Eighth Circuit affirms district court ruling that 1916 Antidumping Act does not require showing of predatory intent in civil action which alleges that defendants were dumping foreign products on U.S. market at below market prices with intent to injure or destroy U.S. industry
Goss International (plaintiff), a U.S. corporation, sued various foreign manufacturers of large printing press equipment (jointly, defendants), alleging violations of the Antidumping Act of 1916 (1916 Act), 15 U.S.C. Section 72.
The 1916 Act provides in relevant part. "It shall be unlawful for any person importing or assisting in importing any articles from any foreign country ... to import, sell or cause to be imported or sold such articles within the United States at a price substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles, ... Provided, That such act or acts be done with the intent of destroying or injuring an industry in the United States, or of preventing the establishment of an industry in the United States, or of restraining or monopolizing any part of trade and commerce in such articles in the United States."
The industry overall makes about 10 sales of such large-scale printing presses in the U.S. per year, and the company that provided the base system allegedly has a great advantage when it comes to the sale of additions. Plaintiff had evidence that defendants had offered underpriced equipment to outbid plaintiff in several instances. The overall question here is whether the defendants were engaging in normal price competition with the U.S. manufacturers or whether they intended to injure or destroy the U.S. printing press industry through dumping.
Several defendants moved to dismiss the complaint because it failed to allege predatory intent as required, they argued, under U.S. antitrust law. The district court denied the motion, holding that the 1916 Act does not require a showing such intent. All but one of the defendants then settled with the plaintiff.
The remaining defendant was Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho and its U.S. subsidiary (jointly, TKS) and they went to trial. Based on a jury verdict, the district court awarded plaintiff more than $35 million in damages and attorneys' fees. Though TKS appealed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms.
TKS claimed, inter alia, that the district court had misread the 1916 Act. The Court of Appeals, however, agrees with the district court that the statute does not demand proof of predatory intent.
"The district court in [Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp., 980 F. Supp. 1209, 1217 (D. Utah 1997)] confronted the same arguments TKS makes in this appeal. We wholeheartedly adopt the Geneva Steel discussion and resolution of the intent requirement under the 1916 Act. See above at 1212-25. ...." [...]
"By the words it chose, Congress protected United States industries from unfair dumping, whether the dumper possessed predatory intent or not. The intent required is the intent to "injure' a domestic United States industry. When the Act states that it is unlawful to sell dumped goods with the specific intent to injure a United States industry, it means precisely that. Defendants want to add the limitation that such injury can only occur if predatory pricing is involved, but the Act simply does not say so."
"... In the end, the [Geneva Steel] court held "the Antidumping Act of 1916 is susceptible of only one clear meaning under the circumstances of the instant case. Plaintiff has adequately plead (sic) its case by alleging that the defendants sold foreign [products] in the United States at prices substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such ... products in the countries of production, all with the specific intent to injure the United States Steel Industry.' Id. at 1225. [Cite]. We cannot agree more." [Slip op. 10-12]
Citation: Goss Int’l Corp. v. MAN Roland Druckmaschinen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 04-2604 (8th Cir. January 23, 2006).
USA visa and immigration information is available at www.immigrationtelevision.com.
|
