The Guangdong Higher People's Court,

Your decision, No. 11 [2008] No. 4 Civil Tribunal of the Guangdong Higher People’s Court: the Request for Instruction on the Judgment of the Case Regarding the Application for Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitral Award granted by the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal at the International Centre for Dispute Resolution Submitted by North American Foreign Trading Corporation, was received. After our deliberation we reply as follows:

The present case concerns an application for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award. Because the arbitral award in this case was granted by the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal at the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (the United States) and both China and the United States are parties to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), in accordance with both Section 267 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Article 1 of the New York Convention, the relevant provisions in the New York Convention should be applied to the review of the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in question.

The following are found based on the facts recognized in your court’s request for instruction: in the light of the arbitration plaintiff’s request, the arbitral tribunal postponed the hearing date that was initially confirmed by all relevant parties and notified all relevant parties by fax. The respondents raised an objection to the extension and requested the case to be heard on the date that had been initially decided. The respondents did not have any evidence to prove that they had no knowledge about this hearing date. The arbitration procedure was in compliance with the applicable arbitration rules to which all parties agreed.

After the arbitral tribunal rendered an award in this case, the tribunal then sent the arbitral award by international registered mail to the address provided by the respondents; however, the mail was returned. Subsequently, the arbitral tribunal sent the arbitralaward by mail again to the address provided by the applicant, which was also the registered address of one of the respondent—Shenzhen Laiyingda Technology Co., Ltd. The delivery method was also in compliance with the provisions of the applicable arbitration rules.

None of the situations under Article V of the New York Convention are applicable to this arbitral award. The People’s Court should recognize and enforce this arbitral award. We agree with your review comments.

The above is our reply.