A PYMNTS Company

China/US: SCOTUS hears amici arguments from both governments in Vitamin C case

By  |  April 24, 2018

Testimony in the ongoing review by the US Supreme Court of the Animal Science v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical case continued on Tuesday, April 24, where as lawyers for both countries faced off offered amici curiae arguments over whether complying with Chinese law can exempt Chinese companies from certain aspects of US antitrust laws.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The nine justices heard arguments in an appeal by two American companies of a lower court ruling that threw out price-fixing claims against two Chinese vitamin C manufacturers based on submissions by China’s government explaining that nation’s regulations. Many of the justices signaled skepticism toward that ruling.

    The nine justices heard arguments in an appeal by two American companies of a lower court ruling that threw out price-fixing claims against two Chinese vitamin C manufacturers based on submissions by China’s government explaining that nation’s regulations. Many of the justices signaled skepticism toward that ruling, as reported by Bloomberg.

    The arguments gave both countries a chance to air their differences over an aspect of their trade relationship. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of letting China present arguments even though it is not an official party in the case. Typically, only the US government is given that privilege.

    China’s lawyer, Carter Phillips, told the justices Tuesday that the Chinese companies were simply following their country’s export laws. “Chinese law required the defendants to do precisely what they did in this case,” he said. China contends that U.S. courts generally must defer to a foreign country’s interpretation of its own laws.

    The Trump administration isn’t taking a position on the requirements of Chinese law. But the Justice Department says U.S. courts have broad latitude to consider various sources when interpreting foreign law and don’t necessarily have to accept the foreign government’s view.

    The appeals court was “too rigid and too deferential to foreign sovereign submissions,” Justice Department lawyer Brian Fletcher argued.

    The hour-long Supreme Court session suggested the justices weren’t inclined to give Chinese officials the final say. Justice Elena Kagan said it wasn’t clear that courts anywhere would be that deferential.

    “How can you say that the only thing that shows respect to foreign governments is to do something that we don’t know that any other foreign nation does?” she asked Phillips.

    The court will decide on the case by the end of June.

    Full Content: Bloomberg

    Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.