No.

Cases

Reasoning

Whether the award is refused to recognize and enforce

1

USA Productions and Tom Hulett & Associates v. China Women Travel Service (1997)¹⁶

The performance of heavy metal music was contrary to China’s actual conditions and thus contravened China’s socio-public interests.

Yes.

2

ED &F Man (HK) Co, Ltd v China National Sugar & Wines Group Corp (2004)¹⁷

A violation of mandatory rules did not necessarily constitute a violation of public policy,

No.

3

Pepsi (China) v Sichuan Yunlu Industrial Development

Corruption was proposed as a breach of public policy but the SPC did not focus on the corruption issue but rather refuse the enforcement on the ground that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

Yes.

4

Pepsi v Sichuan Yunlu Industrial Development

Ibid.

Yes.

5

Mitsui v. Hainan Textile (2005)¹⁸

A breach of administrative regulations and mandatory administrative rules did not per se amounts to a breach of PRC public policy.

No.

6

Bunge Singapore v. Fengyuan Grain (2007)¹⁹

The procedure was not in accordance with the FOSFA Rules of Arbitration and Appeals (2001). And the SPC implicitly approved that a breach of an administrative import ban cannot in itself constitutes a breach of public policy.

Yes.

7

Shin-Estu Chemical v. Zhongtian Technology (2008)²⁰

The SPC kept silence on the debate whether harming the industry of optical fiber constitutes a breach of PRC public policy and refused base on Arbitral Tribunal’s failure to notify the parties of the extension of the deadline.

Yes.

8

Shin-Estu Chemical v. Xinmao Science (2008)²¹

Ibid.

Yes.

9

Amulong Steel v. Ni-Co Mineral et al. (2009)²²

The courts kept silence over this public policy issue even it was proposed by one party.

Yes.

10

GRD Minproc v. Shanghai Flyingwheel (2009)²³

The question of the substantive fairness of the decision made in the Arbitral Award was irrelevant when determining whether the Arbitral Award breached PRC public policy.

No.