Issued by: Guozun Cathay Associates Pakistan Office
Date of Judgment: 10 August 2026
Key Outcome: The court of first instance fully adopted the arguments of our legal team, dismissed the Pakistani company’s entire claim for the refund of over RMB 100,000 in goods payment, and successfully ruled that over RMB 90,000 of the sum in question constituted legitimate intermediary commission.
This case was jointly handled by the Pakistan Office of Guozun Cathay Associates and the cross-border commercial dispute resolution team of the Beijing Head Office. Acting in strict compliance with the laws of China and Pakistan and international commercial intermediation practices, and leveraging Guozun’s global cross-border legal service network and dual-jurisdiction practice qualifications, we delivered a full-chain defence solution for the Chinese intermediary. The case has been included in Guozun’s 2026 Typical Case Library for South Asian Cross-Border Commercial Dispute Resolution. Its case-handling model – “dual customs data cross-verification + dual-jurisdiction mutual recognition of evidence + tiered argumentation on the nature of funds” – has been widely applied in resolving China-Pakistan cross-border trade intermediation disputes.
I. Case Background and Entrustment Process
Ms. Gong, a Chinese national specialising in international trade intermediation, has long provided brokerage services for China-Pakistan cross-border trade. In 2018, she facilitated a cross-border equipment procurement cooperation between Chinese Companies A and B and Pakistani Company C, and signed a formal Intermediation Agreement with Company A, under which she would receive intermediary remuneration at a fixed percentage of the transaction value. During performance of the first transaction, the Pakistani buyer paid USD 9,600 for the goods directly to the account designated by Company C, and simultaneously paid Ms. Gong over RMB 10,000 in intermediary commission as agreed. In 2019, a party related to the transaction remitted over RMB 100,000 to Ms. Gong’s personal account, with no clear indication of the nature of the payment.
Following the dismissal of an earlier lawsuit filed by an unrelated party for lack of standing, Pakistani Company C formally initiated proceedings in 2024 on the grounds of unjust enrichment, claiming that the full sum of over RMB 100,000 constituted collected goods payment due to it and demanding that Ms. Gong refund the entire amount. Ms. Gong contended that only over RMB 10,000 of the sum was collected goods payment, while the remaining over RMB 90,000 was intermediary commission to which she was entitled under the agreement. Given the long passage of time since the transaction, mixed accounts between the parties, and complex issues such as cross-border trade evidence recognition and legal characterisation of funds across China and Pakistan, Ms. Gong formally entrusted Guozun Cathay Associates with full authority to represent her in the case in February 2025.
In light of three core challenges – dual-jurisdiction law application across China and Pakistan, verification of cross-border goods value, and collection of overseas corporate financial evidence – Guozun Cathay Associates immediately activated the China-Pakistan Cross-Border Commercial Collaborative Case Handling Mechanism. A dedicated case team was jointly formed by the cross-border commercial dispute resolution team of the Beijing Head Office and the Pakistan Office: the Pakistan Office took charge of evidence collection under Pakistani law, legal argumentation on local law application, and overseas procedural coordination; the Beijing Head Office was responsible for domestic evidence collation, litigation strategy coordination, and court representation, advancing the case collaboratively throughout the process.
II. Full Process of China-Pakistan Joint Case Handling
The case followed the standardised collaborative model: “Beijing Head Office leads litigation subject advancement and evidence system building under Chinese jurisdiction; Pakistan Office provides legal support under Pakistani jurisdiction and cross-border evidence reinforcement”. Written deliverables and verifiable files were produced at every stage:
1. 15 February 2025 – 22 February 2025: Dual-Jurisdiction Case Risk Assessment
Beijing Head Office: Completed collation of base materials including the Intermediation Agreement, domestic transfer records and trade correspondence, and issued the Assessment Report on the Legitimacy of Intermediation Contract Relationship under Chinese Law, confirming clear facts of intermediary services, explicit remuneration terms, and a sufficient defence basis for our client.
Pakistan Office: Leveraging Pakistan’s business registration system and customs data access channels, completed verification of the plaintiff Company C’s corporate standing and retrieval of Pakistan’s import customs clearance records for the goods in question within 3 working days. It initially confirmed discrepancies between the goods value declared by the plaintiff and actual import data, and ruled out any risk of our client’s malicious retention of funds.
2. March 2025 – May 2025: Cross-Border Evidence Collection and Accurate Goods Value Calculation
Beijing Head Office: Obtained Chinese customs export declarations, entry-exit inspection and quarantine certificates, supply contracts and payment vouchers from domestic suppliers for the goods involved in 2018–2019. Combined with dozens of cross-border business emails, it conducted item-by-item calculations by “batch – quantity – unit price” and established the total actual goods value of the transaction.
Pakistan Office: Liaised with Pakistan Customs and the Federal Board of Revenue to retrieve import declarations, tax payment certificates and foreign exchange settlement records for the relevant goods batches. It also obtained financial accounting vouchers for 3 similar cross-border transactions by Company C in the same period, documenting the plaintiff’s long-standing financial practice of “mixing goods payment and commission in bookkeeping” – a key factual foundation for the subsequent defence.
3. By 20 August 2025: Evidence System Construction and Legal Document Drafting
The China-Pakistan case team jointly finalised defence strategies and drafted legal documents, producing a hundred-page Evidence List and Statement of Case. The Beijing team led argumentation on the burden of proof under Chinese law and developed the legal logic for distinguishing the nature of funds; the Pakistan Office issued the Legal Opinion on Recognition Standards for Intermediary Remuneration under the Contract Act of Pakistan, and completed local notarisation and consular authentication of all Pakistan-sourced evidence to ensure its admissibility in Chinese courts.
4. 12 November 2025: First Instance – First Hearing
Lawyers from the Beijing Head Office appeared in court, submitting the Intermediation Agreement and the dual customs value calculation report. They demonstrated that the “goods payment amount” claimed by the plaintiff was materially inconsistent with the actual transaction value, and that the plaintiff’s assertion as to the nature of the funds based solely on transfer vouchers lacked factual basis. The Pakistan Office simultaneously completed judicial service and validity explanation of the Pakistani evidence, ensuring full integrity of the in-court cross-examination.
5. 18 March 2026: Second Hearing – Cross-Examination
In response to supplementary financial flow evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the China-Pakistan team jointly formulated a cross-examination plan. The Pakistan Office filed additional commission payment records of Company C for other contemporaneous transactions, further corroborating the plaintiff’s irregular financial management and mixed treatment of fund types. Beijing lawyers refuted the plaintiff’s supplementary arguments in court by reference to trade practices and legal provisions, strengthening the defence logic.
6. 10 August 2026: Judgment and Conclusion
After trial, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to discharge its burden of proof for the claim that “the full RMB 100,000 constituted goods payment”. By contrast, the counter-evidence submitted by our side – including the intermediation agreement, dual customs value certificates and trade practices – formed a complete evidential chain. The court accordingly dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims in law, resulting in a full victory for our client.
III. Core Case Difficulties and Authoritative Solutions
The contentious points in this case represent typical, common issues in China-Pakistan cross-border trade intermediation disputes. Drawing on dual-jurisdiction expertise and cross-border case experience, the Guozun joint team developed a replicable, standardised solution:
1. Difficulty: Distinguishing Goods Payment from Commission in Cross-Border Trade
Legal Basis: Chapter on Intermediation Contracts of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China; Article 225 of the Contract Act of Pakistan (rules on intermediary remuneration); international commercial intermediation practices.
Solution: Pioneered the “dual customs data cross-verification method” – synchronising and matching Chinese export declaration data with Pakistani import clearance data. Through precise item-by-item calculation of quantities and unit prices, it established the true total goods value of the transaction, thereby isolating the intermediary commission portion. This thoroughly undermined the plaintiff’s one-sided premise that “a single transfer corresponds to a single type of payment”.
2. Difficulty: Burden of Proof Allocation and Validity of Overseas Evidence in Foreign-Related Commercial Disputes
Legal Basis: Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China; Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures; Article 117 of the Civil Procedure Code of Pakistan.
Solution: Applied the fundamental principle of he who asserts must prove, establishing that the plaintiff’s transfer voucher alone was insufficient to prove the legal nature of the payment. A three-tier counter-evidence framework was built: “domestic intermediation agreement + dual customs value certificates + Pakistani enterprise financial practices”, supported by notarisation and authentication procedures for Pakistani evidence, to comprehensively strengthen the legal force of the evidence chain.
3. Difficulty: Reconstructing Facts of Mixed Accounts for Long-Standing Transactions
Legal Basis: ICC Guidelines for Accounting in Cross-Border Trade; relevant regulations governing China-Pakistan cross-border foreign exchange payments.
Solution: Traced the full transaction cycle’s capital flow, compared the commission ratio and transaction pattern of the first transaction with the composition of the sum in question, and cross-referenced the plaintiff’s bookkeeping habits for similar contemporaneous transactions. This proved that the mixing of funds stemmed from the plaintiff’s own irregular financial management, not from our client’s retention of goods payment.
IV. Authoritative Legal Bases Applied in This Case
(A) Chinese Law
1.Article 961, Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China: An intermediation contract is a contract whereby the intermediary reports to the client an opportunity for concluding a contract or provides brokerage services for the conclusion of a contract, and the client pays remuneration.
2.Paragraph 1, Article 963, Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China: Where an intermediary facilitates the conclusion of a contract, the client shall pay remuneration in accordance with the agreement.
3.Paragraph 1, Article 67, Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China: A party shall bear the burden of proof for the facts on which its claim is based.
4.Article 90, Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China: A party shall provide evidence to prove the facts supporting its claim or the facts supporting its refutation of the other party’s claim... Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual allegations before judgment is rendered, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.
(B) Pakistani Law
1.Article 225, Contract Act of Pakistan: Where an intermediary facilitates the conclusion of a contract, he shall be entitled to remuneration in accordance with the agreement; the amount of remuneration may be determined by agreement or trade practice.
2.Article 117, Civil Procedure Code of Pakistan: The party asserting the existence of a fact shall bear the burden of proof; the legal nature of a payment shall not be presumed solely from a payment voucher.
3.Article 79, Customs Act of Pakistan: The declared value of imported goods shall be consistent with the actual transaction value, and customs data may serve as a statutory basis for determining goods value.
(C) International Rules and Practices
Article 5.1.1, UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts: Each party shall perform its obligations in accordance with the contract.
ICC International Trade Intermediation Services Practices: Intermediary remuneration and goods payment constitute independent payment obligations and shall be settled separately.
V. Authoritative Practical Recommendations Based on Case Experience
Drawing on Guozun Pakistan Office’s years of experience in China-Pakistan cross-border legal services, the following three authoritative recommendations are offered to China-Pakistan trade intermediaries and foreign trade enterprises:
1.Standardise transaction structures: Intermediary services and goods sales shall be governed by separate written agreements, clearly specifying the calculation method, timing and route of intermediary remuneration. Goods payment and commission shall be paid via separate accounts and in separate instalments, with the nature of each payment clearly stated at the time of remittance, to prevent account mixing at source.
2.Systematise evidence management: Retain all transaction materials – including intermediation agreements, trade contracts, customs documents, correspondence and payment vouchers – in good order. For key cross-border payment vouchers, it is recommended to conduct evidence formalisation and notarisation every six months to enhance their probative value in potential litigation.
3.Professionalise dispute response: In the event of a China-Pakistan cross-border commercial dispute, engage a legal team with dual-jurisdiction China-Pakistan service capabilities within 3 months. Through the cross-border collaboration mechanism, overseas evidence can be collected promptly and dual-jurisdiction defence strategies developed, avoiding adverse outcomes caused by missing evidence or misapplication of law.