The law is not mine, but I can tell you where this breaks in the plumbing. The statement lives in the invoice template, so the presentation holds one document where the credit's list has two lines. Banking practice, as I read it, wants credit documents presented separately, while a certificate of origin is met by any signed paper that relates to the invoiced goods and certifies their origin. So does the same statement, printed again on its own signed sheet, pass an examiner? Has anyone tried?
Chile lost the EUR.1 for Europe in February 2025, so this argument is not new on our side. Cheaper than reprinting the statement: two papers, two jobs. The statement on the invoice is for the customs officer. If the credit only says certificate of origin and names no issuer, a non-preferential certificate from a chamber of commerce is a signed paper that relates to the goods and certifies origin, which is all the examiner reads for. If the clause names an issuer or a form, Mariano is right: amend before picking starts.
Kadri, the customs side already allows your separate sheet: the Commission's guidance on the interim agreement accepts the statement on origin on its own paper, provided the sheet and the invoice reference each other. And where the credit names no issuer, the ISBP lets any entity issue a certificate of origin, the beneficiary included.
Strictly speaking, though, the statement does not certify Brazilian origin. The prescribed text declares the goods of MERCOSUR preferential origin, and the bank examines for a paper that certifies origin. If the credit stipulates goods of Brazilian origin, an examiner may read the bloc as something other than the country, and I would not stake a payment on persuading him otherwise, however elegant the footnote.
Which is why Mariano has the practical answer: get the clause amended while everyone is still friends.