事；
　　b.银行将不会为了取得指示而审核单据；
　　c.除非托收指示中另有授权，银行将不理会向其发出托收的任何当事人/银行以外的任何当事人/银行的任何指示。
　　（2） 托收指示应当包括下述各项合适：
　　a.收到该项托收的银行详情，包括全称、邮政和SWIFT地址、电传、电话和传真号码和编号；
　　b.委托人的详情，包括全称、邮政地址或者办理提示的场所以及，如果有的话，电传、电话和传真号码；
　　c.付款人的详情，包括全称、邮政地址或者办理提示的场所以及，如果有的话，电传、电话和传真号码；
　　d.提示行（如有的话）的详情，包括全称、邮政地址以及，如果有的话，电传和传真号码；
　　e.待托收的金额和货币类型；
　　f.所附单据清单和每份单据的份数；
　　g. i.据以取得付款及/或承兑的条件和条款；
　　ii.凭以交付单据的条件
　　①付款及/或承兑
　　②其他条件和条款
　　缮制托收指示的当事人应负责确保清楚无误地说明交付单据的条件，否则，银行对此所产生的任何后果将不承担责任；
　　h.待收取的手续费，指明是否可以放弃；
　　i.待收取的利息，如有的话，指明是否可以放弃，包括利率、计息期、适用的计算期基数（如一年按360天还是365天计算）；
　　j.付款方法和付款通知的形式；
　　k.发生拒绝付款、拒绝承兑及/或与其他指示不相符的情况时应给出的指示。
　　（3）a.托收指示应载明付款人或将要办理提示的场所之完整地址。如果地址不全或有错误，代收银行可尽力查明适当的地址，但其本身不承担任何义务和责任。
　　b.代收银行对因所提供地址不全或有误所造成的任何延误，将不承担任何责任。
　　三、提示的形式
　　第五条：提示
　　（1）就本规则各项条款而言，提示是指银行按照指示将单据提供给付款人的程序。
　　（2）托收指示应列明付款人将要采取行动的确切期限。
　　诸如“首先、迅速、立即”和类似的表述，不应用于指提示、或付款人赎单或采取任何其他行动的任何期限。如果采用了该类术语，银行将不予理会。
　　（3）单据必须以银行收到时的形式向付款人提示，但经授权银行可以贴附任何必需的印章，并按照说明由向银行发出托收的当事人承担费用，而且银行可以经授权采取任何必要的背书或加盖橡皮戳记、或其他托收业务惯用的和必要的辨认记号或符号。
　　（4）为了使委托人的指示得以实现，托收行将以委托人所指定的银行作为代收行。在未指定代收行时，托收行将使用自己的任何银行，或者在付款或承兑的国家中、或必须遵守其他条件的国家中选择另外的银行。
　　（5）单据和托收指示可以由托收行直接或者通过另一银行作为中间银行寄送给代收行。
　　（6）如果托收行未指定某一特定的提示行，代办行可自行选择提示行。
　　第六条：即期付款/承兑
　　如果是见单即付的单据，提示行必须立即办理提示付款，不得延误；如果不是即期而是远期付款单据，提示行必须在要求承兑时毫不拖延地提示承兑，在要求付款时，不应晚于适当的 到期日办理提示付款。
　　第七条：商业单据的发放
　　承兑交单（D/A）与付款交单（D/P）
　　（1）如果托收包含有远期付款的汇票，则其指示不应要求付款才交付商业单据。
　　（2）如果托收包含有远期付款的汇票，托收指示应说明商业单据是凭承兑（D/A）还是凭付款（D/P）发放给付款人。
　　若无上述说明，商业单据只能是付款放单，而代收行对由于交付单据的任何延误所产生的任何后果将不承担责任。
　　（3）如果托收包含有远期付款的汇票，而且托收指示表明应凭付款发放商业单据时，则单据只能凭该项付款才能发放，而代收行对由于交付单据的任何延误所产生的任何结果将不承担责任。
　　第八条：代制单据
　　在托收行指示代收行或者付款人来代制托收中未曾包括的单据（汇票、本票、信托收据、保证书或其他单据）时，这些单据的格式和措辞应由托收行提供，否则，代收行对由代收行及/或付款人所提供任何该种单据的格式和措辞将不承担责任或对其负责。
　　四、义务和责任
　　第九条：诚信和合理的谨慎
　　银行将本着诚信的原则、尽合理的谨慎来办理业务。
　　第十条：单据与货物/服务/履行
　　（1）未经银行事先同意，货物不得直接发送到该银行地址、或者以该行作为收货人或者以该行为抬头人。
　　然而，如果未经银行事先同意而将货物直接发送到该银行地址、或者以该行作为收货人或者以该行为抬头人，并请该行凭付款或承兑或凭其他条款将货物交付给付款人，该行将没有提取货物的义务，其风险和责任仍由发货方承担。

（2）即使接到特别指示,也银行没有义务对与跟单托收有关的货物采取任何行动,包括对货物进行存储和保险。银行只有在个案中、在其同意的限度内，才会采取该类行动。尽管前述第一条（3）段有不同规定，即使代收银行对此没有任何特别的通知，也适用本条规则之规定。
　　（3）然而，无论银行是否收到指示，银行为保护货物而采取措施时，对有关货物的结局及/或状况及/或对受托保管及/或保护货物的任何第三方的作为及/或不作为概不承担责任。但是，代收行必须毫不延误地将其所采取的措施通知向其发出托收指的银行。
　　（4）银行对货物采取任何保护措施所发生的任何费用及/或花销将由向其发出托收的一方承担。
　　（5）a.尽管有前开第十条（1）段的规定，如果货物是以代收行作为收货人或抬头人，而且付款人已对该项托收办理了付款、承兑或承诺了其他条件和条款，且代收行因此对货物的发放作了安排时，则应视为托收行已授权代收行如此办理。
　　b.若代收行按照托收行的指示或按上述第十条（5）a段的规定安排发放货物，托收行应对该代收行所发生的全部损失和花销给予赔偿。
　　第十一条：对受托方行为的免责
　　（1）为使委托人的指示得以实现，银行使用另一银行或其他银行的服务时，是代为该委托人办理的，因此，其风险由委托人承担；
　　（2）即使银行主动地选择了其他银行办理业务，如该行所转递的指示未被执行，作出选择的银行也不承担责任或对其负责；
　　（3）一方指示另一方去履行服务，指示方应受到外国法律和惯例施加给被指示方的一切义务和责任的制约，并应就有关义务和责任对受托方承担赔偿责任。
　　第十二条：对收到单据的免责
　　（1）银行必须确定它所收到的单据应与托收指示中所列内容表面相符，如果发现任何单据有短缺或非托收指示所列，银行必须以电讯方式，如电讯不可能时，以其他快捷的方式，通知向从发出指示的一方，不得延误；
　　银行对此没有其他更多的责任。
　　（2）如果单据与所列内容表面不相符，托收行对代收行收到的单据种类和数量应不得有争议；
　　（3）根据第五条（3）段和上述第十二条（1）段和（2）段，银行将按所收到的单据办理提示而无需做更多的审核。
　　第十三条：对单据有效性的免责
　　银行对任何单据的格式、完整性、准确性、真实性、虚假性或其法律效力、或对在单据中载明或在其上附加的一般性及/或特殊性的条款，概不承担责任或对其负责；银行也不对任何单据所表示的货物的描述、数量、重量、质量、状况、包装、交货、价值或存在、或对货物的发运人、承运人、运输代理、收货人或保险人或其他任何人的诚信或作为及/或不作为、清偿力、业绩或信誉承担责任或对其负责。
　　第十四条：对单据延误、在传送中的丢失以及对翻译的免责
　　（1）银行对任何信息、信件或单据在传送中所发生的延误及/或丢失，或对任何电讯在传递中所发生的延误、残损或其他错误，或对技术条款的翻译及/或解释的错误，概不承担责任或对其负责；
　　（2）银行对由于收到的任何指示需要澄清而引起的延误，将不承担责任或对其负责。
　　第十五条：不可抗力
　　对由于天灾、暴动、骚乱、战争或银行本身不能控制的任何其他原因、任何罢工或停工而使银行营业中断所产生的后果，银行不承担责任或对其负责。
　　五、付款
　　第十六条：立即付款
　　（1）收妥的款项（扣除手续费及/或支出及/或可能的花销）必须按照托收指示中规定的条件和条款,毫不延误地付给向其发出托收指示的一方；
　　（2）尽管有第一条(3)段的规定，除非另有指示，代收行仅向托收行汇付收妥的款项。
　　第十七条：以当地货币支付
　　如果单据是以付款地国家的货币（当地货币）付款，除托收指示另有规定外，提示行必须凭当地货币的付款，发放单据给付款人，只要该种货币按托收指示规定的方式能够随时处理。
　　第十八条：用外币付款
　　如果单据是以付款地国家以外的货币（外汇）付款，除托收指示中另用规定外，提示行必须凭指定的外币付款，发放单据给付款人，只要该外币按托收指示规定能够立即汇出。
　　第十九条：部分付款
　　（1）光票托收时，只有在付款地现行法律准许部分付款的条件和限度内，才能接受部分付款。只有在全部货款已收妥的情况下，才能将金融单据发放给付款人。
　　（2）跟单托收时，只有在托收指示有特别授权的情况下，才能接受部分付款。然而，除非另有指示，提示行只能在全部货款已收妥后才能将单据交与付款人，并对由此所引起的延迟交单所产生的后果不承担责任。
　　（3）在任何情况下，部分付款只有在符合第十七条或第十八条中的相应规定时将会被接受。
　　如果接受部分付款，将按照第十六条的规定办理。
　　六、利息、手续费和费用
　　第二十条：利息
　　（1）如果托收指示中规定必须收取利息，但付款人拒付该项利息时，提示行可根据具体情况在不收取利息的情况下凭付款或承兑或其他条款和条件交付单据，除非适用第二十条（3）段之规定。
　　（2）如果要求收取利息，托收指示中应明确规定利率、计息期和计息基础。
　　（3）如托收指示中明确地指明利息不得放弃，但付款人拒付该利息，提示行则不交付单据，并对由此所引起的延迟交单所产生的后果不承担责任。
　　当利息已被拒付时，提示行必须以电讯，当不可能时可用其他便捷的方式，通知向其发出托收指示的银行，不得延误。
　　第二十一条：手续费和费用
　　（1）如果托收指示中规定收取手续费及/或费用须由付款人承担，而后者拒付时，提示行可以根据具体情况，在不收取手续费及/或费用的情况下凭付款或承兑或其他条款和条件交付单据，除非适用第二十一条（2）段之规定。
　　当放弃以这种方式支付托收手续费及/或费用时，该项费用应由发出托收的一方承担，并可从货款中扣减。
　　（2）如果托收指示中明确指明手续费和（或）费用不得放弃而付款人又拒付该项费用时，提示行将不交付单据，并对由此所引起的延误所产生的后果不承担责任。当该项费用已被拒付时，提示行必须以电讯，当不可能时可用其他便捷的方式，通知向其发出托收指示的银行，不得延误。
　　（3）在任何情况下，若托收指示中清楚地规定或根据本规则具体规定，支付款项及/或费用及/或托收手续费应由委托人承担，代收行应有权从向其发出托收指示的银行立即收回所支出的有关支付款、费用和手续费，而托收行不管该托收结果如何，应有权向委托人立即收回它所付出的任何金额，连同它自己的支付款、费用和手续费。
　　（4）银行对向其发出托收指示的一方保留要求事先支付手续费及/或费用的权利，以补偿其拟执行任何指示的费用支出，在未收到该项款项期间，有保留不执行该项指示的权利。
　　七、其他条款
　　第二十二条：承兑
　　提示行有责任确保汇票承兑形式看来是完整和正确的，但是，对任何签字的真实性或签署承兑的任何签字人的权限不负责任。
　　第二十三条：本票和其他凭证
　　提示行对在本票、收据或其他凭证上任何签字的真实性或签字人的权限不负责任。

　第二十四条：拒绝证书
　　托收指示对发生拒绝付款或拒绝承兑时的有关拒绝证书应有具体的指示（或代之以其他法律手续）。
　　如无此项具体指示，与托收有关的各银行在遭到拒绝付款或拒绝承兑时，无义务作出拒绝证书（或代之以其他法律手续）。
　　银行由于办理拒绝证书或其他法律手续而发生的手续费及/或其他费用概由向其发出托收指示的一方承担。
　　第二十五条：需要时的代理
　　如果委托人指定一名代表作为拒绝付款及/或拒绝承兑时的代理人，托收指示中应清楚地、详尽地指明该代理人的权限。如无此项指示，银行对需要时的代理人的指示可以不受理。
　　第二十六条：通知
　　代收行应按下列规则通知托收结果：
　　（1）通知方式
　　代收行对向对其发出托收指示的银行送交的所有通知和信息，必须载明必要的详细内容，在任何情况下，都应包括后者在托收指示中列明的编号。
　　（2）通知的方法：
　　托收行有责任就各种通知的具体方法向代收行发出指示，不同通知详见本款（3）a,（3）b和（3）c段的内容。如无该项指示，代收行将自行选择通知方法，寄送有关通知，而其费用应由向其发出托收指示的银行承担。
　　（3）a.付款通知
　　代收行必须毫无延误地将付款通知交发给向其发出托收指示的银行，详细列明有关金额或收妥金额、扣减的手续费及/或支付款及/或费用（如适当）、以及资金的处理方式。
　　b.承兑通知
　　代收行必须无延误地将承兑通知发送向其发出托收指示的银行。
　　c.拒绝付款或拒绝承兑的通知
　　提示行应尽力查明拒绝付款或拒绝承兑的原因，并相应地通知向其发出托收指示的银行，不得延误。
　　提示行应毫无延误地将拒绝付款及/或拒绝承兑的通知发送给向其发出托收指示的银行。
　　收到该通知后，托收行必须就进一步处理单据发出适当的指示。如在发出拒绝付款及/或拒绝承兑通知后60天内，提示行未收到该项指示，可将单据退回向其发出托收指示的银行，而提示行方面不承担任何其他责任。