On September 25, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as “SPC”) held a press conference to release the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Promoting High-Quality Development of International Commercial Courts and Serving and Safeguarding High-Level Opening-Up (hereinafter referred to as “the Opinions”) and the fifth batch of typical cases related to the construction of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Justice Wang Shumei, Standing Member of the Adjudication Committee of the SPC; Shen Hongyu, Chief Judge of the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC; Wang Haifeng, Deputy Chief Judge of the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC; and Long Fei, Director of the Coordination and Guidance Office for the China International Commercial Court (CICC) under the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC attended the press conference. The press conference was hosted by Ji Zhongbiao, Deputy Director General of the Information Department of the SPC. Shen Hongyu released the fifth batch of typical BRI-related cases.

To provide a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the role of international commercial courts in serving and safeguarding high-quality development of the BRI and high-level opening-up, the fifth batch of typical cases related to the BRI was simultaneously released. These cases were selected from foreign-related civil and commercial cases submitted by the CICC of the SPC and local international commercial tribunals. They include cases involving independent guarantees, construction contracts for the BRI, applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments, and applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Collectively, these cases reflect the diversity of legal issues arising from the BRI development and clearly elaborate on the principles and basis of the application of law. They not only provide clear guidance on legal issues in relevant fields but also demonstrate China’s active attitude in strengthening international economic and trade cooperation and promoting international judicial assistance. These cases are highly representative and have the following notable features:

1. Unifying Rules for the Application of Law to Uphold a Fair and Orderly Market Environment

A rule-of-law-based business environment is a shared expectation of domestic and foreign commercial entities participating in the BRI. Case 1 clarified for the first time the judicial rule that standby letters of credit with a guarantee function should be recognized as independent guarantees. It also determined that a reduction claim by the beneficiary of a counter-guarantee, based on a commercial arrangement with relevant parties, constitutes a voluntary waiver of part of the claim amount and does not amount to independent guarantee fraud. This case has positive implications for promoting cross-border financial transactions and stabilizing market expectations and order.

2. Adhering to Lawful and Equal Protection to Safeguard the Legitimate Rights and Interests of Parties in Cross-Border Transactions

The construction projects under the BRI involve large sums of money, long construction periods, multiple participants, and challenges in cross-border evidence collection for quality inspections. These projects are also subject to the laws and regulations of the countries where the projects are located, making them highly representative of complex and difficult cases in foreign-related adjudication. Case 2 skillfully utilized judicial expertise by adopting a combination of on-site testing abroad and laboratory testing in China, along with a method of extrapolating overall quality levels from partial samples. This innovative approach provided a solid foundation for the fair determination of breaches of contract and the allocation of losses in construction contract disputes related to the BRI. It also offered an effective model and guidance for bridging technological gaps and breaking evidentiary deadlocks. This case not only ensured the equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of both domestic and foreign parties but also facilitated the swift and efficient resolution of cross-border disputes. Moreover, it boosted the confidence of Chinese enterprises in “going global.”

3. Deepening Judicial Cooperation to Promote Foreign Law Ascertainment and Mutual Recognition of Civil and Commercial Judgments

Deepening judicial cooperation is a key practice in advancing the concept of “a community with a shared future for mankind” in the field of the rule of law. Case 3 relied on the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore on Information on Foreign Law. For the first time, the procedure for mutual requests for foreign law ascertainment between the two countries’ courts was initiated. This not only ensured the efficiency and orderly nature of foreign law ascertainment but also guaranteed the accuracy and authority of the results. On the basis of ascertaining the legal force of a judgment issued by a Singaporean court, the People’s Court, relying on the Memorandum of Guidance Between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases, determined that there was a consensus on reciprocity between China and Singapore. Thus, under the principle of reciprocity, the court recognized and enforced the civil judgment issued by the Singaporean court. This case has significant implications for deepening judicial assistance and cooperation and exchanges between the two countries, fostering friendly relations, and jointly advancing the BRI.

4. Adhering to International Treaty Obligations to Build a Full-Chain Model for Substantive Dispute Resolution

Chinese courts have consistently upheld a judicial stance of interpreting international treaties in good faith and complying with obligations under international conventions. Case 4 involved an application for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the Mongolian International Arbitration Center. The case also raised issues concerning the applicability of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter referred to as the “New York Convention”) and the Treaty Between the People’s Republic of China and the Mongolian People’s Republic on Civil and Criminal Judicial Assistance (hereinafter referred to as the “China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty”). The court, applying the rules of treaty interpretation, clarified that the “competent authorities” referenced in the China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty do not include arbitration institutions. Consequently, the case should be reviewed under the New York Convention, thereby clarifying the relationship between the New York Convention and the bilateral judicial assistance treaty. Case 5 demonstrated principle of “pro-arbitration enforcement” of the New York Convention. The court efficiently and promptly issued a decision to recognize and enforce an arbitral award made by the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s International Commercial Arbitration Court. Following the decision, the court issued a pre-enforocement notice urging the fulfillment of obligations, which seamlessly connected with pre-enforcement mediation. This facilitated the parties in reaching and fulfilling a settlement agreement, thereby establishing a full-chain dispute resolution model for international commercial disputes and offering practical examples for international commercial dispute resolution under the BRI, providing a model for resolving cross-border trade disputes.

The fifth batch of typical cases related to the BRI represents an important measure by the People’s Courts to implement the Opinions of the CPC Central Committee on Strengthening Adjudication Work in the New Era. It reflects efforts to deeply implement the strategy of crafting exemplary foreign-related adjudications and to enhance judicial services and guarantees for the high-quality development of the BRI. These cases embody the People’s Courts’ commitment to innovating foreign-related adjudication rules through judicial practice, promoting international commercial and trade exchanges, and strengthening international rule-of-law cooperation. We hope that the release of these typical cases will not only provide demonstration and guidance for courts at all levels to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases related to the Belt and Road but also serve to offer rule-making guidance through China’s judicial expertise for the BRI, injecting new rule-of-law-driven momentum into the development of a fairer, more open, and more inclusive international economic order.

The Fifth Batch of Typical Cases Related to the Belt and Road Initiative

Table of Contents

Case 1

China National Electric Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Manila Branch of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, and Jiangsu Bank Co., Ltd. (Case Involves Dispute on Independent Guarantees Fraud)

Case 2

Beijing Xiaocheng Stock Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Zhonghuan Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. (Case Involves Dispute on Sales Contract)

Case 3

Application by Jinmai International Co., Ltd. for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Civil Judgment

Case 4

Mongolia-Russia Joint Venture Non-Ferrous Metals State-Owned Enterprise v. Xizhou (Shanghai) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award)

Case 5

Agerratum LLC v. Tasteway (Xiamen) Foods Co., Ltd. (Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award Involving a BRICS Country)

Case 1

China National Electric Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Manila Branch of Australia v. New Zealand Banking Group Limited, and Jiangsu Bank Co., Ltd. (Case Involves Dispute on Independent Guarantees Fraud)

I. Basic Facts

China National Electric Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CNEEC) applied to Jiangsu Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiangsu Bank) for the issuance of a performance standby letter of credit to fulfill a construction contract in Philippines. The beneficiary of the letter of credit was D.M.Consunji. Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Consunji Company), with an amount of approximately USD 23 million. After Jiangsu Bank issued an irrevocable Counter-Guarantee Standby Letter of Credit to the Manila Branch of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (hereinafter referred to as ANZ Manila Branch), ANZ Manila Branch issued an irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in favor of Consunji Company for approximately USD 23 million.

During the performance of the contract, Consunji Company made a claim for approximately USD 23 million under the Standby Letter of Credit to ANZ Manila Branch, which then requested Jiangsu Bank to make the payment. Since CNEEC only agreed to pay approximately USD 7.3 million, Jiangsu Bank paid USD 7.3 million to ANZ Manila Branch, which then transferred the amount to Consunji Company. On May 11, 2017, Consunji Company and ANZ Manila Branch reached a settlement agreement, which covered the Standby Letter of Credit and another unrelated Standby Letter of Credit. Under the terms of the settlement, ANZ Manila Branch paid USD 6 million to Consunji Company, and Consunji Company agreed to withdraw its claim under the Standby Letter of Credit. Consunji Company refunded approximately USD 7.3 million in total to CNEEC.

Subsequently, ANZ Manila Branch sent a lawyer's letter to Jiangsu Bank, demanding payment of USD 6 million and interest under the Counter-Guarantee Standby Letter of Credit. CNEEC, alleging fraud on the part of ANZ Manila Branch, filed a lawsuit in court requesting Jiangsu Bank to suspend payment.

II. Judgment

The Second International Commercial Court of the SPC concluded as follows:

Firstly, the Standby Letter of Credit and the Counter-Guarantee Standby Letter of Credit involved in the case possessed a guarantee function. Both stipulated “payment upon demand,” and thus were classified as independent guarantees under Chinese law. Therefore, the judicial rules applicable to independent guarantees should be applied. Under the Standby Letter of Credit, Consunji Company made a claim and presented documents, while under the Counter-Guarantee Standby Letter of Credit, ANZ Manila Branch made a corresponding claim and presented documents. Jiangsu Bank, as the issuer of the Counter-Guarantee Standby Letter of Credit, failed to issue a notice of refusal to pay as required under Article 5.01 of the International Standby Practices (ISP98), and thus had an obligation to make payment upon maturity.

Secondly, the Settlement Agreement between Consunji Company and ANZ Manila Branch resolved the claim under the Standby Letter of Credit and did not involve the Counter-Guarantee Standby Letter of Credit. Under the Settlement Agreement, Consunji Company’s promise to waive claims against ANZ Manila Branch was premised on ANZ Manila Branch’s payment of USD 6 million as consideration. This did not constitute a withdrawal of claims. Since the Counter-Guarantee Standby Letter of Credit operates independently of the Standby Letter of Credit, Jiangsu Bank’s payment obligation under the Counter-Guarantee Standby Letter of Credit was not extinguished by the settlement arrangement of the Standby Letter of Credit.

Accordingly, the SPC dismissed CNEEC’s claims.

III. Significance

In recent years, with the increasing of economic and trade exchanges among countries participating in the BRI, financial guarantee instruments have been increasingly used in international engineering contract projects to safeguard the interests of all parties involved. In addition to independent guarantees, standby letters of credit are also one of the commonly used instruments internationally. However, under Chinese law, there is no explicit concept of standby letters of credit, let alone clear rules on their application. Through the trial of this case, the Second International Commercial Court of the SPC clarified for the first time that standby letters of credit with a guarantee function fall under the category of independent guarantees and that the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Independent Guarantee Dispute Cases of the SPC should be applied to determine the rights and obligations of the parties. This provides judicial guidance for future cases involving standby letters of credit.

At the same time, this case further emphasized the independence of independent guarantees as a common tool for securing international commercial transactions. In the practice of international engineering project construction, banks issuing independent guarantees often require counter-guarantees from other banks, which then issue counter-guarantee independent guarantees. When the bank that is the beneficiary of the counter-guarantee letter of guarantee reaches a settlement agreement with relevant parties and waives certain rights to protect its own interests after its claim is rejected, courts cannot simply conclude that the beneficiary of the counter-guarantee is engaged in independent guarantee fraud on this basis alone.

In this case, the Court accurately applied the law and adhered to the principle of equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties. This plays a positive role in enhancing the legal risk awareness of Chinese enterprises during their “going global” efforts and in fostering a fairer and more reasonable international trade order.

First Instance Case Number: (2020) Zuigao Fa Shang Chu No. 2, the Supreme People’s Court

Case 2

Beijing Xiaocheng Stock Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Zhonghuan Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. (A Sales Contract)

I. Basic Facts

In 2014, BeijingXiaocheng Stock Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xiaocheng Company”) purchased photovoltaic (PV) modules from Jiangsu Zhonghuan Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhonghuan Company”) and installed them at a power plant it had invested in and constructed in the Republic of Ghana, Africa. After the plant was connected to the grid, the power output fell short of the required standard. Xiaocheng Company claimed that the PV modules provided by Zhonghuan Company were of substandard quality and subsequently filed a lawsuit with the Fourth Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing, requesting Zhonghuan Company to refund the payment, pay liquidated damages, and compensate for economic losses. During the litigation, the parties had significant disputes over whether the PV modules were defective and the causes of any defects. The court thus organized a cross-border judicial appraisal of the 8,099 modules involved in the case.

II. Judgment

The Fourth Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing, held that regarding the appraisal method, given that the scope of appraisal encompassed 8,099 PV modules, the sheer scale of the appraisal, the overseas location of the site, and the complexity of the environment made it practically impossible to individually appraise each module. After consultations with both parties and the appraisal institution, the court ultimately decided to adopt a combined appraisal method, incorporating on-site testing abroad and laboratory testing domestically, with results from a partial sample extrapolated to reflect the overall quality of the modules.

According to the appraisal results, the proportion of PV modules whose power output did not meet the agreed power generation standards was as follows: all modules in zones “A” and “C” were non-compliant, while 91.75% of the modules in zone “B” were non-compliant. The non-compliance fell into three categories: inherent quality defects in the modules at the time of production, potential-induced degradation (PID), and damage caused during long-distance transportation, installation, and maintenance. However, the appraisal institution could not quantify the proportional contribution of each cause. The appraisers, during in-court cross-examination, stated that they could provide a ranked order of contributing causes by region: for zones “A” and “B”, the causes ranked from greatest to least were PID, inherent quality defects, and other causes such as maintenance and installation. For zone “C”, the ranking was PID, other causes such as maintenance and installation, and inherent quality defects.

Based on the contractual terms and the appraisal findings, the court determined, at its discretion, the proportion of liability attributable to the seller, Zhonghuan Company, as follows: 35% for zones “A” and “B”, and 10% for zone “C”. The court then calculated the amount of compensatory damages and Zhonghuan Company was required to pay accordingly. After commissioning a cost appraisal, the court ultimately determined that Zhonghuan Company was liable to compensate Xiaocheng Company for economic losses amounting to RMB 1,093,585.47, along with interest losses.

Xiaocheng Company was dissatisfied with the ruling and filed an appeal. On January 7, 2025, the High People’s Court of Beijing rendered its second-instance judgment, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

III. Significance

In recent years, under the high-quality joint construction of the Belt and Road, China’s renewable energy industry has frequently collaborated with Belt and Road partner countries in infrastructure development. Disputes arising from such cooperation often involve the appraisal of related projects or equipment. When handling such disputes, cross-border appraisal is necessary. In these cases, cross-border appraisal serves as a “technical key,” as its conclusions directly determine the accurate identification of breach of contract facts and the appropriate allocation of losses. It is a critical tool for resolving challenges in transnational transactions and balancing the rights and interests of the parties involved.

This case was the first in Beijing to involve cross-border judicial appraisal. The Fourth Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing (Beijing International Commercial Tribunal) organized the parties to thoroughly study the appraisal plan, bridged technical gaps, and actively provided judicial services and safeguards for Chinese enterprises engaging in global ventures. The successful conduct of the cross-border appraisal and the smooth conclusion of this case have accumulated valuable experience, offered an effective model and pathway, and boosted the confidence of Chinese enterprises in their "going global" efforts. Moreover, it has highlighted the crucial role of judicial systems in fostering shared benefits among the Belt and Road partner countries, thereby promoting the mutual interests of all parties involved.

First Instance Case Number: (2019) Jing 04 Min Chu No. 559, the Fourth Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing
Second Instance Case Number: (2024) Jing Min Zhong No. 330, the High People’s Court of Beijing

Case 3

Application by Jinmai International Co., Ltd. for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Court Civil Judgment

I. Basic Facts

In March 2022, Jinmai International Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jinmai”) filed a lawsuit with the Singapore High Court over a contract dispute, requesting that seven defendants, including Chinese nationals Lin and Xiao, jointly repay USD 6.65 million. The Singapore High Court, through judicial assistance, successfully served notice to Lin and Xiao and scheduled a hearing for Defendant Lin on September 22, 2022. Since Lin failed to appear in court, the court issued Civil Judgment No. 411/2022 under Order 13 of the Singapore Rules of Court, ordering Lin to pay USD 6.65 million. Subsequently, a hearing for Defendant Xiao was scheduled for February 14, 2023. Similarly, due to Xiao’s absence, the court issued Civil Judgment No. 47/2023 under the same order, requiring Xiao to pay USD 6.65 million.

The relevant content of Order 13 is as follows:

“1. (1) Where a writ is endorsed with a claim against a defendant for a debt or liquidated demand only, and the defendant fails to enter an appearance, the plaintiff may, after the time limited for appearing has expired, enter final judgment for a sum not exceeding the amount claimed in the writ, together with costs, and may proceed with the action against the other defendants, if any.
(2) For the purposes of this rule, a claim shall not cease to be a claim for a debt or liquidated demand merely because part of the claim is for interest accruing after the date of the writ at an unspecified rate (any such interest being to be computed from the date of the writ to the date of entering judgment at the rate of 6% per annum or such other rate as may be specified from time to time by the Chief Justice).”

As Xiao’s residence was in Suzhou, Jinmai applied to the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province on August 16, 2023, for recognition and enforcement of Civil Judgment No. 47/2023 issued by the Singapore High Court.

II. Judgment

As this case involved the interpretation of the Singapore Rules of Court, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province submitted a request for judicial assistance to ascertain the law, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation Between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore on Ascertainment of Foreign Law (hereinafter referred to as the “MoU on Foreign Law Ascertainment”). Pursuant to Article 4 of the Memorandum, the SPC of China forwarded the request to the Supreme Court of Singapore. On December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of Singapore issued a Response to the Request for Ascertainment of Law and Legal Opinion.

Upon review, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court held as follows: Since the signing of the Memorandum of Guidance Between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases (hereinafter referred to as the “Memorandum on Money Judgments”) on August 31, 2018, the courts of the two countries have mutually recognized and enforced civil judgments. Accordingly, it can be established that there exists a reciprocal relationship between China and Singapore with respect to the recognition and enforcement of civil judgments. This case could therefore be reviewed under the principle of reciprocity.

The recognition and enforcement of foreign civil judgments by the People’s Courts of China require that the judgment has already taken legal effect. Article 7 of the Memorandum on Money Judgments specifies that judgments of Singapore courts submitted for recognition and enforcement in China must be final and conclusive. According to the legal opinion provided in the Response to the Request for Ascertainment of Law and Legal Opinion issued by the Supreme Court of Singapore, the following points were clarified: Jinmai’s claim against Xiao was for a liquidated amount. Xiao was duly served but failed to enter an appearance. Therefore, the judgment rendered under Order 13 of the Singapore Rules of Court became effective immediately upon issuance and is enforceable. The plaintiff may obtain a default judgment against the non-appearing defendant, while the litigation against other defendants may continue. The default judgment issued against one or more defendants is final and conclusive, independent of any subsequent rulings related to other defendants. Unless the defendant applies for and successfully obtains a court order to set aside the judgment, the default judgment is binding on the defendant.

In light of this, the court ruled to recognize and enforce the civil judgment issued by the Singapore High Court in this case.

III. Significance

This case is a typical example of recognizing and enforcing civil and commercial judgments from courts in countries jointly building the BRI. On April 3, 2022, the MoU on Foreign Law Ascertainment signed between the SPC of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore came into effect. The memorandum reached a consensus on facilitating the ascertainment of each other’s laws in international civil and commercial cases and enhancing bilateral cooperation in this regard.

In this case, the Chinese court initiated the relevant procedure to request the ascertainment of Singaporean law for the first time, receiving a positive response from the Singaporean court, which ensured the accuracy and authority of understanding and applying the laws of that country. On this basis, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (Suzhou International Commercial Tribunal) applied the principle of reciprocity to recognize and enforce the civil judgment issued by the Singapore court, thereby equally protecting the legitimate rights and interests of both Chinese and foreign parties.

This case represents an important judicial practice in which the People’s Court requested the ascertainment of Singaporean law under the MoU on Foreign Law Ascertainment. It serves as a model for deepening judicial cooperation and exchanges between the two countries, promoting the development of friendly relations, and jointly advancing the development of the BRI.

First Instance Case Number: (2023) Su 05 Xiewai Ren No. 8, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province

Case 4

Mongolia-Russia Joint Venture Non-Ferrous Metals State-Owned Enterprise v.  Xizhou (Shanghai) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award)

I. Basic Facts

The Mongolian-Russian Joint Venture State-Owned Non-Ferrous Metal Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as the “Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise”) and Xizhou (Shanghai) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xizhou Technology Company”) signed the Iron Ore Export Agreement on May 5, 2020. Subsequently, disputes arose between the two parties regarding the performance of the agreement. The Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise, pursuant to the provisions of the agreement, applied for arbitration with the Mongolian International Arbitration Center.

After accepting the case, the Mongolian International Arbitration Center mailed the application and arbitration documents of the Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise to the registered address of Xizhou Technology Company. Xizhou Technology Company signed the documents but did not submit any response. On December 16, 2022, the Mongolian International Arbitration Center conducted a hearing in the absence of Xizhou Technology Company and issued a final arbitral award. The award required Xizhou Technology Company to pay the Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise the outstanding payment of USD 172,702.10, liquidated damages of USD 55,782.78, and arbitration fees of USD 7,113.

As Xizhou Technology Company failed to fulfill the obligations specified in the arbitral award, the Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise applied to the First Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

II. Judgment

The Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court upon review, held that the arbitral award in this case was rendered by the Mongolian International Arbitration Center within the territory of Mongolia and thus constitutes an arbitral award of Mongolia. Both China and Mongolia are signatories to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter referred to as the “New York Convention”) and have also signed the Treaty Between the People’s Republic of China and the Mongolian People’s Republic on Civil and Criminal Judicial Assistance (hereinafter referred to as the “China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty”).

Article 7(1) of the New York Convention provides: “The provisions of the present Convention shall not affect the validity of multilateral or bilateral agreements concerning the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards entered into by the Contracting States nor deprive any interested party of any right he may have to avail himself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or the treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon.”

According to Article 17 of the China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty regarding the “Scope of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments,” the treaty’s scope includes judgments rendered by courts or other competent authorities in civil cases involving property or non-property matters. Article 2 of the treaty specifies: “In this treaty, the term ‘competent authorities’ refers to courts, procuratorates, and other authorities competent to handle civil or criminal cases.” However, the treaty does not explicitly clarify whether “competent authorities” include arbitral institutions.

Upon reviewing the relevant negotiation records and treaty drafts, it was determined that “competent authorities” do not include arbitral institutions. Therefore, the China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty is not applicable in this case, and the New York Convention should be applied for review.

After review, the arbitral award in question does not fall within any of the circumstances under the New York Convention that would warrant refusal of recognition and enforcement. Accordingly, the court ruled to recognize and enforce the arbitral award rendered by the Mongolian International Arbitration Center.

III. Significance

Mongolia is one of the key partner countries in the BRI, and China and Mongolia have maintained frequent economic and trade exchanges over the years. Although China and Mongolia have signed the China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty, the treaty only covers the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments and does not provide for the mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court (Shanghai International Commercial Tribunal), following the relevant rules of treaty interpretation, correctly determined that the “competent authorities” referred to in the China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty do not include arbitral institutions. Consequently, it was clarified that the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in this case should be reviewed under the New York Convention.

This case clarified the relationship between the New York Convention and the China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty, establishing the legal basis for the People’s Courts to review applications for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards from Mongolia. The efficient resolution of this case significantly enhanced mutual trust in international economic, trade, and personnel exchanges, further raising the level of judicial cooperation among BRI partner countries.

Moreover, this case holds significant value in accurately applying international rules and providing comprehensive legal services and safeguards for the high-quality development of the BRI.

First Instance Case Number: (2025) Hu 01 Xiewai Ren No. 1, Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court

Case 5

Agerratum LLC v. Tasteway (Xiamen) Foods Co., Ltd. (Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award Involving a BRICS Country)

I. Basic Facts

In November 2021, Russia-based Agerratum LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Agerratum”) purchased frozen eggplant cubes from Tasteway (Xiamen) Foods Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tasteway Xiamen”). It was agreed that all disputes, disagreements, or claims arising out of or related to the contract, including performance, breach, termination, or invalidity of the contract, would be resolved by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “Russian Commercial Arbitration Court”) in accordance with its applicable rules and regulations. The arbitral award would be final and binding on both parties.

In May 2023, Agerratum filed for arbitration with the Russian Commercial Arbitration Court on the grounds that Tasteway Xiamen had failed to fulfill its full delivery obligations, seeking $173,327.50 in damages. In November 2023, the Russian Commercial Arbitration Court issued the arbitral award No. M-80/2023 in Moscow, ruling that Tasteway Xiamen must pay Agerratum $71,250 as principal, $28,500 as penalties, and $10,876.95 as arbitration fees.

During the arbitration process and after the award was issued, Tasteway Xiamen neither attended the proceedings nor fulfilled the obligations stipulated in the award.

In November 2024, Agerratum applied to the Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court of  Fujian Province for recognition and enforcement of the aforementioned foreign arbitral award.

II. Judgment

The Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court of Fujian Province, upon review, held that this case involves the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. The arbitral award in question was rendered by the Russian Commercial Arbitration Court in Russia. Since both China and Russia are signatories to the New York Convention, the case should be assessed under the New York Convention to determine whether the arbitral award should be recognized and enforced.

After review, the Court found that the arbitral award did not fall under any of the circumstances specified in Article V of the New York Convention that would warrant refusal of recognition and enforcement. Accordingly, the Court ruled in favor of recognizing and enforcing the arbitral award.

Subsequently, under the Court’s facilitation, the parties reached a settlement agreement, under which Tasteway (Xiamen) Foods Co., Ltd. agreed to pay Agerratum LLC in installments. Both parties fulfilled their obligations under the settlement agreement and resumed cross-border trade cooperation.

III. Significance

Efficient recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has become a key indicator of a country’s business environment. The exemplary significance of this case can be summarized in three key aspects. First, it demonstrates the comprehensive and accurate application of the New York Convention, further clarifying the review standards for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, particularly by refining the “duty of proper notification.” The case faithfully implements the pro-enforcement principle of the New York Convention, highlighting China’s commitment to international treaty obligations and showcasing the spirit of contract under global legal frameworks. Second, it reflects a high level of professionalism and internationalization. The Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court (Xiamen International Commercial Tribunal) formed a collegial panel comprising people’s jurors well-versed in BRICS trade rules, efficiently concluding the case within less than three months and issuing an in-court ruling to recognize and enforce the arbitral award. Third, it establishes a full-chain dispute resolution model for international commercial matters. After ruling to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, the Court issued a pre-enforcement notice urging compliance, seamlessly integrating pre-enforcement mediation. This approach successfully facilitated the Chinese and foreign parties to reach a settlement in court, effectively restoring their trade relationship. By taking this case as a focused and illustrative entry point, the case provides a model for addressing international commercial disputes under the Belt and Road and promotes the “soft connectivity” of BRICS economic and trade cooperation.

First Instance Case Number: (2024) Min 02 Xiewai Ren No. 9, the Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court of Fujian Province

Related Links: 最高法发布第五批涉“一带一路”建设典型案例

*The original text is Chinese and has been translated into English for reference only. If there is any inconsistency or ambiguity between the Chinese version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail.