The Antidumping Act of 1916 - Antitrust Statute

Last Update: February 22, 1998

15 U.S.C. Section 72 (as of 12/15/97)

Section 72. Importation or sale of articles at less than market value or wholesale price

It shall be unlawful for any person importing or assisting in importing any articles from any foreign country into the United States, commonly and systematically 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, at the time of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country of their production, or of other foreign countries to which they are commonly exported after adding to such market value or wholesale price, freight, duty, and other charges and expenses necessarily incident to the importation and sale thereof in the United States: 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.

Any person who violates or combines or conspires with any other person to violate this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $ 5,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Any person injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of, or combination or conspiracy to violate, this section, may sue therefor in the district court of the United States for the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages sustained, and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

The foregoing provisions shall not be construed to deprive the proper State courts of jurisdiction in actions for damages thereunder.

[Enacted 9/8/16, ch 463, Title VIII, Section 801, 39 Stat. 798]

Related Decisions of Note:

  1. The 1916 Act is considered to be an antitrust statute, not a protectionist statute. Plaintiff does not have to show that defendant's predatory intent was accompanied by dangerous probability of success, which showing is required in some or all RPA predatory pricing cases (a main issue in the Anti-Monopoly case). Zenith Radio Corp. v Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 494 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D.Pa. 1980)
  2. The Act permits suits against domestic manufacturers and importers. Jewel Foliage Company. v. Uniflora Overseas Florida, Inc., 497 F. Supp. 513 (D. Fla., Mid. Div., 1980)
  3. 4-year limitations period governing RPA actions has been held to apply because Section 72 (The Anti-Dumping Act) is analagous to the RPA language, in Section 2(a). Helmac Products. Corp. v. Roth Corp., 814 F. Supp. 560 (E.D. Mich. 1992)
  4. An importer has standing under the Act if no domestic producers exist in the U.S. of the type of goods being dumped. Isra Fruit, Ltd. v. Agrexco Agricultural Export Company. (1986, SD NY) 631 F Supp 984 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), aff'd 804 F.2d 24 (2nd Cir. 1986)

Return to 1997-1998 RPA Cases

Copyright © 1997-1998 by Carl E. Person