Decision on Dismissal
By
China International Economic and Trade
Arbitration Commission
CLAIMANT: Shanghai Mindac Machinery Equipment Co., Ltd.
ADDRESS: Unit A, 23 FL., Majesty Building, No.l38 Pudong Avenue, Pudong Distr ict, Shanghai, P.R.C.
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Ms. Fu Minyan
ARBITRATION AGENTS: Ms. Mao Shujing & Mr. Qiao Yanchun,
Attorneys at Law
RESPONDENT: AUBEMA Crushing Technology GmbH
(Former Name: AUBEMA MASCHINENFABRIK GMBH)
ADDRESS: Koelner Strasse 94, D-51702, Bergneustadt, Germany ARBITRATION AGENT: Mr. Tim Meng, Attorney at Law
April 17,2008
Beijing
Decision on Dismissal
(2008)CIETAC Award No.0197
The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the CIETAC”) accepted
a reference of a dispute arising out of the CONTRACT NO. MINDACAUB-LONGYAN-2004-125 (hereinafter referred to as “the Contract") signed by and between the Claimant Shanghai Mindac Machinery & Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as "the Claimant”)and the Respondent AUBEMA Crushing Technology GmbH (Former Name: AUBEMA MASCHINENFABRIK
GMBH, hereinafter referred to the “the Respondent”).
The dispute was referred to the CIETAC pursuant to Clause 21 “Arbitration” of the Contract. It states as follows:
"21.1 All disputes arising from the execution of or inconnection with the Contract shall be settled through friendly
consultation by both parties. In case no settlement can be reached withinsixty (60) days of commencement of such
consultation, the dispute shall be submitted for arbitration.
21.2 Arbitration organization shall be China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). The
Commission comprises two person chose by both parties respectively and one person negotiated by both parties.
......”
The CIETAC took cognizance of the dispute for arbitration based onthe arbitration clause incorporated in the Contract,
and the written arbitration application filed by the Claimant on 1 August 2007. The CIETAC number of the case is
M20070406 to which the Arbitration Rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission effective
as from 1 May 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the CIETAC Arbitration Rules") applies.
A Notice of Arbitration was sent to the Claimant and the Respondent respectively on 3 September 2007 by the Secretariat
of the CIETAC (hereinafter referred to as "the Secretariat"). Attached to the Notice of Arbitration to the Claimant were
the Panel of Arbitrators and CIETAC Arbitration Rules, and to the Respondent were the Application forArbitration submitted
by the Claimant, the Panel of Arbitrators and the CIETAC Arbitration Rules.
On 1 November 2007, the Respondent submitted the Request for Extension for Submitting Defense and Counterclaim. On 6 Novemb
er 2007, the Secretariat sent the notice on the CIETAC's decision to extend the time limit for the Respondent's submission
of defense and/orcounterclaims to 6 December 2007.
On 6 December 2007, the Respondent submitted the Statement of Countercl-
aims and attached evidence. The Secretariat transmitted these documents to
the Claimant.
After the Respondent had handled with the counterclaim accepting proce-dure,the Secretariat notified the parties on 2 January
2008 that the Claimant should submit defense against counterclaims within thirty days. On 23 January 2008, the Claimant requested for extension of the time limit for submitting defense against counterclaims.
The Secretariattransmitted the request to the Respondent on the next day.
On 26 January 2008, the Respondent agreed to Claimant's above request in writing. The Tribunal decided to extend the time
limit for theClaimant’s submission of defense against counterclaims to 20 March2008 accordingly.
On 26 February 2008, an Arbitration Tribunal was formed consisting of Mr. Xia Jun, the Presiding Arbitrator appointed by
the Chairman of the CIETAC under the CIETAC Arbitration Rules as the parties failed to jointly appoint or jointly entrust
the Chairman to appoint the presiding arbitrator within the time limit, Mr. Meng Yuqun, the Arbitrator appointed by the
Claimant, and Ms. Yan Siyi, the Arbitrator appointed by the Respondent. A Notice on the Formation of Arbitral Tribunal
was sent to the Claimant and the Respondent respectively on the same day.
The Tribunal, in consultation with the Secretariat, decided to hold an oral hearing on 9 April 2008. The Secretariat
sent the Notice onOral Hearing to the two parties on 29 February 2008.
On19 March 2008, the Claimant submitted the Statement of Defense. The Respondent submitted supplementary evidence on the
nextday. The Secretariat made exchange of the above documents between the parties in time.
On 7April 2008, the Secretariat notified the partiesthe oral hearing scheduled on 9 April 2008 was cancelled sincethe
parties had reached settlement.
Duringthe arbitration procedure, the Claimant submittedtheApplication for Withdrawing (Re: Arbitration Case No. M20070406)
dated 8 April 2008, which is as follows:
"The captioned case was brought to arbitration on August 1, 2007, and was accepted by your good Commission on September
3, 2007. Finally, the parties reached a settlement. We hereby represent MINDAC to withdraw the captioned application to
close the procedure in your good Commission.”
The Respondent submitted its application for withdrawal (Re: CIETAC Cases No. M20070406) on 10 April 2008, stating that:
"The Claimant and Respondent signed a Settlement Agreement on March 31, 2008. More than one week has passed since then,
and the parties show no signs of retrograde movement.
As such, in accordance with Article 41 of the applied 'Arbitration Rules' in those cases and further to our last
requests, wehereby request a withdrawal of the claims made by us in the Statement of Counter-claims in these cases listed in the title."
It is stipulated in Article 41.2 of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules that“where a case is to be dismissed before the
formation of the arbitraltribunal,the decision shall be made by the Secretary-General of the CIETAC. Where the case is to he dismissed after the formation of arbitral tribunal, the decision shall be made by the arbitral tribunal".
Therefore, according to the Claimants' and the Respondents' request for withdrawal of this case, the Tribunal has made
the following decisions:
1、that the captioned No. M20070406 Arbitration Case on Disputes Arising out of the CONTRACT NO. MINDACAUB-LONGYAN-2004-125 between the Claimant and the Respondent is dismissed;
2、that the arbitration fee for claims of thiscase is RMB 27,586which shall be borne by the Claimant, since the Claimant
has remitted KMB45,171 as the prepaid arbitration fee, the Arbitration Commission is to refund the Claimant RMB 17,585
after subtracting the arbitration fee from the prepaid amount; the arbitration fee for counterclaims of this case is USD
1,790 , since the Respondent has remitted USD 3,579 as the prepaid arbitration fee, the Arbitration Commission is to
refund theRespondent USD 1,789 after subtracting the arbitration fee from the prepaid amount.
Presiding Arbitrator:
Arbitrator:
Arbitrator:
Beijing , April 17 2008
邵阳法律咨询律师事务所(www.tieqiaolawyer.com/falvzixun)提供邵阳市法律咨询24小时在线免费咨询
盈科律师为中铁十九局国际建设分公司进行“法律风险防控”专题讲座
2024/11/5 4·【国家立法动态】证监会对南极电商实施重点监控 证券交易所将根据可转债管理办…
2024/11/5 4房产律师如果遇到强拆怎么处理
2024/11/5 19盈科律师事务所2012年第三季度法务培训课程通知
2024/11/5 42024/11/5 4
国家知识产权局及北京市知识产权局领导莅临我所
2024/11/5 5023年房地产专业律师排名前五名揭晓,第一名竟是
2024/11/5 4我所深入学习贯彻学习刘志诚书记在全省律师行业党建工作会议上的重要讲话
2024/11/5 15中华人民共和国国家勋章和国家荣誉称号法
2024/11/5 5被强拆,不想打官司,有什么办法要到合理补偿?
2024/11/5 18盈科律师担任中建材集团子公司法律顾问
2024/11/5 5谱辩荣誉|郭晓峰主任律师当选为人民监督员!
2024/11/5 3谱辩荣誉|谱辩律所郭晓峰主任、吕娜律师获得当事人感谢锦旗!
2024/11/5 5安置房面积不足,导致未签协议被拆,法院:违法!
2024/11/5 4