原创 ▎与长臂管辖相抗衡：从美国对华维生素C反垄断案看“国际礼让原则”的适用

国际礼让原则

涉外法商研究

2021年8月10日，美国第二巡回法院依据国际礼让原则，撤销了美国维生素C生产商针对中国维生素C生产商的起诉。该案经历一审、二审、再审和重审，历时17年，最终以河北维尔康制药有限公司及其母公司华北制药股份有限公司的胜诉告终。在中美贸易战打响和美国“长臂管辖”全面适用的背景下，“国际礼让原则”的角色似乎被弱化。美国第二巡回法院的裁判重申了“国际礼让原则”这一国际冲突法的基石，在判例法体系下具有深远的影响。本文回顾了美国第二巡回法院对“国际礼让原则”的分析，以供参考借鉴。

本文英文原载于《国际竞争政策》亚洲专刊（CPI Asia Column），经翻译编辑后发布。

作者： 

刘文卓   法学博士

                     深交所博士后 

                     中国及美国纽约州执业律师 

                     华商律师事务所专职律师 

刘  晖    耶鲁大学法学博士 

                     美国纽约州执业律师 

                     美国MKW 律师事务所合伙人

1

一、背 景

20世纪90年代，为应对全球市场维生素C价格下降，中国政府推动了整个维生素C行业的整合并实施了相应配套政策。最初，由中国政府向维生素C生产商发放“出口配额许可证”，以控制可供出口的维生素C数量，从而影响全球市场的价格。这一政策取得显著成效，截止2001年，中国已经占据了全球维生素C市场60%的份额。
在中国加入WTO后，为履行WTO承诺，放松监管政策，在维生素C行业，将监管方式从“出口配额制度”调整为“价格验证盖章”制度。“价格验证盖章”制度要求维生素C生产商和行业协会就维生素C的行业最低出口价格达成一致。只有维生素C生产商向行业协会提交文件，证明其出口价格高于行业最低价格，才能够获得官方盖章允许出口。
2005年，包括美国Animal Science Products,Inc.和The Ranis Company,Inc.两家公司在内的多家美国维生素C生产商起诉中国维生素C生产商确定的最低出口价格违反美国反垄断法。原告诉称，通过确定最低出口价格，被告形成了一个行业范围的卡特尔，控制了全球市场的维生素C价格。原告认为，该卡特尔的作用是制造维生素C行业短缺，以维持中国领先的出口国地位，损害了原告的利益。原告起诉后，许多被告与原告迅速达成和解。只有河北维尔康制药有限公司（以下简称“河北维尔康”）及其母公司华北制药股份有限公司（以下简称“华为制药”）在美国进行应诉。

2

二、庭审经过

一审阶段

河北维尔康及其母公司华北制药在纽约南区法院应诉。两名被告并没有否认原告对事实的指控，但被告指出，在“价格验证盖章”制度下，中国的维生素C生产商必须以高于最低出口价格的方式出口才能符合中国法律的强制性要求。被告基于国家行为、主权豁免和国际礼让原则，要求纽约南区法院撤销原告的起诉。

中国商务部也提交了“法庭之友”的文书（Amicus Curiae brief）以支持被告的立场。在文书中，商务部指出，中国法律法规明确规定了“价格验证盖章”制度，而原告诉称的卡特尔其实就是指由商务部监督的行业协会，原告关于被告形成的卡特尔违反美国反垄断法的指控没有根据。

尽管如此，纽约南区法院没有给予商务部声明过多的考量。纽约南区法院拒绝了原告要求撤诉的动议，案件进入调查取证阶段，以供法院进一步查明被告的行为是否确实受到中国相关法律法规的强制要求。原被告双方随后根据纽约南区法院的调查令对相关事实进行了披露。在调查环节结束后，被告同样以国家行为、主权豁免和国际礼让原则提出动议要求即决判决（Motion for Summary Judgment）。

原告反对被告提出的要求即决判决的动议，并从三个角度论述了他们的立场。第一，原告提供了专家证人意见指出，中国法律并未要求维生素C生产商确定最低的出口价格。因此，原告认为中国法律与美国反垄断法并没有真正冲突。第二，原告认为，被告促使和推动了“价格验证盖章制度”的出台，因为这些法律有助于被告维持其在全球市场上的竞争地位。第三，原告提供的证据表明，在某些情况下，被告并没有遵循“价格验证盖章”制度的要求，被告存在以低于行业规定的最低价格出口维生素C的情况。原告指出，这些证据表明中国政府实际上并没有执行这些法律。

纽约南区法院审议了双方提交的证据。尽管纽约南区法院认可了原告所称的卡特尔（即中国维生素C行业协会）与商务部之间的关系，但法院认为中国商务部对中国法律的声明未能解释“价格验证盖章”制度的某些关键条款，因此纽约南区法院并未认可中国商务部对“价格验证盖章”制度和相关法律法规的解释，而是采纳了原告专家证人提供的对中国法律的解释。纽约南区法院裁定，中国法律并未要求被告确定维生素C的最低出口价格，因而中国法律与美国反垄断法法不存在真正冲突，无需适用“国际礼让原则”，因此驳回了被告要求进行即决判决的动议。

该案进入审判阶段。陪审团对被告作出了1.47亿美元的判决。河北维尔康和华北制药随后向美国第二巡回法院提出上诉。

二审阶段

在上诉中，第二巡回法院认为纽约南区法院在本案中未能正确适用“国际礼让原则”。第二巡回法院指出，“国际礼让既是指导外国政府关系的一项原则，也是美国法院根据外国法律认可外国人行为的法律条款。从法律意义上讲，礼让既不是绝对的义务，也不仅仅是善意和礼貌的问题。这是一个国家在其领土内承认另一个国家的立法、行政或司法行为，同时适当考虑到本国的国际义务和便利，以及本国公民或受其法律保护的其他人的权利。国际礼让原则不是一个在符合我们利益的情况下支持国际合作的模糊政治问题，而是一项法律原则，在这个原则之下，司法判决反映出相互容忍和善意的系统价值观”。

依据判例法，第二巡回法院认为“国际礼让原则”的适用需考虑以下十个因素：

（1）法律的冲突程度；

（2）当事人的国籍；

（3）本国主张该行为违法与外国主张该行为违法这两方态度的比较；

（4）该行为在外国的违法性以及救济方式；

（5）影响美国商业的故意和可预见性；

（6）管辖后对国际关系产生的影响；

（7）被强制履行某种义务的一方的行为是否在某国会被认为是违法；

（8）法院判决的效力；

（9）如果是外国法院作出与本国相同的判决，这样的判决在本国的接受程度；（10）与涉案国家的条约中的相关观点。

3

三、美国第二巡回法院对“国际礼让原则“的分析

第二巡回法院认为案件的争议焦点在于中国对维生素C行业进行管制的法律法规与美国反垄断法之间是否存在“真正的冲突”（"true conflict", 即分析“国际礼让原则”适用的第一个要素）。如果认为存在真正的冲突，则可以基于国际礼让原则排除美国《谢尔曼法》反垄断法的适用。

第二巡回法院认为该案存在真正的冲突。首先，第二巡回法院指出，依据判例法，当外国政府在诉讼中提交官方声明解释他国法律的时，美国法院应认可该解释。法院既不应对这一解释提出质疑，也不应进行独立分析。因此，当商务部提交一份解释“价格验证盖章”制度的文书时，根据该解释，可以得出结论，遵守“价格验证盖章”将导致违反美国反垄断法时，即可认为存在真正冲突。第二，第二巡回法院指出，分析中国政府制定这些法律的动机，如纽约南区法院所做的那样，是被主权豁免原则所禁止的。第三，被告是否会从这些法律中受益与真正的冲突分析无关。第二巡回法庭同样认为，中国政府是否执行这些法律或被告是否遵守这些法律，也与真正的冲突分析无关。

第二巡回法院还审议了国际礼让原则的其他要素。法院认为，中国出口政策与美国反垄断法之间的冲突应通过外交渠道或WTO程序解决。虽然可以合理预见的是，中国的“价格验证盖章“制度将会对国际市场上的维生素C购买者产生负面影响，但没有直接证据表明这些政策是针对原告或其他美国公司制定的。第二巡回法院进一步指出，如果维持纽约南区法院的判决，将会要求被告遵守在两国相互冲突的法律要求，原告从美国法院获得的禁令救济也不太可能在中国强制执行。

在考虑了适用国际礼让标准的所有要素后，第二巡回法院认定，中国监管维生素C行业的国家利益超过了美国行使反垄断法的利益。由于中国法律与美国反垄断法之间存在真正的冲突，涉嫌违反美国反垄断法的行为符合中国法律的要求，因此纽约南区法院不应对本案行使管辖权。第二巡回法院撤销了地方法院的判决，撤销了驳回被告驳回动议的命令，并要求驳回原告的起诉。

戏剧性的是，2018年6月14日，美国最高人民法院法院又再审了该案，撤销了第二巡回法院的裁判，认为美国联邦法院不受外国政府对本国法律陈述的决定性影响，美国法院应对外国政府对于本国法律的声明进行相对独立的审查，又将该案发回美国第二巡回法院重审。

案件经历一波三折，第二巡回法院在发回重审后，进一步审查了中国维生素C相关行业内证据及其他行政文件，第二巡回法院认为证据均支持了商务部提交的声明解释，表明被告无法在遵守中国法律法规的同时又不违反美国反垄断法，因此案件存在真正冲突。美国第二巡回法院再次依据“国际礼让原则”撤销了该案，历时十七年的诉讼最终以河北维尔康和华北制药胜诉结案。

美国第二巡回法院是美国最有影响力的联邦上诉法院之一。在中美贸易战的大背景下，国家间的利益争夺日益升级，“长臂管辖”适用领域延伸，美国第二巡回法院在维生素C案的判决表明，传统的“国际礼让原则”依然有其适用空间。从河北维尔康和华北制药的整个诉讼历程来看，尽管一国政府对本国法律的解释和声明并不能起到终局性的决定作用，但依然十分关键。

英文原文

Background

In the 1990s, the Chinese government facilitated industry-wide consolidation and implemented policies in response to the reduction in VC prices in the global market. Policies implemented, including granting export quota license to Chinese VC manufactures, were aimed at reducing the amount of VC available for exportation to influence the prices in the global market.

By 2001, when China joined WTO, China had captured 60% of the VC global market. As a WTO member state who vowed to become a more market-driven economy, China reformed its economic policy in various industries, including the VC industry, by loosening its governmental regulations. In the VC industry, China has changed the regulatory approach from an export quota regime to a “price verified chop” regime (“PVC”). PVC requires VC manufacturers and associations to negotiate a lowest industry-wide exporting price for VC. Such price would then be used to determine which company would be allowed to export. Only VC manufacturers submitting documents to the trade associations, documenting that their exporting prices are above the lowest industry price, will receive an official chop granting permission to export.

In 2005, multiple US VC purchasers, including Animal Science Products and The Ranis Company, accused several Chinese VC manufacturers of violating the U.S. antitrust laws. By fixing a lowest exporting price, the plaintiffs said, the defendants formed an industry-wide cartel which controlled VC price in the global market. This cartel, the plaintiffs said, functioned to create a shortage in the VC industry in order to maintain China’s leading exporter status, which harmed the plaintiffs’ interests. Many defendants settled with the plaintiffs soon after the case was brought. Only Hebei Welcome and its parent company, North China Pharmaceutical, went forward to defend their positions.

Trial Court

At the district court, the two defendants didn’t deny the plaintiffs’ allegations; instead, the defendants said that VC manufactures in China were required to export at or above the lowest exporting price under the PVC regime. The defendants moved to dismiss the case based on the principles of state act, sovereign immunity and international comity. In an historical act, the Ministry submitted an Amicus Curiae brief to support the defendants’ position. In the brief, the Ministry explained that the Chinese laws mandated the PVC regime and that the alleged cartels were industry associations supervised by the Ministry.

Nevertheless, the district court did not give deference to the Ministry’s statements. Instead, it denied the motion in order to allow for further discovery regarding whether the defendants’ actions were truly compelled by relevant Chinese laws or regulations. The parties subsequently conducted discovery in response to the district court’s decision. After the limited discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on the same three grounds.

The plaintiffs opposed both motions and argued their positions from the following three standpoints. First, the plaintiffs offered expert testimony to support their position that Chinese laws do not require VC manufacturers to fix a lowest exporting price. As such, the plaintiffs argued that Chinese laws were not in conflict with U.S. antitrust laws. Second, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants were part of the driving force that pushed the price-fixing laws into existence because the laws helped the defendants to maintain their competitive status in the global market. Third, the plaintiffs provided evidence showing that there were circumstances where the defendants did not comply with the requirements of the PVC regime and exported VC at prices lower than the industry mandated lowest price. The plaintiffs argued that these circumstances showed that the Chinese government did not actually enforce the laws.

The district court considered the evidence submitted by both parties. Although the court acknowledged the relationship between the industry associations and the Ministry, it determined that the Ministry’s interpretation of the Chinese laws was undermined by the Ministry’s failure to explain certain critical provisions of the PVC regime. The district court declined to adopt the Ministry’s explanation of the PVC regime and the requirements of relevant Chinese laws. Instead, the court accepted the explanations provided by the plaintiffs’ expert witness. The district court ultimately concluded that the Chinese laws did not require the defendants to fix VC prices and denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The case went to trial. The jury returned a US$147 million verdict against the defendants. The defendant appealed to the Second Circuit.

The Appeal Process

On appeal, the Second Circuit concluded that the district court failed to apply the principle of international comity in this case. The Second Circuit explained that: Comity is both a principle guiding relations between foreign governments and a legal doctrine by which U.S. courts recognize an individual's acts under foreign law. Comity, in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. It is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws. This doctrine is not just a vague political concern favoring international cooperation when it is in our interest to do so but rather it is a principle under which judicial decisions reflect the systemic value of reciprocal tolerance and goodwill.

Based on the case law precedent, the appellate court applied the following ten-factor test to determine if the international comity principle should apply in this case:

（1）Degree of conflict with foreign law or policy; (2) Nationality of the parties, locations or principal places of business of corporations; (3) Relative importance of the alleged violation of conduct here as compared with conduct abroad; (4) The extent to which enforcement by either state can be expected to achieve compliance, the availability of a remedy abroad and the pendency of litigation there; (5) Existence of intent to harm or affect American commerce and its foreseeability; (6) Possible effect upon foreign relations if the court exercises jurisdiction and grants relief; (7) If relief is granted, whether a party will be placed in the position of being forced to perform an act illegal in either country or be under conflicting requirements by both countries; (8) Whether the court can make its order effective; (9) Whether an order for relief would be acceptable in this country if made by the foreign nation under similar circumstances; and (10) Whether a treaty with the affected nations has addressed the issue.

True Conflict Analysis

The focus of the dispute between the parties with respect to the applicability of international comity lays on the first element of the test, which was whether there was a true conflict between the relevant Chinese laws and the U.S. antitrust laws.

The Second Circuit determined that the district court’s conflict analysis was incorrect and a true conflict existed in this case. First, based on case law, the Second Circuit pointed out that when a foreign government appeared in the litigation and submitted official statements interpreting the laws of their country, U.S. courts should give deference to that interpretation. Courts should neither challenge that interpretation nor make an independent analysis. Therefore, when the Ministry submitted an amicus brief that interpreted the PVC regime, and per such an interpretation, one could conclude that complying with the PVC regime would lead to a violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, a true conflict exists. Second, the Second Circuit stated that analyzing the motive of the Chinese government in making these laws, as the district court did, is barred by the principle of sovereign immunity. Whether the defendants would benefit from these laws would be irrelevant to the true conflict analysis. The Second Circuit similarly found that whether the Chinese government enforced these laws or whether the defendants complied with them would also be irrelevant to the true conflict analysis.

Other Elements under the International Comity Principle

The Second Circuit also considered other elements of the international comity principle. The court concluded that the conflict between China’s export policies and the U.S. antitrust laws should be resolved through diplomatic channels or the WTO proceedings. Although it was reasonably foreseeable that China’s economic policies could have negative impacts on VC purchasers in the international market, there was no direct evidence showing that these policies were aimed at the plaintiffs or other U.S. companies.

The Second Circuit further pointed out that the district court’s judgment, if upheld, would require the defendants to comply with conflicting legal requirements. It would also be unlikely that the injunctive relief that the plaintiffs obtained from a U.S. court would be enforceable in China.

Furthermore, the Second Circuit observed that according to the Ministry, the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction had already negatively affected U.S.-China relations. The court mentioned that the Chinese Government had repeatedly made known to the federal courts, as well as to the United States Department of State in an official diplomatic communication relating to this case, that it considered the lack of deference it received in our courts to be “disrespectful.”

After considering all elements of the test for applying international comity, the Second Circuit determined that China’s national interest in regulating its VC industry outweighed the United States’ interest in exercising its antitrust laws. The Second Circuit held that because a true conflict existed between the Chinese laws and the U.S. antitrust laws and the alleged violations of U.S. antitrust laws were to fulfil the requirements of the Chinese laws, the district court should not have exercised jurisdiction over this case. The Second Circuit vacated the judgment entered by the district court, reversed the order that denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and remanded to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.

刘文卓

华商律师事务所

专职律师

主要执业领域为资本市场、涉外民商事诉讼仲裁、跨境投融资

声明

“

以上所刊登的文章仅代表作者本人观点，不得视为华商律师事务所或其律师出具的任何形式之法律意见或建议，如需转载或引用该文章，请私信沟通并于转载时在文章开头处注明来源于公众号“华商律师”及作者姓名。

”

华商往期精彩推荐