Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

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

of its own law is ordinarily entitled to substantial but not 
conclusive weight is also consistent with two international 
treaties  that  establish  formal  mechanisms  by  which  one 
government may obtain from another an official statement 
characterizing  its  laws.    Those  treaties  specify  that  “[t]he 
information  given  in  the  reply  shall  not  bind  the  judicial 
authority  from  which  the  request  emanated.”    European 
Convention on Information on Foreign Law, Art. 8, June 7, 
1968,  720  U. N. T. S.  154;  see  Inter-American  Convention 
on  Proof  of  and  Information  on  Foreign  Law,  Art.  6,  May 
8,  1979,  O. A. S. T. S.  1439  U. N. T. S.  111  (similar).    Al- 
though  the  United  States  is  not  a  party  to those  treaties, 
they reflect an international practice inconsistent with the 
Court of Appeals’ “binding, if reasonable” resolution. 

* 

  * 

  * 
  Because  the  Court  of  Appeals  concluded  that  the  Dis-
trict Court was bound to defer to the Ministry’s brief, the 
court did not consider the shortcomings the District Court 
identified in the Ministry’s position or other aspects of “the 
[D]istrict  [C]ourt’s  careful  and  thorough  treatment  of  the 
evidence  before  it.”    837  F. 3d,  at  191,  n. 10.    The  correct 
interpretation of Chinese law is not before this Court, and 
we take no position on it.  But the materials identified by 
the District Court were at least relevant to the weight the 
Ministry’s submissions should receive and to the question 
whether  Chinese  law  required  the  Chinese  sellers’  con-
duct.    We  therefore  vacate  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  and  remand  the  case  for  renewed  consideration 
consistent with this opinion. 

  It is so ordered.