China / 22 April 2009 / China, 浙江省宁波市中级人民法院 (Zhejiang, Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court) / DUFERCO S.A. v. Ningbo Arts & Crafts Import & Export Co., Ltd. / (2008) Yong Zhong Jian Zi No. 4 ((2008)甬仲监字第4号)
| Country | China |
| Court | China, 浙江省宁波市中级人民法院 (Zhejiang, Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court) |
| Date | 22 April 2009 |
| Parties | DUFERCO S.A. v. Ningbo Arts & Crafts Import & Export Co., Ltd. |
| Case number | (2008) Yong Zhong Jian Zi No. 4 ((2008)甬仲监字第4号) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | I(1) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 23 January 2003, DUFERCO S.A. and Ningbo Arts & Crafts Import & Export Co., Ltd. entered into an agreement for the sale of steel. The parties' agreement provided that any dispute relating to the performance of the contract or in connection with the contract would be submitted to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for arbitration in Beijing. A dispute arose between the parties and DUFERCO S.A. filed for an arbitration with the ICC. On 21 September 2007, an award was rendered in Beijing in favour of DUFERCO S.A. who then applied for recognition and enforcement of the award on 4 December 2008 with the Ningbo Intermediate People's Court (宁波市中级人民法院). Ningbo Arts & Crafts Import & Export Co., Ltd. challenged the application on the grounds that the ICC had violated Chinese law by rendering an award in China and that the intention of the arbitration agreement was to submit the dispute to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission. It also asserted that it had not received notice of the ICC arbitration or the appointment of arbitrators, and was therefore deprived of the opportunity to defend itself in the arbitration. The Ningbo Intermediate People's Court opined that the award should be recognised and enforced. The court opined, with reference to Article I(1) NYC, that the NYC was applicable to its review of the award since the award in the present application was not considered a domestic award in China. Furthermore, the court opined that there were no grounds for refusal. In particular, the court opined that the arbitration agreement was valid. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
