uppercase仲裁申请书中英文对照

2021年1月21日发(作者：llg)
仲裁申请书中英文对照

APPLICATION FOR ARBITRATION


申诉人：
MM
公司
The Plaintiff: M. M. Corp.
地址：
Address:
被诉人：
VV
有限公司
The Defendant: V. V. Co., Ltd.
地址：
Address:

（一）事实依据：

I. Statement of Facts:

申诉人
MM
公司和被诉人
VV
有限公司 之间的争议的原因在于被诉人没有履行于
1992
年
5
月
14
日缔结的由
其提供
8,000
公吨铝锭的
470E
和
47 1E
号合同义务。

This dispute existing between the Plaintiff, M. M. Corp. and the Defendant, V. V. Co., Ltd was
brought
about
by
the
Defendant
’
s
failure
to
commit
itself
to
the
contracts
470E
and
471E
concluded
on the 14th of May, 1992 for the supply of 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots.

根据上述两个合同规定，
8,000
公吨铝锭本应在
1992年
7
月至
12
月期内从欧洲数个港口全部发出，月装
货量按合同 具体规定执行。本公司，即申诉人，于
1992
年
6
月
7
日 通过中国银行伦敦分行开出了
E25520
和
E25733
两张信用证。
According
to
the
stipulations
of
the
said
contracts,
8000
metric
tons
of
Aluminum
Ingots
should
have been completely delivered from European ports during a period from July to December, 1992,
and each month a quantity specified thereby should have been shipped. This Corporation, the
Plaintiff, issued letters of credit E25520 and E25733 on the 7th of June, 1992 through the Bank
of China, London.

鉴于 上述两个合同分别规定将汉堡、
鹿特丹和安特卫普及汉堡和鹿特丹作为各自的发货港，
故申诉人 曾多
次发电传给被诉人，要求其将发货港的具体名称及准备发货的时间告知申诉人，以便本公司派船。然 而，
被诉人对申诉人的电传却采取躲避态度，一直不予答复。

As these two contracts stipulate Hamburg/Rotterdam/Antwerp and Hamburg/Rotterdam respectively
for
the
port
of
loading,
the
Plaintiff
had
therefore
sent
faxes
on
many
occasions
to
the
Defendant,
asking them to advise the Plaintiff of the exact name of this Corporation to send vessels. But,
the
Defendant
had
failed
to
reply
to
those
faxes
dispatched
by
the
Plaintiff
by
taking
an
evasive
attitude.

直到申诉人电传和写信一再催促，并经我方驻某某城商务代表 处协助洽商，被诉人才于
1992
年
11
月
26
日通过我方 驻某某城商务代理处递交给申诉人一封信函，通知申诉人新的装货安排。按照这个新的装运安
排，
8,000
公吨铝锭须在
1993
年
1
月
6
日期 间内才能全部发出。

It was not until the Plaintiff sent faxes and letters time and again to urge on and with the
help of our Commercial Office in [ ] city to negotiate with the Defendant, that the Defendant
finally forwarded a letter on the 26th November, 1992 to the Plaintiff through our Commercial
Office
in
[
]
city,
informing
the
Plaintiff
to
the
new
arrangement
for
shipment.
As
being
indicated
by this new arrangement for shipment, the delivery of 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots would
have to be completed within a period from January to June, 1993.

尽管被诉人不按合同所规定的时间履行交货义务已使申诉人损失惨重，
但申诉人仍接受了由被诉人提供的
新的装货安排。然而，被诉人却违背允诺，再次拒不履行由自己提出 的新的装货安排，致使本公司蒙受了
更大的损失。

In spite of suffering significant losses caused by the Defendant
’
s failure to fulfill its
contractual
obligation,
the
Plaintiff
still
accepted
the New arrangement
for
shipment
presented
by
the
Defendant.
Whereas
the
Defendants
had
neither
kept
its
original
promise
nor
committed
itself
again
to
the
subsequent
arrangement
for
shipment
put
forward
by
itself,
thus
bringing
even
greater
losses to the Plaintiff.

尽管如此，为让被诉人具有最后一次履行允诺以执行合同的机会，申诉人于
1994
年
11
月
16
日通过一名
英国律师
[ ]
先生向被诉人转交了 一封信函，说明准许被诉人在收到该信函起的
45
天之内履行其提交合同
所规定货物的 义务，
如被诉人不履行义务，
申诉人将依据上述两合同第
16
条的规定，正式将该争议提交对
外贸易仲裁委员会仲裁，要求被诉人赔偿本公司遭受的一切损失。

Nevertheless, in order to enable the Defendant to meet its contractual obligation ultimately,
the Plaintiff passed a letter on the 16th of November, 1994, through a British lawyer named Mr.
[ ]
to the
Defendant,
stating that the Defendant
was permitted
to
meet its
obligation to deliver
the contracted goods within 45 days from the date it received the said letter, and that if the
Defendant failed to do so, the Plaintiff would, according to the provision of Clause No. 16 of
the contracts, formally submit the dispute to the F. T. Arbitration Commission for arbitration,
asking the Defendant to compensate for all the losses sustained by this Corporation.

被诉人收到我信函的日期为
1994
年
11
月
28
日。
45
天期限截止之日为
1995
年
1
月
12
日，该期限如今已
过，但被诉人根本没有履行其合同义务 ，也没有提出任何解决该争议的建议。他们甚至还在
1995
年
2
月
7
日写信无理指责申诉人在原信用证过期后没有开具新证，并由此说其不再具有其承诺提交合同所规定的 铝
锭的责任。

The
date
on
which
the
Defendant
received
our
letter
was
the
28th
of
November,
1994.
The
deadline
of the 45 days period was on the 12th January, 1995, which has now passed, but the Defendant has
done
nothing at
all to meet
its contractual
obligation, nor has it produced any proposal for
the
settlement of this dispute. It has even gone so far as to make a false charge through a letter
dated
the
7th
of
February,
1995,
against
the
Plaintiff
with
failure
to
open
a
new
letter
of
credit
after its expiry, and has therefore assumed no responsibility whatsoever for its commitment to
delivery for Aluminum Ingots concluded.

该争议的真实情况是：在收到被诉人
1992
年< br>11
月
26
日提供的新的装货安排之后，申诉人曾多次用传真
和信函催 促被诉人通知我方装货港的具体名称及货物已备好待运，但被诉人却对我方的电传和信件拒不答
复，且拒 绝承担合同义务，致使我方无法履行派船手续和提供合法信用证。显而易见，违约责任应完全由
被诉方自 己承担。我方现正式向对外贸易仲裁委员会提出申请，要求对本争议进行仲裁。

The true nature of this dispute is evident in the following fact: After the receipt of the new
arrangement
for
shipment
presented
by
the
Defendant
on
the
26th
of
November,
1992,
the
Plaintiff
sent many faxes and letters requesting the Defendant to inform the Plaintiff of the exact name
of
port
of
loading
and
the
Advice
of
Goods
ready
for
shipment,
while
the
Defendant
gave
no
answer
at
all
to
the
Plaintiff
’
faxes
and
letters
and
refused
to
meet
its
obligations
under
the
contracts
entered
into,
thus
making
it
impossible
for
the
Plaintiff
to
proceed
with
the
procedures
of
sending
vessels and extending the validity of letters of credit. Obviously, the liability for the
non-execution of the contracts rests entirely with none other than the Defendant itself. The
Plaintiff is therefore applying formally to the F. T. Arbitration Commission for arbitration of
this dispute.

申诉人提出总金额为
748,000
英镑的索赔主张。

The claimed amount called for by the Plaintiff comes totally to
￡
748,000.

（二）索赔理由：

6,000
公吨纯度为
99.5%
的 铝锭，
根据
470E
号合同，
其价格为每吨
152
英镑，< br>而当时
（
1993
年
6
月
29
日）
的市场通价为每公吨
243
至
248
英镑，价差为每公吨
93.50
英镑，
6,000
公吨铝锭的总价差为
561,000
英
镑 。

6,000
metric
tons
of
Aluminum
Ingots
of
99.5%
purity,
under
contract
470E,
were
priced
at
￡
152
per metric ton. The market price prevailing at that time (the 29th of June, 1993) ranged from
￡
243 to
￡
248 per metric ton. The Price difference per metric ton is
￡
93.50, giving a total
difference of
￡
561,000 for 6,000 metric tons.

另有
2,000
公吨纯 度为
99.7%
的铝锭，按
471E
号合同的规定，价格为每吨
15 4
英镑，当时（
1993
年
6
月
29
日）的市场通 价为每公吨
245
至
250
英镑，价差为每公吨
93.50
英镑，故
2,000
公吨铝锭的总价差便为
187,000
英镑。

Another 2000 metric tons of 99.7% purity Aluminum Ingots, under contract 471E were priced at
￡
154 per
metric ton. The
market
price on
the 29th of
June
1993, was between
￡
245
and
￡
250
per
metric
ton.
The
price
difference
per
metric
ton
indicates
￡
93.50,
resulting
in
a
total
difference
of
￡
187,000 for 2000 metric tons.

上述 两个合同规定的
8,000
公吨铝锭的总价差为
784,000
英镑（即561,000
英镑加
187,000
英镑）。

The above-mentioned two contracts aggregate a sum of
￡
748,000 (=
￡
561,000+
￡
187,000) for the
price difference of totally 8000 metric tons of Aluminum Ingots.

申诉人在此除要求被诉人赔偿因违约而造成的总 额为
748,000
（七十四万八千）英镑的损失之外，还要求
负担此次的全部仲裁费 用。

The Plaintiff hereby requests that it be compensated by the Defendant not only with an amount
of
losses
totaling
￡
748,000
(in
Pound
Sterling
of
Seven
hundred
and
Forty
Eight
Thousands)
caused
by the Defendant
’
s failure to execute the contracts concluded, but also with all costs arising
from this arbitration.

随仲裁申请书 附上
3,740
（三千七百四十）英镑，折合人民币
15,729
（一万五千 七百二十九）元，用作仲
裁费，预付《对外贸易仲裁委员会规则》第
6
条所规定之费用 。

Enclosed
￡
3,740
for
filing
fees
(in
Pound
Sterling
of
Three
Thousand
Seven
Hundred
and
Forty),
equivalent
to
the
Chinese
currency
RMB15,729
(Fifteen
Thousand
Seven
Hundred
and
Twenty
Nine
Yuan),
paid in advance in compensation for the costs of arbitration in accordance with Clause 6 of the
F. T. Arbitration Commission.

附件：委托指定仲裁员声明书

Enclosure: Statement of Appointing Arbitrator

申诉人：
MM
公司

M. M. Corp.
1995
年
5
月
20
日

May 20, 1995