In accordance with the instructions of the Supreme People’s Court (CHINA PR 34), the Intermediate People’s Court granted recognition and enforcement of an SCC Award which had denied the substantive claims of the present respondent (the claimant in the arbitration) and ordered it to pay the present petitioner’s arbitration costs. The Court held: (1) The contract between the parties and the arbitration clause therein were not invalid because the respondent had not been authorized to conclude foreign trade contracts. For precisely this reason, the respondent was indicated in the contract as the end user and not as the buyer. Further, the respondent had confirmed the validity of the arbitration clause by commencing the SCC arbitration. (2) The arbitral tribunal had the power to decide on the costs of the arbitration both under a contractual provision stating that the arbitration costs would be borne by the losing party, and under the SCC Rules. It was unnecessary that the request for costs under the Rules be made in the form of a counterclaim. (3) A claim that the petitioner had bribed a witness and stolen evidence was unproven. (4) The contention that the respondent had been unable to present its case in respect of the environmental and health damage caused by the equipment because an on-site inspection ordered by the tribunal had not been carried out was contradicted by the award, which stated that the inspection had taken place; also, the equipment at issue was installed on the premises of the respondent, which could easily have conducted an inspection. (5) The award contained sufficient reasons for its conclusions and bore the signatures of all arbitrators. (6) Recognition and enforcement of the award would not violate Chinese public policy. While the equipment undisputedly caused environmental pollution and potential health damages, this could be due to various reasons. The respondent had chosen to commence arbitration in respect of the equipment’s quality – a dispute covered by the valid arbitration clause in the parties’ contract; hence, the respondent had to comply with the outcome of that arbitration. Also, an allegation that the merits of the award were unfair did not constitute per se a violation of the fundamental interests of Chinese society, general principles of law, or good morals.