objection to claimants evidence submission市淮海中路283號廣場28樓郵編

市淮海中路283號廣場28樓：+86-21-2326-1888傳真：+86-21-2326-28Floor,HongKongza,No.283HuaiHaiMiddleRoad,ShanghaiP.R.200021:+86-21-2326-1888Fax:+86-21-2326-1999ByFaxandEMSApril9, TheTribunalforCIETACCaseNo.G formedunderthesupervisionoftheInternationalEconomicandTradeArbitrationCommissionAttn:Mr.ZHANGYuqingDr.MichaelJ.MoserMr.LIUJunhai Mr.RenSijiu,onbehalfoftheCIETACFrom:RichardLee/JessieAllBrightLawOffices,Re:Respondent’sObjectionstoClaimant’sEvidenceSubmissionforArbitrationCaseNo.GHonoredInrelationtothecaptionedcase,we,onbehalfoftheRespondentSASUniform,acknowledgethereceiptoftheEMSnoticedatedMarch26,2014(Reference:CIETAC007424/2014)(the“Mar.26Notice”)fromtheCIETACSecretariatonApril2,2014,togetherwiththefollowingmaterialsfromtheClaimant:A“”andcertainevidencementionedtherein;(collectively,the“Claimant’sAfterreviewingtheMar.26NoticeandtheClaimant’sEvidence,wewouldliketocommunicatethefollowingtoyouforyourconsideration:TheClaimantHasSpentGreatEffortstoSubmititsEvidencesinaTimelyandAppropriateWayTheTribunalissuedaNoticeonProceduralmattersforArbitrationCaseNo. 18Notice”),whichwereceivedbyfaxonthemorningofFebruary19,2014andbyEMSandSFExpressonFebruary21,2014.TheFeb.18Noticesetsrulestobefollowedbythepartiesregardingevidencesubmission,including(a)afour-weekdelaytofurthercommunicateevidencesand(b)form/presentationrequirements.Asevidencedbythewaybillsattachedhereto,theRespondent,onMarch19,2014,submitted/resubmitted(1)UNIFORM’SSUPPLEMENTALSTATEMENTOFDENFENCEANDCOUNTERCLAIMDATEDMARCH19,2014andattachedevidence,(2)theevidenceattachedtoUNIFORM’SSUPPLEMENTALSTATEMENTOFDENFENCEANDCOUNTERCLAIMDATED11,2014and(3)allthestatementsandtheirattaents(collectively,“Uniform’sSubmission”),allstrictlyintheformandwithinthefour-weektimeframesetbytheFeb.18.AccordingtothewaybillrecordsindicatedonthewebsitesofEMSandSFExpress(bothattachedhereto),Uniform’sSubmission–sentbytwoseparatepackagesviatwocourierservicesinthesameday–wasdeliveredatCIETAC’sofficeonMarch20,2014.Nevertheless,theMar.26NoticeindicatesthattheCIETACSecretariatdidnotreceiveUniform’sSubmissionuntilMarch25,2014.CIETACSecretariatmayhaveprocessedUniform’sSubmissiononlyonMarch25,2014,butstillwerequesttheTribunaltoclarifythatUniform’sSubmissionwaseffectivelysentonMarch19,2014anddeliveredondaylateronMarch20,2014.TheClaimantHasFailedtoSubmitEvidenceTheMar.26NoticestatesthatCIETACSecretariatreceivedClaimant’sEvidenceonMarch25,2014.However,thecoversheetoftheCLAIMANT’SSUPPLEMENTARYEVIDENCEisclearlydatedMarch26,2014.ThismeansthatthoseevidenceshavebeensubmittedbytheClaimantsearliestonthatdate,andpossiblyoneortwoworkingdayslater(dependingonthedelaybetweensendingbytheClaimantanddeliverytoCIETAC’soffice).Obviously,theMarch26NoticeaknowldgingreceiptofevidencessubmittedbytheClaimanthasbeenissuedafterdeliverytotheCIETAC’sofficebytheClaimantofthoseevidences,whichwouldbeconsistentwiththedeliverytousofthatNoticeonlyonApril2,2014.Inthosecircumstances,itappearsthattheseevidenceshavebeensubmittedbytheClaimantafterexpiryofthefour-weekdeadlinesetbytheFeb.18Notice.TheFeb.18Notice“Anyevidencewhichispertinenttothecase,includingbutnotlimitedtothewitnessstatements,shallbesubmittedtothetribunalwithin4weeksafterreceiptofthisNotice.”Asstatedabove,theRespondentreceivedtheFeb.18NoticeonFebruary19,2014byfaxandonFebruary21,2014byEMS.WecanreasonablyassumethattheClaimanthasreceivedtheFeb.18Noticethesametime,whichmeansthattheClaimanthaduntilMarch21,2014latest(assumingthefour-weekdelaystartsfromdeliverybyEMSandnotbyfax)tosubmititsevidencestotheTribunal.Anyway,thefour-weekdeadlinesetbytheTribunalinitsFeb.18NoticewasalreadyexpiredforseveraldaysonMarch26,2014whentheClaimantsubmitteditsevidences(thesameapplieseveniftheClaimanthassubmitteditsevidencesonMarch25asindicatedbytheMarch26Notice).TheRespondenthasexpendedgreatefforttomeetthedeadlinesetbytheFeb.18Notice,andhadeventodisregardsomeevidencesthatcouldnotbepreparedintimetomeettheFeb.18deadline.ItwouldbefundamentallyunfairtolettheClaimantsubmitevidencesaftertheevidencesubmissiondeadlinehasexpiredseveraldaysago.Asaconsequence,werespectfullyrequesttheTribunaltorejecttheClaimant’sevidences,whicharereferredtointheMarch26Notice,onthegroundsthattheyhavebeensubmittedaftertheexpiryofthedelaysetbytheFeb.18Notice.TheClaimantHasFailedtoSubmitEvidenceintheRequiredTheFeb.18Noticefurther“Allevidencesmustbetagged,paginatedandbereferencedinthepertinentpartofthestatements.Allthosestatementsorevidenceswhicharenotincompliancewiththisinstructionmustberesubmitted communicationsshouldbeinEnglishor,fororiginalsinanotherlanguage,withacompleteandaccurateEnglishtranslation.TheRespondentexpendedgreateffortandresourcestocomplywiththisrequirement.Eventhoughmostofourprevioussubmissionswerealreadyreferencedandpaginated,were-submittedeverythingjustsothattheycouldallbeHowever,theClaimanthasnotcompliedwiththoserequirements:theClaimant’sEvidencethatwasforwardedtousbytheTribunalsecretariatcontainedmanyunbundled,unordered,unreferencedandun-paginatedloose Specifically,inrelationtothe titled“”(wearequotingthesewordsin,withnoEnglishversion,fromtheClaimant’sEvidence): isproducedinonly.Unlikeotherevidenceswhichwereinatthetimewhentheyweregenerated,whichwecouldunderstandandtoleratemore,the“” wasproducedinthecourseandforthepurposeofthisarbitration.Beinginonlywhereasthearbitrationlanguage,thisshouldberejected.The“remarks”columninthisisillegible,makingitdifficultforustodefendagainst;andCertainpagesofevidencementionedin“”cannotbefoundinthebundlesoftheClaimant’sEvidence,whileandcertainpagesofevidenceincludedintheClaimant’sEvidencearenotmentionedin“”.Theloosebundleof sweresonumerousandthereferencesaresopoorlyproducedthatitisnotpossibletoascertainthatallfivecopiestheClaimantsenttotheTribunalandourselvesarecompleyidentical.ThisisafundamentalissuebecausewecannotbesurethattheTribunalandourselveshavereceivedexactlythesameevidencesandthatwehavebeengivenaneffectiveopportunitytoreviewanyandallevidencesusedbytheClaimantinthisproceeding.Asaconsequence,werespectfullyrequesttheTribunaltorejecttheClaimant’sevidences,whicharereferredtointheMarch26Notice,onthegroundsthattheyarenotinEnglishlanguageandthattheyarenotproperlypaginated,tagged,indexedandbundled.Intheeventthat,despiteourrequest,theTribunalstilldecidetoaccepttheClaimant’sEvidencebundlebutrequesttheCliamnttore-submittitinaproperway,werespectfullyrequestthefollowingfromtheTribunal:TheClaimantbebarredfromsubmittinganyaddition,alternationandamendmentstotheClaimant’sEvidencesubmittedinthissubmission.Any“reorganization”or“re-bundling”effortsfromClaimantcannotbeabusedasanexcusetobuytimeforClaimanttocollectands