In August 2025, the Dispute Review Board (DRB) of a major international metro project rendered its decision, supporting the Chinese contractor’s core claim regarding reimbursement of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid at the import stage.

After nearly a year of proceedings, the dispute concluded in favor of the Chinese contractor. As counsel in the case, Landing Law Offices witnessed the strength of Chinese lawyers leading international dispute resolution, as well as the power of cross-border cooperation in helping Chinese enterprises safeguard their rightful interests in a complex international environment.

I. Case Origin: Heavy Pressure from a Tax Dispute

The dispute arose in a large-scale metro project in India, funded by an international financial institution. The contract covered the design, manufacturing, supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of platform screen doors for the entire line.

At the bidding stage, the Chinese contractor relied on the employer’s explicit clarification in the tender documents—stating that “IGST for offshore supplies shall be treated as customs duty, and customs duty will be reimbursed under the contract terms.” Accordingly, IGST was not separately listed in the USD-denominated portion of the bid.

However, during contract execution, after the contractor paid substantial IGST on imported equipment, the employer suddenly refused reimbursement, claiming it was a lump-sum contract and that the contractor must bear the cost itself.

This meant millions of U.S. dollars in additional costs would fall solely on the contractor. Beyond financial pressure, the contractor faced the dilemma of how to communicate with and resolve the issue against a resistant counterpart.

II. Challenges in the Cross-Border Legal Environment

The dispute arose during a sensitive period in China–India relations.

In local projects, Chinese enterprises often face bias and unfavorable treatment, making dispute resolution more difficult. From the outset, the employer repeatedly cited the “inclusive of tax” clause, attempting to oversimplify the issue and avoid acknowledging its prior clarification commitment.

For the contractor, the challenge was not only legal but also political atmosphere, cross-cultural communication, and unfamiliar procedural rules.

Nevertheless, the Chinese contractor chose to trust the contract and the rules. They invoked the DRB procedure provided in the contract, seeking fairness through internationally recognized mechanisms.

III. Cross-Border Legal Team in Action

The contractor appointed Landing Law Offices as counsel. The case was led by Senior Partner Huang Xueshan, whose China-based team immediately reviewed the contract terms, bid documents, and the employer’s clarification records, formulating a robust dispute resolution strategy.

Recognizing the need for local expertise, Landing invited Indian senior construction lawyer Ravish Singh to join the team.

This cross-border collaboration proved decisive:

• Huang Xueshan’s team: Designed overall strategy, identified key legal breakthrough points, and managed core client communications.
• Ravish Singh’s team: Prepared legal documents, organized the evidence chain, and actively participated in all hearings to ensure procedural compliance and precise advocacy.

During multiple hearings, his sharp judgment, deep legal expertise, and articulate presentation kept the case’s core issues clearly before the DRB.

The cooperation went beyond legal division of labor—it was a relationship of trust, “fighting side by side.” No matter how the external environment shifted, Landing India stood firmly with the client, ensuring respect and justice for the Chinese contractor abroad.

IV. Six Hearings of Persistence

From September 2024, the DRB convened six hearings in succession.

Each hearing was a clash of arguments and a test of evidence:

• Initial stage: Submission of claims and clarification of issues in dispute.
• Mid-stage: Intense debate over whether IGST on imports was reimbursable, involving not only contract clauses but also provisions of Indian tax law on input credits.
• Final stage: The committee required face-to-face discussions between the parties’ financial experts and submission of opinions.

Throughout, the legal team maintained one consistent position: facts were clear, the clarification documents were binding, and the contract must be fairly enforced.

V. DRB Decision

In August 2025, the DRB in New Delhi issued its decision, unequivocally supporting the Chinese contractor’s claims.

Key findings included:

1. Tender clarification documents form part of the contract.
   IGST for offshore supplies is to be treated as customs duty and reimbursed upon submission of documents in compliance with contract requirements.
2. Reimbursement must follow the same process as customs duty.
   Ensures fair and consistent treatment.
3. No double benefit.
   If in the future input tax credit is allowed by the tax authorities, the contractor must return the corresponding amount.
4. No extra costs.
   No additional interest or costs payable for delays in reimbursement, unless specifically provided by contract.

The decision not only recovered USD 1.8 million for the contractor, but also strongly upheld the principle of fairness.

VI. Significance and Value

1. Precedent in international construction projects
   The case affirms the contractual effect of tender clarifications, serving as a model for future disputes in projects funded by international financial institutions.
2. Winning respect through rules
   Despite sensitivities in China–India relations, the case shows that adherence to rules and procedural justice can overcome external biases.
3. Power of cross-border collaboration
   This case demonstrates that cross-border legal cooperation is not simply “local representation,” but deep collaboration and joint effort. Landing’s China–India team stood the test of professional ability, loyalty, and efficient execution.

VII. Conclusion: Justice Across Borders

From the fog of dispute, through six heated hearings, to ultimate victory, every step was built on professionalism and conviction.

This success is not only a win for the client, but also encouragement for all Chinese enterprises venturing abroad: in a complex global environment, only by respecting rules and skillfully using the law can they secure respect on the world stage.

Landing will continue to work with international partners to promote fairness and justice in cross-border projects.

As this case proves: across borders, law and trust endure.

Landing India Law Office

Since its establishment in 2016, Landing India has been committed to supporting Chinese enterprises investing and undertaking projects in India. Over the years, the firm has built deep cooperative relationships with leading Chinese companies and institutions, including CNPC, China Railway, Xinhua News Agency, SAIC Motor, Tencent, OPPO, Great Wall Motors, CAMCE, China Jushi, Country Garden, XCMG, CRRC, CISDI, Bank of China, CSCEC, SF Express, Shanghai Tunnel, Meizu, and Eastcompeace, among others. With professionalism, diligence, and strong responsibility, Landing India has helped Chinese enterprises handle complex issues of compliance, business negotiations, and dispute resolution in the Indian market, effectively safeguarding their lawful rights and interests.

Lawyer Profiles

Huang Xueshan
Senior Partner, Landing (Shenzhen) Law Offices
Senior Advisor, Landing (India) Law Offices
Practice Areas: Overseas investment, major dispute resolution
Email: Xueshan.huang@landinglawyer.com
Tel: +86 15218717832

Ravish Singh
Partner, Landing (India) Law Offices
Practice Areas: International arbitration, cyber law, criminal law, corporate law, mergers & acquisitions, and commercial dispute resolution