該訴訟可追溯到2005年，當時美國購買者開始指控中國的維他命C製造商和其附屬公司形成固定價格、限制出口的壟斷組織（卡達）。
原告動物科學產品公司（Animal Science Products Inc.）和Ranis公司（The Ranis Company Inc.）以違反《謝爾曼法》為由在紐約東區布魯克林聯邦地區法院起訴河北維爾康製藥有限公司（及其母公司華北製藥集團有限公司）等4家中國維他命C生產企業。被訴企業沒有就是否達成價格固定進行辯解，而是聲稱他們固定價格、限制出口的行為是受中國法律和中國政府的要求，如不遵守該要求將失去出口許可。
對此，中華人民共和國商務部（MOFCOM）也向法庭提交聲明支持被訴中國企業。紐約東區聯邦地區法院的陪審團最終認定被訴企業的行為違反美國反壟斷法，於2013年給予原告0.541億美元賠償金的判決，地區法院法官Brian將賠償金翻三倍到1.47億美元以示懲罰。
02
—
二審判決中國企業勝訴
部分維他命C價格壟斷案被告於一審最終判決前與美方達成和解並支付賠償金，但河北維爾康製藥有限公司堅持不和解並提出上訴。
中國商務部向美國法院以「法庭之友」意見書的形式陳述意見，表示商務部2002年的通知確實對維他命C出口實行了「預核籤章」制度，根據該制度維他命C出口價格均不得低於「行業協商價格」，而遵守該限制價格的規定導致被訴企業因為價格固定行為違反了美國反壟斷法。美國聯邦第二巡迴上訴法院主要根據中國商務部對中國法律的解釋判斷中國與美國的法律存在直接衝突，即中國法律要求被告實施將違反《謝爾曼法》的行為，繼而認定應當根據國際禮讓原則放棄管轄。2016年9月20日，美國聯邦第二巡迴上訴法院就河北維爾康製藥有限公司維他命C反壟斷案件做出上訴裁決，撤銷一審判決，將本案發回原審法院，指令駁回原告起訴，並不得以同一訴因再次起訴。
03
—
美國最高法院徵求美國司法部長意見
2017年9月，美國最高法院徵求美國司法部長對於該案調卷申請的意見，司法部長在其「法庭之友」意見書中表示聯邦第二巡迴上訴法院將中國政府的法律意見作為決定性參考的做法是錯誤的，上訴法院還應該考慮其他的因素，如本案被訴企業自願加入價格協議，中國商務部曾向世界貿易組織（WTO）做出的停止控制維他命C出口的聲明等。
美國最高法院最終決定調卷審理，但表示其重審範圍將僅圍繞法院是否應當完全聽從外國政府的法律意見這一問題。
04
—
美國最高法院6月14日之決定
根據6月14日的意見，聯邦最高法院認為，其應該對外國政府在案件中的陳述給予應有的考慮，但聯邦法院並非必須採納外國政府對其本國法律法規的解釋。由於第二巡迴法院以外國政府的聲明無法被否決為由推翻了原審判決，聯邦最高法院因此撤銷了第二巡迴法院的判決，並將案件重新提交進一步審理。
該意見指出，聯邦民事訴訟規則第44.1條規定，法院對外國法律的判斷「必須被視為對法律問題的裁決」，而不是對事實的認定。在確定外國法時，法院不應受限於當事人雙方提交的材料;相反，法院「可能會考慮一切相關的資料…不管…根據聯邦證據規則，這些資料是否最終可被法院認定。」
原文：
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has vacated a judgment in favor of defendant Chinese manufacturers North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. (NCPGC) and Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. in a case alleging vitamin C price-fixing.
In an opinion entered today (14 June) following a unanimous decision, SCOTUS vacated a September 2016 Second Circuit judgment, which had overturned a USD 147m damages award for plaintiffs Animal Science Products Inc. and The Ranis Company Inc. SCOTUS also ordered that the case be remanded for further consideration.
Background
US dietary supplement companies Animal Science Products and Ranis initially filed complaints in 2005 alleging NCPGC, Hebei Welcome and other Chinese suppliers had regular meetings to limit supply and fix prices.
A district court denied the defendants』 initial motion to dismiss and subsequent motion for summary judgment. The court rejected the defendants』 argument that Chinese law required them to set prices and reduce quantities of vitamin C sold abroad.
China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) had filed an amicus brief in support of the motion to dismiss, explaining that it is the administrative authority authorized to regulate foreign trade, and stating that the alleged conspiracy in restraint of trade was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese government.
As reported, in March 2013, a New York jury rendered a verdict in favor of Ranis as a representative of the direct purchaser class. A February 2014 judgment subsequently awarded the plaintiffs approximately USD 147m in damages and enjoined the defendants from engaging in future anticompetitive behavior.
NCPGC and Hebei Welcome subsequently appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit.
In September 2016, the appellate panel overturned the jury verdict and vacated the district court judgment for damages. The judges found that the principles of international comity required the district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in the case.
The next month, the direct purchasers asked the Second Circuit to reconsider its decision. The petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied in November 2016.
Animal Science Products and Ranis filed a petition for writ of certiorari with SCOTUS in April 2017.
In June 2017, SCOTUS asked the Department of Justice's (DoJ) Acting Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the US in the case. The Solicitor General’s November 2017 brief requested SCOTUS grant the petition, limited to the second question presented. According to the brief, SCOTUS should review the Second Circuit's holding that MOFCOM's amicus brief conclusively established the content of Chinese law.
In January 2018, the petition was granted limited to the second question presented, which was related to whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign’s interpretation of its domestic law, or whether a court is 「bound to defer」 to a foreign government’s legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court.
14 June Decision
According to the 14 June opinion, a federal court should accord respectful consideration to a foreign government’s submission in a case, but is not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government’s statements. Because the Second Circuit ordered dismissal of the current case on the ground that the foreign government’s statements could not be gainsaid, SCOTUS vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration.
The opinion noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 specifies that a court’s determination of foreign law 「must be treated as a ruling on a question of law,」 rather than as a finding of fact. In ascertaining foreign law, courts are not limited to materials submitted by the parties; instead, they 「may consider any relevant material or source . . . , whether or not . . . admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.」
微信公共號名稱：「競爭法與商業戰略」
本訂閱號覆蓋中國及全球競爭法立法、執法、學術發展動態，並綜合宏觀政策、經濟學原理、商業戰略管理、科技發展等多方面因素，提供競爭法與商業戰略的評論以及競爭法與新興產業、智慧財產權交互領域的問題分析等。歡迎關注！