贸达商品有限公司 v. 北京和美汉艺进出口有限责任公司

At a glance

Parties

贸达商品有限公司 (Hong Kong SAR), applicant, v. 北京和美汉艺进出口有限责任公司 (Beijing), respondent

Case no.

(2018)京04协外认7号

Court

Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court (北京市第四中级人民法院)

Underlying award(s)

British Coffee Association (BCA) Award No. BCA042 of 21 June 2016, and BCA Appeal Award of 18 October 2016

Forum and rules

Application to recognise and enforce a foreign award under the New York Convention; underlying arbitration under the BCA London Arbitration Rules (2012) and the Arbitration Act 1996, seated in London

Treaty

Contract clause (Sales Confirmation No. S30029, clause 17: "Arbitration: London", European Coffee Contract terms); New York Convention, Article V

Court

Presiding judge 王翔; judges 崔智瑜 and 李冬梅

Sector

Coffee trade (sale of green coffee beans)

Outcome

Recognition and enforcement of the BCA award and the appeal award granted. The ruling is signed 25 November 2019; the database gives 25 January 2019.

Amount

Award: USD 342,950.72 plus 6% interest compounded quarterly from 18 June 2011; arbitration costs GBP 2,700 (tribunal fees), GBP 500 (BCA registration fee) and GBP 520.37 (additional costs); appeal costs GBP 1,437.50, GBP 2,000 and GBP 60. Court fee: RMB 500, payable by the respondent.

The dispute

On 13 December 2010 the Hong Kong seller 贸达商品有限公司 and the Beijing buyer 北京和美汉艺进出口有限责任公司 signed Sales Confirmation No. S30029 for coffee. Clause 17 read "Arbitration: London; applicable terms: latest version of the European Coffee Contract". The seller shipped the coffee, but the buyer did not pay in full. The seller started arbitration before the British Coffee Association (BCA) against the buyer, 北京康坦愢咖啡贸易有限责任公司 and 季明, and won an award on 21 June 2016. An appeal lodged in the buyer's name was deemed withdrawn on 18 October 2016. The seller then asked the Beijing court to recognise and enforce both awards. The buyer raised three objections under Article V of the New York Convention: the arbitration clause named no institution; the composition of the tribunal breached the agreement and the Arbitration Act 1996; and it was never properly notified, because the notices went by email to the personal mailbox of its employee 齐仪.

Key holdings

1. The arbitration agreement gave the BCA jurisdiction. Article 24(a) of the European Coffee Contract, which clause 17 incorporates, sends disputes to the coffee trade body at the agreed place of arbitration. For London that body is the British Coffee Association. p. 10
2. The tribunal was properly composed. The BCA Rules (2012) require the BCA to appoint three arbitrators, one of them as chair, and the BCA did so. The BCA appeal procedure does not breach mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996. p. 10
3. Notice was proper. Under the BCA Rules, email is a valid means of service. 齐仪 had signed the contract for the buyer and is married to 季明, so the seller had reason to believe she could act for the buyer. A judgment of the Chaoyang District Court (No. 44550) showed that the buyer knew of the unpaid debt and had received the award on 28 June 2016. p. 11
4. The request for an order that the buyer pay the debt immediately falls outside the scope of a recognition proceeding. The awards do not conflict with Chinese public policy, so both are recognised and enforced. The respondent bears the court fee of RMB 500. p. 11

Procedural history

1. 13 December 2010The parties sign Sales Confirmation No. S30029, which contains a London arbitration clause.
2. 21 June 2016The BCA issues Award No. BCA042 against the buyer. The buyer receives it on 28 June 2016.
3. 27 July 2016The BCA appoints an Appeal Board on the appeal that 季明 lodged on behalf of the buyer.
4. 16 September 2016The Appeal Board deems the appeal withdrawn under BCA Rule 63(a), because the security deposit and the required copies of the appeal submissions were not provided.
5. 18 October 2016BCA Appeal Award: the appeal is deemed withdrawn, Award No. BCA042 takes effect, and the costs of the appeal are fixed.
6. 3 May 2018The Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court registers the application for recognition and enforcement.
7. 25 November 2019The court grants recognition and enforcement of both awards. The ruling is signed on this date; the database gives 25 January 2019.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

广东敬海（南沙）律师事务所 · 北京市君合（广州）律师事务所

For the respondent

北京市纵横律师事务所

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention Article V
• recognition and enforcement
• British Coffee Association
• BCA London Arbitration Rules 2012
• European Coffee Contract
• coffee trade
• proper notice
• email service
• apparent authority
• arbitration clause without named institution
• Arbitration Act 1996
• appeal deemed withdrawn
• public policy
• China
• Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.