Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. HEBEI 
WELCOME PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 16–1220.  Argued April 24, 2018—Decided June 14, 2018 

Petitioners,  U. S.-based  purchasers  of  vitamin  C  (U. S.  purchasers), 
filed a class-action suit, alleging that four Chinese corporations that 
manufacture and export the nutrient (Chinese sellers), including the 
two respondents here, had agreed to fix the price and quantity of vit-
amin C exported to the United States, in violation of §1 of the Sher-
man Act.  The Chinese sellers moved to dismiss the complaint on the 
ground that Chinese law required them to fix the price and quantity 
of  vitamin  C  exports,  thus  shielding  them  from  liability  under  U. S. 
antitrust law.  The Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of 
China  (Ministry)  filed  an  amicus  brief  in  support  of  the  motion,  ex-
plaining that it is the administrative authority authorized to regulate 
foreign trade, and stating that the alleged conspiracy in restraint of 
trade  was  actually  a  pricing  regime  mandated  by  the  Chinese  Gov-
ernment.    The  U. S.  purchasers  countered  that  the  Ministry  had 
identified  no  law  or  regulation  ordering  the  Chinese  sellers’  price 
agreement,  highlighted  a  publication  announcing  that  the  Chinese 
sellers had agreed to control the quantity and rate of exports without 
government  intervention,  and  presented  supporting  expert  testimo-
ny. 
  The  District  Court  denied  the  Chinese  sellers’  motion  in  relevant 
part,  concluding  that  it  did  not  regard  the  Ministry’s  statements  as 
“conclusive,”  particularly  in  light  of  the  U. S.  purchasers’  evidence.  
When  the  Chinese  sellers  subsequently  moved  for  summary  judg-
ment,  the  Ministry  submitted  another  statement,  reiterating  its 
stance, and the U. S. purchasers pointed to China’s statement to the 
World Trade Organization that it ended its export administration of 
vitamin  C  in 2002.    The  court  denied  this  motion  as  well.    The  case