Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

motion.    The  Ministry’s  brief  stated  that  the  Ministry  is 
“the highest administrative authority in China authorized 
to regulate foreign trade,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 190a; that 
the Chamber is “an entity under the Ministry’s direct and 
active  supervision”  and  is  authorized  to  regulate  vitamin 
C  exports,  id.,  at  196a;  and  that  the  conspiracy  in  re-
straint of trade alleged by the U. S. purchasers was in fact 
“a regulatory pricing regime mandated by the government 
of China,” id., at 197a.1 
  In response, the U. S. purchasers disputed that Chinese 
law required the Chinese sellers to engage in price fixing.  
Among  other  things,  the  U. S.  purchasers  noted  that  the 
Ministry  had  not  identified  any written  law  or  regulation 

—————— 

1 The Ministry told the District Court: For much of the 20th century, 
China  allowed  only  state-owned  entities  to  export  products.    App.  to 
Pet. for Cert. 198a.  When China started to allow private enterprises to 
obtain  export  licenses,  the  Ministry  established  the  Chamber  to  regu-
late exports under the Ministry’s authority and direction.  Ibid. 

In 1997, the Ministry authorized the establishment of the Chamber’s 
Vitamin C Subcommittee.  Id., at 202a.  That year, the Ministry prom-
ulgated  a  regulation  authorizing  and  requiring  the  subcommittee  to 
limit  the  production  of  vitamin  C  for  export  and  to  set  export  prices.  
Id.,  at  202a–204a.    Under  the  regulation  delineating  this  “Export 
Licensing System,” the Ministry issued export licenses only to manufac-
turers  whose export  volume and  price  complied  with  the  output  quota 
and price coordinated by the Vitamin C Subcommittee.  Id., at 204a. 

In  2002,  the  Ministry  replaced  the  Export  Licensing  System  with  a 
“Verification  and  Chop  System.”    Id.,  at  208a.    As  set  forth  in  a  2002 
Ministry  Notice,  the  Chamber  itself—instead  of  the  Ministry—would 
inspect each export contract and certify its compliance with the coordi-
nated  quotas  and  price  by  affixing  a  special  seal,  known  as  a  “chop.”  
Id.,  at  208a–209a.    China’s  Customs  would  allow  export  only  if  the 
exporter  presented  its  contract  bearing  the  Chamber’s  “chop.”    Id.,  at 
209a.    According  to  the  Ministry,  it  was  implicit  in  this  arrangement 
that vitamin C exporters would remain under an obligation to fix prices 
and volumes.  Id., at 208a. 
  The effect of China’s regime on the Chinese sellers’ liability under the 
Sherman Act, we note, is not an issue before the Court today.