The most effective way to identify an enforcement debtor’s asset in the PRC is to promptly initiate an enforcement proceeding.

In the enforcement proceeding, the court has the capacity, either upon request from the enforcement creditor or on its own initiative, to carry out a search for the enforcement debtor’s assets. The court’s internal system is interconnected with various administrative bodies such as the real estate administration, the market regulation administration, and the vehicles administration. This generally enables a more comprehensive search compared to efforts undertaken privately by the enforcing creditor through publicly accessible channels.

Options Available for a Judgment Creditor

Nonetheless, before launching an enforcement proceeding, there are a number of options available for a judgment creditor to independently identify the judgment debtor’s assets. Several of these methods are outlined below.

Company information databases

The National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System is an official database established by the State Administration for Market Regulation, which contains the basic information of all companies incorporated in the PRC, including the data on the companies’ shareholder(s). While this official database does not support reverse searches for shares owned by a specific company or an individual, there are several privately-run databases that consolidate the information from the official database and provide services that allow users to search for all shares owned by a given company or an individual.

Intellectual property databases

The National Intellectual Property Bureau maintains databases for trademarks and patents registered in the PRC. Users can search these databases to identify trade marks and patents owned by a specific company or an individual.

Tangible assets databases

Government agencies at various levels in the PRC also maintain databases for tangible assets, which include, for instance, information on automobile registration and real property registration. However, these databases typically only support searches based on the asset’s information for the asset’s proprietor, and do not support searches for assets owned by a given proprietor. The judgment creditor therefore must be able to at least identify potential assets that might belong to the judgment debtor.

In the context of civil and commercial disputes, domestic court decisions in the PRC generally fall into three categories: civil judgments, civil rulings and civil mediation agreements.

Civil Judgments

A civil judgment represents the final determination by a court in an adversarial civil or commercial lawsuit. It determines the rights and obligations of the parties involved and concludes the parties’ dispute at hand. Once it comes into effect, a civil judgment is legally binding and enforceable. If a party fails to comply with a civil judgment, the opposing party may apply for enforcement.

Civil judgments can be further subdivided based on various aspects. For example, depending on the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs, civil judgments may include declaratory judgments, monetary judgments, and specific performance judgments, or a combination thereof.

Once a civil judgment comes into effect, the parties are barred by res judicata to re-litigate the same subject matter.

Civil Rulings

A civil ruling refers to a court decision that, while also legally binding, does not necessarily dispose of the parties’ substantive rights and obligations.

Civil rulings are most commonly issued to address procedural issues arising during the process of civil and commercial lawsuits. For instance, decisions to not admit a case, rulings on jurisdictional challenges, orders to attach a party’s asset or maintain the status quo, are the most common types of civil rulings in the PRC legal system.

Civil Mediation Agreements

A civil mediation agreement, sometimes also referred to as a “civil consent judgment”, is a court decision giving effect to a settlement reached by the parties through mediation in the process of the lawsuit.

In PRC litigation, it is common for the court to play an active role in facilitating mediation and helping the parties to resolve the dispute without undergoing full litigation proceedings. In the event that the parties successfully reach a settlement, they may request the court to issue a judgment that formalises the settlement. The resulting court document is the civil mediation agreement. A civil mediation agreement is legally binding and enforceable in the same manner as a civil judgment.

Enforcement of domestic judgments in the PRC is governed by the Civil Procedure Law (2021). A judgment creditor may initiate the enforcement proceeding by submitting an enforcement application to the court under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law. The court that rendered the first instance judgment of the case or a court of parallel level at the place of the respondent’s asset has jurisdiction over the enforcement proceeding.

The enforcement measures adopted depend on whether the claim to be enforced is monetary or non-monetary.

Enforcement of Monetary Claims

Failure to comply with a domestic judgment would result in a daily penalty calculated as 0.0175% of the unfulfilled amount, in addition to the regular late payment interests. This penalty is due to the creditor and the creditor is entitled to collect this penalty as part of the enforcement application.

As for bank savings, in the process of an enforcement proceeding, the PRC court will, upon request from the enforcement creditor or independently, search for and identify the bank accounts of the judgment debtor, and transfer the judgment sum from the judgment debtor’s bank accounts to the judgment creditor.

As for the judgment debtor’s assets, including movable assets and real properties, these can be seized, frozen and eventually auctioned, and the judgment creditor is entitled to the proceeds. The most commonly enforced tangible assets are vehicles. Equities and shares owned by the judgment debtor can also be subjected to auction, or alternatively they can be frozen, with the dividends enforced and transferred to the judgment creditor.

As for receivables and earnings, the court may order the third-party debtor to refrain from paying the judgment debtor and pay directly to the judgment creditor. As for earnings, the court may order the debtor’s employer to cease payment of earnings and transfer the earnings to the court’s account and the court then transfers the said earnings to the judgment creditor. The debtor is, however, allowed to retain necessary living expenses for themselves and their dependents.

Enforcement of Non-monetary Claims

In the event that the claim subject to enforcement is for the delivery of a specific property, the court will first order the respondent to deliver the object to the applicant in person. Failure to comply with the order will result in the court designating enforcement officers to take physical control of the property from the enforcement debtor and hand it over to the creditor.

For eviction from real estate, the court typically issues a demand requiring the debtor to vacate the property, followed by forced eviction if the debtor fails to comply.

In the event that the enforced claim is for specific performance and the enforcement debtor fails to comply, the court can entrust a third party to carry out performance in lieu of the judgment debtor, and advance the costs from the debtor.

Restrictive Measures

During the enforcement proceeding, the court can take restrictive measures against the enforcement debtor. These measures may include preventing the enforcement debtor’s legal representative and responsible persons from leaving the PRC, or engaging in luxurious and non-essential expenditure, such as purchasing plane tickets and residing in high-end hotels.

If a judgment debtor attempts to avoid or resist enforcement, the court may also publicly announce them as a “dishonest judgment debtor”. In the event of a serious violation, the court is also empowered to implement fines or detain the judgment debtor.

The costs for enforcement of domestic judgments are governed by the Measures for the Payment of Legal Costs (“the Measures”). According to the Measures, the enforcement fee varies depending on the monetary amount of the enforcement claim. Specifically, the enforcement fee is calculated as follows:

• the enforcement fee is RMB50 if the monetary amount is less than RMB10,000;
• if the monetary amount is in excess of RMB10,000 but less than RMB500,000, the applicant should pay an additional amount calculated as 1.5% of the part exceeding RMB10,000;
• if the monetary amount is in excess of RMB500,000 but less than RMB5 million, the applicant should pay an additional amount calculated as 1% of the part exceeding RMB500,000;
• if the monetary amount is in excess of RMB5 million but less than RMB10 million, the applicant should pay an additional amount calculated as 0.5% of the part exceeding RMB5 million;
• if the monetary amount is in excess of RMB10 million, the applicant should pay an additional amount calculated as 0.1% of the part exceeding RMB10 million; and
• if the enforcement does not have a monetary value, the enforcement fee ranges between RMB50 and RMB500.

For enforcement of domestic judgments, the judgment creditor need not bear the enforcement costs and the costs are directly borne by the debtor as part of the enforcement debt.

As for the time taken to enforce domestic judgments, Article 233 of the Civil Procedure Law requires that a court should enforce a domestic judgment within six months after receiving an application for enforcement. It is important to clarify that this timeframe is conditioned on there being identified and enforceable assets. The time taken by the court or the enforcement creditor to identify the enforcement debtor’s assets does not count towards the six-month limit. As a result, the duration of the entire enforcement process can vary significantly depending on the nature and quantity of the assets subject to enforcement measures, and as such, it differs from case to case.

There is no separate post-judgment procedure for determining the defendant’s assets under the PRC law. As described in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position, in the process of the enforcement proceeding, the court will, upon request from the enforcement creditor or on its own initiative, carry out a comprehensive search for the enforcement debtor’s assets through its internal network. Through this search, the court will be able to identify the enforcement debtor’s assets, including but not limited to bank accounts, vehicles and real property.

Filing an appeal against a first-instance judgment stalls the enforcement proceeding in the sense that the appeal prevents the first-instance judgment from coming into effect, while only final and effective judgments are enforceable. Until the appeal is resolved, the first-instance judgment cannot be enforced.

The PRC adopts a two-instance trial system, thus the appellate judgment in the PRC legal system is final and is not subject to further appeal. However, under Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Law, the parties do have rights to file for a retrial against an appellate judgment. The decision to grant such an application is discretionary, the threshold is extremely high and leave is granted only in rare circumstances, such as manifest erroneous application of law.

Before leave for retrial is granted, enforcement of the judgment is not suspended. This is unlike filing an appeal, which prevents the first instance judgment from coming into effect, thereby preventing the enforcement proceeding. However, once and if leave is granted, the court has discretion to, and generally will, suspend the enforcement proceeding if such a proceeding has already been initiated.

It is also worth noting that the PRC Civil Procedure Law imposes a two-year limitation period on the application for enforcement of domestic judgments. This period starts running from the last day by which the enforcement debtor should have performed the judgment, or, if such date is not prescribed in the judgment, the date on which the judgment came into effect. An application for enforcement beyond this time limit will be time-barred.

The enforcement proceeding can also be challenged if the enforcement is conducted in a manner that violates the law. Additionally, a third party may challenge the enforcement proceeding if it asserts ownership of the asset that is subject to enforcement.

The PRC law does not explicitly provide that certain types of judgments cannot be enforced. However, judgments that are, for instance, declaratory in nature, are inherently not enforceable.

As required under the Provisions on the Publication of Judgments by the Supreme People’s Court on the Internet, it is a general rule that all civil judgments and civil rulings should be made publicly accessible. This regime aims to enhance transparency and accessibility of the PRC judicial process.

The PRC civil judgments and civil rulings are published on China Judgments Online, which is an official database established by the Supreme People’s Court. This platform allows for the searching of cases involving a specific party, adjudicated by a particular judge, represented by a specific attorney, and so forth. Generally, the entirety of the civil judgment and/or civil ruling is published, and the platform supports keyword searches through the full text of the judgments.

Foreign Judgments

Enforcement of foreign judgments in Mainland China is governed by Civil Procedure Law, which provides under Article 288 that foreign judgments can only be enforced under the following conditions:

• the PRC and the country where the judgment originated have signed an international treaty that mandates enforcement of the judgment;
• the PRC and the country where the judgment originated are both members of an international convention that mandates enforcement of the judgment; or
• there is established reciprocity between the PRC and the originating country.

The PRC has not ratified any convention concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments. However, it has signed bilateral treaties with 34 countries on mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, including Italy, Spain and Russia. The PRC has also enforced judgments from, for instance, Singapore and the United States, based on reciprocity.

Judgments of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan

Enforcement of judgments rendered in Hong Kong is governed by the Supreme People’s Court’s Arrangement on the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Judgments of Civil and Commercial Cases under Consensual Jurisdiction (“Mainland-HK Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments”). According to the Mainland-HK Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments, judgments rendered in civil and commercial cases in Hong Kong are enforceable in Mainland China, provided that the parties had reached an agreement to submit the dispute to the Hong Kong court.

Enforcement of judgments rendered in Macau and Taiwan is likewise governed by the Supreme People’s Court’s special arrangements. Enforcement of judgments of Macau is governed by the Supreme People’s Court’s Arrangement on the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments between the Mainland and the Macao Special Administrative Region (“Mainland-Macau Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments”). According to the Mainland-Macau Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments, judgments rendered in civil and commercial cases in Macau are enforceable in Mainland China, while there is no requirement for jurisdictional agreement.

Enforcement of judgments rendered in Taiwan is governed by the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments Issued by Courts in Taiwan (“Mainland-Taiwan Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments”). According to the Mainland-Taiwan Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments, civil judgments, rulings, settlement transcripts, mediation transcripts, payment orders, etc. rendered by Taiwan courts are enforceable in Mainland China.

Enforcement of both foreign judgments and judgments of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan follows the same procedure. See 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments.

Foreign Judgments

As explained in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, judgments rendered by courts from countries that have neither entered into an international treaty with the PRC, nor established reciprocity, cannot be enforced in the PRC.

Judgments of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan

As explained in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, only judgments rendered in civil and commercial cases where the parties mutually agreed to submit the dispute to the Hong Kong court are enforceable under the Mainland-HK Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgment. In instances such as tort cases, where the parties typically do not have a jurisdictional agreement, the judgments cannot be enforced in Mainland China. This specific limitation does not exist for judgments rendered in Macau and Taiwan.

The enforcement proceeding is initiated by the judgment creditor submitting an application for recognition and enforcement to the PRC court that has jurisdiction on enforcement of foreign judgments. Usually, the competent court is the Intermediate People’s Court at the place where the enforcement debtor is located or where the enforcement debtor’s asset is located.

The application for recognition and enforcement is first reviewed by a trial judge who, provided that there are no circumstances that warrant non-enforcement, will enter into a civil ruling recognising the judgment. The applicant is then entitled to seek enforcement of the judgment based on the said civil ruling.

From a logistical perspective, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and judgments from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan require that the judgment creditor submit a notarised and authenticated copy of the judgment. If a foreign judgment is a default judgment, the judgment creditor must further submit evidence that shows the judgment debtor has been properly informed of the foreign litigation, unless this has already been made clear in the judgment. If the judgment is not made in Chinese, a translated version should be submitted. In the event that the judgment creditor is not from Mainland China, its power of attorney should also be notarised.

The costs for enforcement of foreign judgments are also governed by the Measures for the Payment of Legal Costs. See 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments.

Unlike enforcement of domestic judgments, for enforcement of foreign judgments, the judgment creditor is required to prepay the enforcement costs, and the costs are ultimately borne by the judgment debtor.

As for the timeline for recognition of foreign judgments and judgments from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, the Mainland-Taiwan Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments is the only legislation that mandates that a civil ruling on the recognition of Taiwan judgments be rendered within six months. The Mainland-HK Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments, the Mainland-Macau Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments and the PRC law regime on enforcement of foreign judgments do not otherwise provide for time limits for recognising foreign judgments. The court typically takes between three to six months to render a civil ruling in cases where recognition is uncontested, and between six months to one year in cases where enforcement is contested.

The enforcement of foreign judgments and judgments from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan is subject to the same six-month time limit as provided under Article 233 of the Civil Procedure Law (see 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments).

As explained in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, enforcement of foreign judgments in the PRC is governed by bilateral treaties between China and the country where the judgment originated. Similarly, enforcement of judgments from Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan is governed by specific arrangements stipulated by the Supreme People’s Court.

Consequently, the grounds for refusing enforcement of foreign judgments, and judgments from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, can vary depending on the provisions set out in the respective bilateral treaties and arrangements. Some of the most common and frequently cited conditions for denial of enforcement include:

• The enforcement debtor was not legally summoned according to the law of the country where the judgment originated, or even if legally summoned, was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their defence.
• The judgment has not yet come into effect according to the law of the country where the judgment originated.
• The matters addressed in the judgment are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the PRC courts.
• The case had been filed with and accepted by a PRC court before it was accepted by the court in the country where the judgment originated.
• A PRC court has already issued a judgment on the same matter addressed in the judgment, or a PRC court has already recognised a judgment on the same matter from a third country.
• Enforcing the judgment would violate the public interest of the PRC.

As a general observation, the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, based on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), carries significantly more certainty in the PRC compared to the enforcement of foreign judgments. This assurance forms part of the rationale behind the preference for arbitration over domestic litigation in the sphere of international commerce.

In the PRC, the rules governing the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards differ from those applicable to foreign arbitral awards, as outlined below.

Domestic Awards

Enforcement of domestic arbitral awards is governed by the Arbitration Law (1995) and Civil Procedure Law. Domestic awards are further divided into two categories: (i) awards that are purely domestic, which refer to domestic awards that do not involve any foreign element, including for instance a foreign entity as one of the parties or the performance of a contract in a foreign country, and (ii) foreign-related awards, which refer to domestic awards involving foreign elements. These domestic awards are enforceable under Articles 244 and 280 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 64 of the Arbitration Law, respectively.

Foreign Awards

The PRC ratified the New York Convention in 1987, with reciprocity reservation and commercial reservation. This means that arbitral awards issued in the member states of the New York Convention are enforceable in the PRC.

Awards of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan

Enforcement of arbitral awards from Hong Kong is governed by the Supreme People’s Court’s Arrangements on the Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Similar arrangements are also in place for the recognition of arbitral awards from Macau and Taiwan (collectively referred to as the “Mutual Arrangements on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards”). The conditions for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the Mutual Arrangements on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards generally align with those stipulated in the New York Convention.

The PRC courts are generally considered pro-arbitration. Decisions to set aside or refuse enforcement of arbitral awards are subject to close scrutiny. Specifically, if any PRC court intends to set aside or refuse enforcement of an arbitral award, the following “prior-reporting” procedure must be followed:

• in the event that the award is purely domestic and without foreign element, the decision must be submitted to each of the said court’s superior courts and up to the provincial High People’s Court for approval;
• in the event that the award is purely domestic without foreign element, but the decision to set aside or reject enforcement of the award is based on a violation of public policy, the decision must additionally be reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court; and
• in the event of a foreign award, an award from Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan, or a domestic award with foreign elements, the decision must likewise be submitted to the superior courts, up to the Supreme People’s Court, for review; enforcement of an arbitral award can be rejected only if each and every superior court in the reporting line affirms the decision.

This prior-reporting system was initially implemented as an internal mechanism of the PRC courts to supervise the local courts’ application of the New York Convention, and to ensure that the PRC courts would not readily reject enforcement of a foreign arbitral award without final approval by the Supreme People’s Court. In or around 2017, this prior-reporting system was formalised through the Supreme People’s Court’s judicial interpretation and was extended also to domestic awards.

The approaches to enforcement of arbitral awards differ based on the type of the award to be enforced. See 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.

Domestic awards can be directly enforced in the same manner as a PRC court judgment, by filing an application for enforcement with the competent court, except that the enforcement debtor has the right to apply for non-enforcement in enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards.

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the PRC requires an additional step of recognition, as is provided under the New York Convention and is the case with enforcement of foreign judgments. The application for recognition and enforcement is first reviewed by a trial judge who, barring any circumstance that warrants non-enforcement, will enter into a civil ruling recognising the arbitral award. The award is then forwarded to the enforcement department and enforced based on the said civil ruling. Enforcement of arbitral awards rendered in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan follow the same procedures as foreign awards.

Domestic ad hoc arbitration awards are generally not enforceable in the PRC, as domestic awards are defined as awards rendered by tribunals of arbitration institutions under the Civil Procedure Law and the Arbitration Law. The only exception to this rule is ad hoc arbitration between companies registered in Free Trade Pilot Zones in the PRC.

Foreign arbitral awards that do not amount to final resolution of the parties’ substantive dispute, such as interim measures on procedural issues taken in the form of an award, are not enforceable in the PRC under the New York Convention.

In accordance with the reciprocity reservation and the commercial reservation, foreign arbitral awards are enforceable under the New York Convention only if they are rendered in commercial disputes and in a member state of the New York Convention.

Process of Enforcing Domestic Awards

The procedure for enforcement of domestic awards is governed by the Arbitration Law and Civil Procedure Law. The procedure is initiated by the applicant submitting an application for enforcement to the Intermediate People’s Court at the respondent’s place of residence or the place at which the respondent’s enforceable assets are located.

During the enforcement proceeding, the respondent may submit that the arbitral award should not be recognised or enforced based on Article 244 of the Civil Procedure Law, if the award is purely domestic, or Article 281 of the Civil Procedure Law, if the award involves a foreign element.

In the event that the court finds that a ground for rejecting the enforcement exists and intends to reject enforcement, the court is required to submit its decision to its higher court for approval, as described in 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards. If its superior courts affirm the decision, the court will render a civil ruling to reject enforcement under Article 244 or Article 281 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Otherwise, the court will enter into a civil ruling that the award is enforceable and forward the same to the court’s enforcement department. This ruling cannot be appealed.

Process of Enforcing Foreign Awards and Awards of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan

Recognition and enforcement of foreign awards and awards rendered in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are governed by the New York Convention and the applicable Mutual Arrangements on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards. The procedural steps of seeking recognition and enforcement of these awards are generally the same as seeking enforcement of domestic awards, as is explained in 4.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.

Logistically, recognition and enforcement of foreign awards and awards from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan require that the applicant submit a notarised and authenticated copy of the arbitral award, and if the arbitral award is not rendered in Chinese, a translated version should be submitted. In the event that the applicant is not from Mainland China, the power of attorney should also be notarised and certified.

The costs for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are also governed by the Measures for the Payment of Legal Costs. See 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments.

For enforcement of domestic awards, the enforcement creditor need not bear the enforcement costs and the costs are directly borne by the debtor. For enforcement of foreign awards, the creditor is required to prepay the enforcement costs, and the costs are ultimately borne by the enforcement debtor.

As for the time taken to enforce arbitral awards for recognition of foreign judgments and judgments from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, the Mainland-Taiwan Arrangement on Enforcement of Judgments is the only legislation that mandates that a civil ruling on the recognition of Taiwan judgments be rendered within two months. The Mainland-HK Arrangement on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the Mainland-Macau Arrangement on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards and the PRC law regime on enforcement of foreign awards do not otherwise provide for time limits for recognising foreign awards. The court typically takes between three to six months to render a civil ruling in cases where recognition is uncontested, and between six months to one year in cases where enforcement is contested.

Enforcement of arbitral awards is subject to the same six-month time limit as enforcement of court judgments, as provided under Article 233 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Arbitral Awards Cannot be Appealed

Arbitral awards are final and binding under the PRC law and appeal against an arbitral award is not possible.  The only ways to challenge enforcement of arbitral awards are through applying for setting aside or non-enforcement of the award.

Domestic arbitral awards can be challenged through both the setting-aside proceeding and an application for non-enforcement in the enforcement proceeding. Foreign arbitral awards and awards from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan can be challenged only through filing a non-enforcement application.

Setting Aside and Non-enforcement of the Award

The grounds for setting aside arbitral awards are the same as the conditions for non-enforcement of arbitral awards.

• For domestic awards with a foreign element, foreign awards, and awards from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, the arbitral awards will be set aside or denied enforcement under any of the following circumstances:
1. the parties did not enter into a valid arbitration agreement;
2. the respondent was not informed of the arbitration proceeding or the appointment of an arbitrator, or it was unable to present its defense for other reasons;
3. the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings does not comply with the applicable arbitration rules;
4. the subject matter of the arbitration falls outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement or the authority of the arbitration institution; or
5. enforcement of the arbitral award is against the public interest.
• For purely domestic awards without a foreign element, the court is additionally allowed to reject enforcement if:
1. the evidence relied on by the award was forged; or
2. the applicant concealed evidence that is sufficient to impact the fairness of the award.

In the event that the award is set aside or enforcement is rejected, the parties may form a new arbitration agreement and accordingly submit the dispute to arbitration, or resolve the dispute through litigation.

Limitation Period for Seeking Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

The PRC Civil Procedure Law imposes a two-year limitation period on the application for enforcement of both domestic and foreign awards. This period starts running from the last day by which the respondent should have performed the award, or, if such date is not determined in the arbitral award, the date on which the award comes into effect.