International Trade

• Author: International Law Group
• Pages: 10-11

Page 10

Goss International (plaintiff), a U.S. corporation, various foreign manufacturers of large printing press equipment (jointly, defendants), alleging violations of the Antidumping Act of 1916 (1916 Act), 15 U.S.C. 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 toPage 11 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...