At AKEI's request and cost, GS sends replacement parts. On arrival, AKEI's agents assemble and install the systems into AKEI's stores. However, the systems do not work correctly. AKEI regularly experiences malfunctioning hardware and software crashes. AKEI and GS keep in regular contact over the problems and GS have repeatedly sent its technicians to resolve issues. However, AKEI is unhappy with the performance of the systems. The system's installation has coincided with a decline in staff productivity. The relationship between AKEI and GS breaks down, and they commence arbitration proceedings in Japan under UNCITRAL Model Law and as required under a choice of forum clause included in their contract of sale.

At the arbitration proceedings in Japan, AKEI wishes to call an expert witness who will explain how GS has used poor quality components and deficient software that is not fit for purpose. The arbitrator refuses to consider the appearance of this witness or even her written statement. The arbitrator provides no reasons for this decision, despite agreeing to consider expert witness statements provided by GS in support of its case. AKEI's protests are dismissed. The arbitrator's decision finds in favour of GS and awards GS a substantial amount of compensation for enduring AKEI's 'unprofessional behaviour' during the proceedings. There is no basis for this type of compensation under Japanese law.

AKEI refuses to pay the award to GS. Is there any basis on which AKEI can contest that award? Be sure to explain your response fully.