皇家食品进口公司 (Royal Food Import Corp) v. 烟台洛克西进出口有限公司

At a glance

Parties

皇家食品进口公司 (Royal Food Import Corp) (USA) v. 烟台洛克西进出口有限公司 (Yantai Rokxy Import Export Co. Ltd) (China)

Case no.

(2017)鲁06民初382号

Court

Yantai Intermediate People's Court, Shandong Province (山东省烟台市中级人民法院)

Underlying award(s)

Association of Food Industries, Inc. (美国食品工业协会) Award No. 2585 of 21 July 2015

Treaty

New York Convention 1958 (Articles IV and V)

Court

Presiding judge 韩素华; people's assessors 迟荣庚 and 王新利

Sector

Food trade (canned fruit and vegetables)

Outcome

Application for recognition and enforcement dismissed (16 March 2020). Royal Food had not shown that the award debtor, Adu International Group Corp. Ltd, was the respondent.

Amount

Award: USD 43,986 plus USD 1,250 arbitration fee, total USD 45,236 (enforcement refused). The related Suqian ruling recognised a separate award of USD 60,729 plus USD 200 in fees (USD 60,929).

The dispute

Royal Food Import Corp, a Massachusetts company based in Boston, bought goods such as mandarin orange segments under 22 sales contracts concluded between May 2013 and December 2014. Each contract referred disputes to the Association of Food Industries, Inc. (AFI). On 21 July 2015 AFI issued Award No. 2585 against the seller, "Adu International Group Corp. Ltd". The seller had not responded to the arbitration or appeared. Royal Food asked the Yantai Intermediate People's Court to recognise and enforce the award against Yantai Rokxy Import Export Co. Ltd under the New York Convention. It argued that Adu and Yantai Rokxy were the same company: the names and address matched those on a website, and the contract was signed by 杜杰, then Yantai Rokxy's legal representative. Yantai Rokxy denied being the contracting party or bound by the arbitration clause, and denied receiving notice of the arbitration (Article V(1)(b)). It also argued that the award went beyond the arbitration agreements for contract No. 22477 (Article V(1)(c)). The published documents also include a 2017 ruling of the Suqian Intermediate People's Court. That ruling concerns a separate application by Royal Food against a different Chinese seller.

Key holdings

1. Under Article IV(1)(a) and (b) of the New York Convention, the applicant must supply the award and the arbitration agreement, and both must bind the applicant and the respondent. Royal Food produced the award and a contract containing an arbitration clause. It did not prove that the party to them, "Adu International Group Corp. Ltd", was Yantai Rokxy. So it had not supplied an award or arbitration agreement between itself and Yantai Rokxy. p. 8
2. The application therefore did not meet the conditions for acceptance. It was dismissed under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Supreme People's Court Provisions on Several Issues in Arbitration Judicial Review Cases. The Court did not decide the Article V objections on notice and excess of mandate. p. 8
3. On the evidence, the Court accepted that contract No. 22460 was authentic. It did not accept the part of Royal Food's translation that rendered the seller's name as Yantai Rokxy. Yantai Rokxy's registered English name ("YanTai Rokxy Import Export Co. Ltd"), address and company seal all differed from those of the seller in the contract. pp. 2, 5, 7–8
4. Either party could appeal to the Shandong High People's Court: Royal Food within 30 days of service of the ruling, Yantai Rokxy within 10 days. p. 8
5. Separate case: in the Suqian ruling, the court recognised and enforced AFI Award No. 2590 against 宿迁市罐头食品有限责任公司. Section 13 of the AFI rules allows service by any reasonable means at the last known address, including email. The business email of the manager who signed the contract was that address, and the seller had sent a written defence to the tribunal. There was therefore no breach of Article V of the Convention for lack of notice. Suqian ruling, pp. 4–5

Procedural history

1. 23 May 2015AFI emails the notice of arbitration in Case No. 2585, the list of tribunal members, the claim and the AFI rules to addresses at the adufood.cn domain.
2. 21 July 2015AFI issues Award No. 2585 against Adu International Group Corp. Ltd for USD 45,236. The respondent did not respond or appear.
3. 10 November 2015AFI emails the award to the same adufood.cn addresses. Royal Food sends demands for payment on 17 November 2015 and 8 January 2016, without response.
4. 8 February 2017In a separate case, the Suqian Intermediate People's Court recognises and enforces AFI Award No. 2590 (of 15 December 2015) obtained by Royal Food against 宿迁市罐头食品有限责任公司.
5. 16 March 2020The Yantai Intermediate People's Court dismisses Royal Food's application to recognise and enforce Award No. 2585 against Yantai Rokxy.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

北京大成（上海）律师事务所 · 北京大成（宁波）律师事务所

For the respondent

山东福阳律师事务所 · 江苏宏亮律师事务所

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• recognition and enforcement
• Article IV
• Article V(1)(b)
• Article V(1)(c)
• identity of award debtor
• Association of Food Industries
• AFI arbitration
• Adu International Group
• Yantai
• China
• email service
• proper notice
• excess of mandate
• canned food trade
• sale of goods

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