Backdating of bill of lading
Pursuant to the contract, Sinochem opened a letter of credit with its bank in China to provide security to Triorient for the purchase price of the coils.
To trigger payment under the letter of credit, Triorient was required to submit a valid bill of lading stating that the coils had been loaded on or before April 30, 2003.
Sinochem's contract with Triorient specified that any dispute arising under it would be arbitrated under Chinese law. ("Novolog"), an American company also not a party to this action, to load the coils onto the Vessel at the Port of Philadelphia.
A bill of lading dated April 30, 2003, was issued, acknowledging that the steel coils had been loaded, and the Vessel sailed for China.
In rejecting MISC's contention that the Chinese Admiralty Court should not have exercised jurisdiction because MISC filed its U. action before Sinochem filed its Chinese action, the Chinese High Court determined as follows: "Given that the People's Republic of China and the U. are different sovereignties with different jurisdictions, whether [MISC] has taken actions at any U. court in respect of this case will have no effect on the exercise by a Chinese court of its competent jurisdiction over said case." While these events were occurring in the Chinese courts, proceedings continued in MISC's action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.The arrest of the Vessel was then carried out at the Huangpu Port in China.