- The Civil Procedure Law’s foreign-related chapter was substantially amended (in force from 1 January 2024), reshaping jurisdiction, cross-border service, evidence-taking and recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments.
《民事诉讼法》涉外编经重大修订（2024年1月1日起施行），重塑了管辖、跨境送达、调查取证及外国判决承认与执行。- Foreign companies can be sued in China even without a domicile here — jurisdiction can attach through a representative office, a branch, an agent, or an “appropriate connection” to China.
外国公司即便在华无住所也可能在中国被诉——管辖可通过代表机构、分支机构、业务代办人或与中国的”适当联系”确立。- Not every “foreign-related” case needs “cross-border service” — if the defendant or an authorised agent is inside China, domestic-style service applies; only a defendant with no China domicile and no in-China recipient triggers true overseas service.
并非所有”涉外案件”都需”涉外送达”——若被告或有权代收人在境内，适用境内送达方式；只有在境内既无住所、其本人或代收人也不在境内时，才启动真正的域外送达。- Overseas service follows treaty channels: bilateral judicial-assistance treaties or the Hague Service Convention; mail service, service on an in-China agent/representative office, and other confirmable methods (fax, email) are also permitted where allowed.
域外送达走条约渠道：双边司法协助条约或《海牙送达公约》；在允许情形下也可邮寄送达、向境内代理人/代表机构送达，及传真、电子邮件等可确认收悉的其他方式。- Service on a foreign party’s in-China legal representative, chief officer, litigation agent, representative office or authorised branch is expressly allowed — a foreign firm cannot avoid a suit merely by ignoring foreign mail.
可向外国当事人在境内的法定代表人、主要负责人、诉讼代理人、代表机构或有权分支机构送达——外国企业不能仅靠不理会境外邮件而躲避诉讼。- The SPC is completing amendments to the CPL foreign-related-chapter judicial interpretation, refining jurisdiction (including parallel-proceedings/conflict rules), law-ascertainment and cross-border evidence.
最高人民法院正完成民诉法涉外编司法解释修改，细化管辖（含平行诉讼/冲突规则）、外国法查明与跨境取证。- The Foreign State Immunity Law (with SPC Notice 法〔2025〕39号) sets special procedures for suits against foreign states, concentrating jurisdiction in designated intermediate/specialised courts.
《外国国家豁免法》（配套最高法法〔2025〕39号通知）为起诉外国国家设特别程序，管辖集中于指定的中级/专门法院。- Practical defence: appoint a China-based service agent, monitor deadlines (foreign states get three months to answer), and consider arbitration clauses to avoid litigation uncertainty.
实务防御：指定在华送达代理人、盯紧期限（外国国家有三个月答辩期）、并考虑用仲裁条款规避诉讼不确定性。
Being Sued in China: Jurisdiction, Cross-Border Service and the Amended Civil Procedure Law | 在中国被起诉：管辖、跨境送达与修订后的民事诉讼法
Overview
Many foreign companies assume that because they have no office or assets in China, a Chinese court cannot reach them — or that ignoring a lawsuit filed abroad makes it disappear. Both assumptions are dangerous. Since 1 January 2024, an amended foreign-related chapter of the Civil Procedure Law (CPL) has broadened jurisdiction and modernised how documents are served and evidence taken across borders, and the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) is finishing implementing interpretations that fill in the detail. This article explains when a foreign firm can be sued in China, how cross-border service actually works (and when it is not even needed), the special track for suing foreign states, and how to build a sensible defensive posture.
When can a foreign company be sued in China?
The amended CPL widened the jurisdictional net for foreign-related civil and commercial cases. Beyond the classic bases (contract performed in China, subject matter located in China, tort committed in China), jurisdiction can attach where the dispute has an “appropriate connection” (适当联系) with China, and through a defendant’s representative office, branch, business agent or property in China. Chinese courts also respect party autonomy: a valid choice-of-court agreement selecting a Chinese court will generally be honoured, and the SPC is developing model choice-of-court clauses. The upshot: a foreign firm doing business connected to China can find itself properly within a Chinese court’s reach.
“Foreign-related” does not always mean “overseas service”
A common misconception is that every foreign party must be served abroad. Chinese law actually sorts service into three types: domestic service, foreign-related in-territory service, and foreign-related overseas service. The sequence a court follows:
- Does the recipient have a domicile in China? If yes, ordinary domestic service applies — no overseas service needed.
- Is the recipient (or an authorised agent) physically in China? If yes, foreign-related in-territory service applies.
- Only if the recipient has no China domicile and neither the party nor an agent is in China does the court resort to true overseas service.
This matters enormously: a foreign company with a China representative office, subsidiary officer, or litigation agent may be validly served inside China, quickly.
How overseas service works
When true overseas service is required, the CPL and SPC rules provide a menu:
- Treaty channels: if the recipient’s state has a bilateral judicial-assistance treaty with China, serve under it; if the state is a party to the Hague Service Convention (关于向国外送达民事或商事司法文书和司法外文书公约), serve via the Convention.
- Mail service: permitted if the recipient’s state allows it; a return receipt is attached, and signing the mail receipt can count as service.
- Service on an in-China nexus: on the foreign party’s PRC legal representative, chief officer, litigation agent, representative office, or an authorised branch/business agent — expressly allowed.
- Other confirmable methods: fax, email and other means that can confirm receipt.
- Public announcement: as a last resort, by publication in newspapers circulated at home and abroad.
Time rules apply — for treaty/diplomatic channels, if no proof of service arrives within six months (three months for mail) and receipt cannot otherwise be inferred, that method is deemed to have failed, and the court moves on.
Deemed service — you cannot simply ignore documents
Even without a signed receipt, service can be deemed effective if, for example, the recipient has referred in writing to the served document’s contents, or has already performed according to it. In short, a foreign defendant cannot defeat a Chinese proceeding by refusing to acknowledge documents it has clearly received.
The SPC’s modernisation of foreign-related procedure
The SPC has described a multi-front upgrade: optimising jurisdiction rules and handling of parallel proceedings and jurisdictional conflicts; completing judicial interpretations of the CPL foreign-related chapter, the Arbitration Law and the Maritime Law; improving ascertainment of foreign law; simplifying cross-border evidence circulation and authorisation formalities; and building a fair, professional, efficient, low-cost international commercial dispute-resolution system, supported by the International Commercial Court (CICC), case databases and the online “law-answer” network.
Special track: suing a foreign state
China’s Foreign State Immunity Law adopts restrictive immunity with defined exceptions. The SPC’s Notice on Procedural Matters in Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity (法〔2025〕39号) sets special rules: such first-instance cases are concentrated in designated intermediate courts (and maritime, financial and IP courts) at provincial capitals; service on a foreign state follows treaty methods or, failing that, diplomatic note through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (no public-announcement service); the foreign state gets three months to file a defence; and a foreign state that appears only to contest jurisdiction is not deemed to have accepted the court’s jurisdiction.
Building a defensive posture
- Appoint a China service agent / keep entity records current so you learn of any suit promptly rather than through delayed foreign mail.
- Do not ignore documents — deemed service and default judgment are real risks; engage counsel immediately.
- Assess jurisdiction early — challenge improper jurisdiction within the answer period; note parallel-proceedings rules if you are also litigating elsewhere.
- Prefer well-drafted dispute clauses — a clear choice-of-court or, often better for cross-border deals, an arbitration clause (e.g. CIETAC) can reduce litigation uncertainty and ease enforcement.
- Preserve cross-border evidence properly — follow the streamlined but formal channels for overseas evidence and notarisation/legalisation or apostille.
What to do next
- Confirm whether your China nexus (rep office, subsidiary, agent) exposes you to in-territory service.
- Put a monitoring process in place so served documents are never missed or ignored.
- Review contracts for jurisdiction and dispute-resolution clauses; consider arbitration for cross-border deals.
- If sued, retain PRC counsel at once and calendar all deadlines (including the special three-month window for foreign states).
- For enforcement or recognition questions, check the latest SPC interpretations and applicable treaties/Convention status.
Sources
- 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2023 修正，涉外编，2024-01-01 施行）— http://www.npc.gov.cn (official portal)
- 最高人民法院关于修改十九件民事诉讼类司法解释的决定（含涉外送达、涉外管辖）— https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/282651.html
- 最高人民法院关于适用涉外民事案件和商事案件司法文书送达问题若干规定 — https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/218/62/84/12830.html
- 最高人民法院关于涉外国国家豁免民事案件相关程序事项的通知（法〔2025〕39号）— http://gongbao.court.gov.cn (official portal)
- 最高人民法院：完善涉外审判机制、打造国际商事纠纷解决优选地 — https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/491531.html
Related reading
- see also: 法务争议-涉外诉讼 (foreign-related dispute resolution: litigation vs arbitration)
- see also: 法务争议-国际仲裁 (CIETAC & international arbitration)
- see also: 知识产权-专利 (administrative IP protection & adjudication)
在中国被起诉：管辖、跨境送达与修订后的民事诉讼法
概述
许多外国公司以为，既然在华无办公室、无资产，中国法院就够不着自己——或以为对境外提起的诉讼置之不理便可让其消失。两种假设都很危险。自 2024 年 1 月 1 日起，修订后的《民事诉讼法》涉外编拓宽了管辖、并使跨境送达与取证现代化，最高人民法院也正在完成补足细节的司法解释。本文说明外资企业何时可能在华被诉、跨境送达究竟如何运作（以及何时根本不需要）、起诉外国国家的特别通道，以及如何构建合理的防御姿态。
外国公司何时可能在中国被诉？
修订后的民诉法拓宽了涉外民商事案件的管辖网。除经典依据（合同在华履行、标的物在华、侵权行为地在华）外，当纠纷与中国有“适当联系”、或通过被告在华的代表机构、分支机构、业务代办人或财产，即可确立管辖。中国法院亦尊重当事人意思自治：选择中国法院的有效协议管辖通常获认可，最高法还在制定协议管辖示范条款。结论是：与中国有业务关联的外国企业，可能名正言顺地落入中国法院管辖。
“涉外”未必等于”域外送达”
一个常见误解是每个外国当事人都须在境外送达。中国法律实际把送达分为三类：境内送达、涉外域内送达、涉外域外送达。法院遵循的顺序：
- 受送达人在境内是否有住所？有，则适用一般境内送达——无需域外送达。
- 受送达人（或有权代收人）是否在境内？在，则适用涉外域内送达。
- 仅当受送达人在境内既无住所、本人或代收人也不在境内时，法院才诉诸真正的域外送达。
这至关重要：在华设有代表机构、子公司高管或诉讼代理人的外国公司，可在境内被有效、快速送达。
域外送达如何运作
当确需域外送达时，民诉法与最高法规定提供了”菜单”：
- 条约渠道：受送达人所在国与中国订有双边司法协助条约的，依条约送达；所在国是《海牙送达公约》成员国的，依公约送达。
- 邮寄送达：受送达人所在国允许的，可邮寄，附送达回证；在邮件回执上签收可视为送达。
- 向境内联结点送达：向外国当事人在华的法定代表人、主要负责人、诉讼代理人、代表机构或有权分支机构/业务代办人送达——明确允许。
- 其他可确认方式：传真、电子邮件等能确认收悉的方式。
- 公告送达：作为最后手段，在国内外公开发行的报刊上刊登。
存在期限规则——经条约/外交途径，自转递起满六个月（邮寄满三个月）未收到送达证明、且不足以认定已送达的，视为该方式不能送达，法院另择他法。
视为送达——你不能对文书置之不理
即便无签收回证，若受送达人书面提及所送文书内容、或已按其内容履行等，仍可视为送达。简言之，外国被告不能靠拒绝确认其明显已收到的文书来击败中国程序。
最高法对涉外程序的现代化
最高法描述了多线升级：优化管辖规则与平行诉讼、管辖冲突的处理；完成民诉法涉外编、仲裁法、海商法的司法解释；完善外国法查明；简化跨境证据流转与授权委托手续；并依托国际商事法庭（CICC）、案例库与”法答网”，建设公正、专业、高效、低成本的国际商事纠纷解决体系。
特别通道：起诉外国国家
中国《外国国家豁免法》采限制豁免并设明确例外。最高法《关于涉外国国家豁免民事案件相关程序事项的通知》（法〔2025〕39号）设特别规则：此类一审案件集中于省会城市指定的中级人民法院（及海事、金融、知识产权法院）；对外国国家送达依条约方式，无法送达的经外交部以外交照会送达（不适用公告送达）；外国国家有三个月答辩期；仅为参与管辖异议审查而陈述意见的，不视为接受管辖。
构建防御姿态
- 指定在华送达代理人/保持主体信息更新，以便及时获知诉讼，而非经延迟的境外邮件。
- 勿对文书置之不理——视为送达与缺席判决是真实风险；立即聘请律师。
- 尽早评估管辖——在答辩期内对不当管辖提出异议；若你在他地亦有诉讼，注意平行诉讼规则。
- 善拟争议条款——清晰的协议管辖，或对跨境交易往往更优的仲裁条款（如贸仲），可降低诉讼不确定性并便利执行。
- 妥善固定跨境证据——遵循虽已简化但仍正式的境外证据与公证认证/附加证明书渠道。
下一步建议
- 确认你的在华联结点（代表机构、子公司、代办人）是否使你可被境内送达。
- 建立监控流程，确保被送达文书绝不遗漏或被忽视。
- 审查合同的管辖与争议解决条款；跨境交易可考虑仲裁。
- 一旦被诉，立即聘请中国律师并排定所有期限（含对外国国家的特别三个月期）。
- 涉及执行或承认问题，核对最高法最新司法解释及适用条约/公约状态。
来源
- 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2023 修正，涉外编，2024-01-01 施行）— http://www.npc.gov.cn
- 最高人民法院关于修改十九件民事诉讼类司法解释的决定（含涉外送达、涉外管辖）— https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/282651.html
- 最高人民法院关于适用涉外民事案件和商事案件司法文书送达问题若干规定 — https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/218/62/84/12830.html
- 最高人民法院关于涉外国国家豁免民事案件相关程序事项的通知（法〔2025〕39号）— http://gongbao.court.gov.cn
- 最高人民法院：完善涉外审判机制、打造国际商事纠纷解决优选地 — https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/491531.html
相关阅读
- 参见：法务争议-涉外诉讼（涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁）
- 参见：法务争议-国际仲裁（贸仲与涉外仲裁）
- 参见：知识产权-专利（知识产权行政保护与行政裁决）