The District Court ruled that the tribunal’s failure to render the award within the six-month period as stipulated under the CIETAC arbitration rules did not fall within the scope of Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention (arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties), as the tribunal had received permission from the President of the Arbitration Court of the CEITAC to extend the deadline for rendering the award. The District Court further ruled that a delay in rendering the arbitral award does not constitute a
violation of the United States’ public policy for the purposes of Article V(2)(b) of the Convention. The Court emphasized that the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) must be construed very narrowly to encompass only those circumstances where enforcement would violate the most basic notions of morality and justice. The Court further rejected respondent’s contention that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding attorney’s fees and costs to claimants, noting that while the parties’ contracts appeared ambiguous as to whether attorney’s fees could be awarded by a tribunal, pursuant to the CIETAC Rules, the tribunal had the power to award attorney’s fees.