Challenging an Arbitral Award in China: Setting Aside and Non-Enforcement

The following is general information on setting aside and resisting enforcement of arbitral awards in China, not legal advice for any specific award or proceeding. Grounds, deadlines and transitional rules apply on the facts of each case; consult qualified counsel before acting.

The revised Arbitration Law: a new framework from 1 March 2026

China's Arbitration Law was comprehensively revised on 12 September 2025 and takes effect on 1 March 2026, running to 96 articles in eight chapters. The revision replaces the pre-2026 framework for challenging awards — the old Articles 58, 59, 63 and 70 — and restates the grounds for setting aside and non-enforcement. Because the new law operates on fresh numbering and, in places, a new standard, a party considering a challenge must first identify which framework governs the award it has received.

Domestic set-aside: the three-month deadline and the grounds

For a domestic award, an application to set aside is made to the intermediate people's court at the place of the arbitration institution (Article 71). The deadline is strict and non-extendable: within three months of receiving the award (Article 72), shortened from six months under the prior law. Missing it extinguishes the challenge, so the date of receipt must be recorded and the application prepared well in advance.

The grounds are those in Article 71(1): there was no arbitration agreement; the award exceeded the scope of the agreement or the authority of the tribunal; the composition of the tribunal or the procedure was irregular; the evidence on which the award rests was forged; the other party concealed material evidence that would have affected a fair award; or an arbitrator was guilty of corruption or dereliction. The court may also refuse to set aside where the award would violate the public interest. The list is exhaustive in character — a merits re-examination is not among the grounds.

Non-enforcement of a domestic award

A party resisting enforcement of a domestic award can raise substantially the same grounds under Article 76. The set-aside and non-enforcement routes are alternatives, not sequential stages, and a party should choose — and time — its application with the enforcement posture in mind. Because the grounds mirror Article 71, a factual attack framed as an irregular procedure or concealed evidence is more likely to be received than an argument that the tribunal simply decided the merits wrongly.

Foreign-related awards: procedural grounds only, and the 报核 mechanism

Foreign-related awards are treated differently. Setting aside and non-enforcement are available on essentially procedural grounds (Articles 78, 83 and 84): no valid arbitration agreement; a party's failure to appoint an arbitrator or to receive notice; an inability to present its case; the tribunal's composition or procedure contrary to the agreement or the applicable rules; or the award exceeding the scope of the submission. There is no merits review of the forged-evidence or concealed-evidence type that applies to domestic awards — the scrutiny is procedural.

Foreign-related challenges are also subject to an internal control: the 报核 (report-to-higher-court) mechanism, under which a lower court that would set aside or refuse enforcement of a foreign-related award must report upward before a final ruling. The practical effect is a more cautious, uniform approach, and a party challenging such an award should expect the process to take time and to be channelled through the internal review.

Transitional issues for awards received before 1 March 2026

For an award received before 1 March 2026, the pre-2026 framework continues to matter. Under the old law, a domestic set-aside application was governed by Article 58 (six grounds) with a six-month deadline under Article 59; non-enforcement ran through Article 63 by cross-reference to the Civil Procedure Law; and foreign-related set-aside ran through Article 70, again by cross-reference (to CPL Article 274). The transitional rules should be confirmed, and the governing version identified before any deadline is calculated, because the shortening of the deadline from six months to three is precisely the kind of change that defeats an unguarded application.

A pre-challenge checklist

• Identify the governing framework: the revised Arbitration Law for awards from 1 March 2026, the pre-2026 law for awards received before that date.
• Record the date of receipt — the three-month (or six-month) deadline runs from it and is not extendable.
• Classify the award as domestic or foreign-related; the available grounds differ materially.
• Match each ground to evidence: procedural irregularity, forgery or concealment — not a disagreement with the merits.
• Choose the route deliberately: set-aside, non-enforcement, or both, timed to the enforcement posture — and expect 报核 review for foreign-related awards.

The summary above is general information current as of the date of writing; the Arbitration Law and its transitional rules should be confirmed against the current official texts. For the broader post-2026 regime, see our guide to China's revised Arbitration Law, and for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards see enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. Our Dispute Resolution practice handles these matters.