Guangdong Higher People’s Court,

Your Court’s Request for Instruction on the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award between the Applicant DMT S.A. (France) and the Respondent Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. and Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd., No. [2010] Yue Gao Fa Min Si Ta Zi No. 2, has been received. Upon deliberation, we reply as follows:

The present case concerns the request for recognition and enforcement of arbitral award No. 13450/EC rendered by the ICC (Singapore) International Court of Arbitration. China and Singapore are both Contracting States of the “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards” (hereinafter, the “New York Convention”). Therefore, whether the arbitral award in question can be recognized and enforced shall be reviewed according to the provisions of the New York Convention.

Concerning the question of whether Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. is the competent Respondent in the case, where the arbitral award initially listed “Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd.” as the Respondent before the Applicant submitted its application for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award; however, the arbitral tribunal issued an addendum to the award, changing the Respondent to “Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd.”. Therefore, Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. is not a party to the arbitration and has no contractual disputes with the Applicant. There exists no foreign arbitral award to be recognized and enforced. The request of DMT S.A. (France) against Chaozhou City Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. shall be rejected.

Concerning the question of whether the presiding arbitrator appointed by the tribunal conforms to the agreement of the parties, Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. did not raise any objections concerning whether the presiding arbitrator is a Singapore resident during the arbitration proceedings, and failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the presiding arbitrator is not familiar with Chinese law and lacks independence. Therefore, the ground raised by Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. on the conformity of the arbitrator appointed by the tribunal to the agreement of the parties is not established. The other grounds raised by Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd., supporting the refusal to recognize and enforce the award fall within the scope of substantive review, and not within the scope of review concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards as set outin the New York Convention. Consequently, the grounds raised by Chaoan County Huaye Packing Materials Co., Ltd. in support of the refusal to recognize and enforce the award have not been established.

In view of the above, we agree with your court’s opinion concerning the recognition and enforcement of the award concerned.

We reply as above.