Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC. v. 
HEBEI WELCOME PHARMACEUTICAL CO. 
Opinion of the Court 

expressly  ordering  the  Chinese  sellers’  price  agreement.2  
They  also  highlighted  a  Chamber  announcement  that  the 
manufacturers “were able to reach a self-regulated agree-
ment  . . .  whereby  they  would  voluntarily  control  the 
quantity and pace of exports . . . without any government 
intervention.”  App. 109.  In addition, the U. S. purchasers 
presented  expert  testimony  that  the  Chinese  Govern-
ment’s authorization of a Vitamin C Subcommittee within 
the  Chamber  did  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  subcom-
mittee’s price fixing was mandated by law. 
  The District Court denied the Chinese sellers’ motion to 
dismiss  the  complaint  in  relevant  part.    In re  Vitamin  C 
Antitrust  Litigation,  584  F. Supp.  2d  546,  559  (EDNY 
2008).    That  court  acknowledged  that  the Ministry’s  ami-
cus  brief  was  “entitled  to  substantial  deference.”    Id.,  at 
557.    The  court,  however,  did  not  regard  the  Ministry’s 
statements  as  “conclusive,”  emphasizing  particularly  that 
the  U. S.  purchasers  had  submitted  evidence  suggesting 
that the price fixing was voluntary.  Ibid.  The record, the 
District Court determined, was “too ambiguous to foreclose 
further  inquiry  into  the  voluntariness  of  [the  Chinese 
sellers’] actions.”  Id., at 559. 
  After further discovery, focused on whether Chinese law 
compelled  the  Chinese  sellers  to  enter  into  a  price-fixing 
agreement,  the  Chinese  sellers  moved  for  summary  judg-
ment.    See  In re  Vitamin  C  Antitrust  Litigation,  810 
F. Supp.  2d  522,  525–526  (EDNY  2011).    The  Ministry 
—————— 

2 The complaint, the U. S. purchasers emphasized, was directed only 
at  conduct  occurring  after  December  2001.    As  they  understood  the 
Ministry’s 2002 Notice, see supra, at 3, n. 1, vitamin C exporters could 
have  lawfully  opted  out  of  price  fixing.    Beyond  that,  the  Vitamin  C 
Subcommittee had replaced its 1997 Charter with a new 2002 Charter, 
App.  182–197,  which  eliminated  the  1997  Charter’s  requirement  that 
subcommittee  members  “[s]trictly  execute”  the  “coordinated  price”  set 
by  the  Chamber,  compare  id.,  at  85,  with  id.,  at  185,  and  granted 
members  an  express  “[r]igh[t]”  to  “freely  resign  from  the  Subcommit-
tee,” id., at 186.