The District Court denied the petition to confirm a CIETAC award under Art. V(2)(a) of the New York Convention, finding that the subject matter of the dispute was not capable of settlement by arbitration. As a threshold issue, the Court held that it could independently determine the issue of arbitrability, as the record showed that the respondent did not agree to have the arbitrator determine questions of arbitrability. On the merits, the Court agreed with the respondent’s contention that it had never entered into the relevant contracts with the petitioner; instead, an unknown third party had misappropriated the respondent's identity and defrauded the petitioner out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of merchandise.