In the case of Application for Determining the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement between Shanghai Saintenna Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Guangdong Zhongke Import and Export Co., Ltd, the parties agreed to arbitrate in “International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission in accordance with its arbitration rules, and the seat of arbitration is Shenzhen.”

However, the court held that at the time when the parties signed the arbitration agreement in dispute, there were two arbitration institutions in Shenzhen, namely, the South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, (which is short for SCIETAC, also known as Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration), and the South China Sub-Commission of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). Both of their names were with the words, “International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission”.

Although the name of the arbitration institution stipulated in the agreement in dispute, “International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission”, did not include the word “China”, it specifically provided that the seat of arbitration was in Shenzhen. If the parties truly intended to choose SCIETAC as the arbitration institution, generally the words of “South China” would not be omitted. Therefore, the arbitration institution agreed by the parties shall be deemed to be the South China Sub-commission of CIETAC and the arbitration agreement shall be valid.