Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 8

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

submitted  an  additional  statement,  reiterating  that  “the 
Ministry  specifically  charged  the  Chamber  . . .  with  the 
authority  and  responsibility  . . .  for  regulating,  through 
consultation,  the  price  of  vitamin  C  manufactured  for 
export.”    App.  133.    The  Chinese  sellers  tendered  expert 
testimony  in  accord  with  the  Ministry’s  account,  which 
stressed  that  the  Ministry’s  “interpretation  of  its  own 
regulations  and  policies  carries  decisive  weight  under 
Chinese  law.”    Id.,  at  142.    The  U. S.  purchasers,  in  re-
sponse,  cited  further  materials  supporting  their  opposing 
view,  including  China’s  statement  to  the  World  Trade 
Organization  (WTO)  that  it  “gave  up  export  administra-
tion  of  . . .  vitamin  C”  in  2002.    810  F. Supp.  2d,  at  532 
(internal quotation marks omitted).  Denying the Chinese 
sellers’  motion  for  summary  judgment,  the  District  Court 
held that Chinese law did not require the sellers to fix the 
price or quantity of vitamin C exports.  Id., at 525. 
  The  case  was  then  tried  to  a  jury,  which  returned  a 
verdict for  the  U. S.  purchasers.    The  jury  found  that  the 
Chinese sellers had agreed to fix the prices and quantities 
of vitamin C exports, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 276a–279a, 
and further found that the Chinese sellers were not “actu-
ally  compelled”  by  China  to  enter  into  those  agreements, 
id., at 278a.  In accord with the jury’s verdict, the District 
Court  entered  judgment  for  the  U. S.  purchasers,  award-
ing some $147 million in treble damages and enjoining the 
Chinese  sellers  from  further  violations  of  the  Sherman 
Act. 
  The  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Second  Circuit  reversed, 
holding  that  the  District  Court  erred  in  denying  the  Chi-
nese  sellers’  motion  to  dismiss  the  complaint.    In re  Vita-
min  C  Antitrust  Litigation,  837  F. 3d  175,  178,  195–196 
(2016).  The Court of Appeals determined that the propri- 
ety  of  dismissal  hinged  on  whether  the  Chinese  sellers 
could adhere to both Chinese law and U. S. antitrust law.  
See id., at 186.  That question, in turn, depended on “the