WPC . ؑcy2.}Ψc"1e'.WwSlU .wDp ux=@YުS X%{]R$-#0=w/A Ud+$3'!49N"کnMvwR'J>.;[.͕GN ,uD;_DRt~!p6NۉeB;6CUM㘹%wswl[c%M$ d-ԚoֿR `sZ@i} go΀ڗ~ N?+DX핞^B7r@Mnd$|^QC˜|=@V!/6rvAFx|s&R5ջ Ձb-yбmGHx Q )Ls UnQl\c '6e'N61-`[Vd̑("z P9 (#0U'N %? 0:EU FNUB 0  0 DU>b^ %w145IEXZ m\nsf a D d nZU<8B+za$$$8$w&&&&X* B-HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($USUS.,ԴQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0  \( 9Z+&Courier Regular- - F2s L=1y File3|xU d x$USUS.,      5    __4X2X_4Wehaveexcludedlanguageconcerningtherequirementsasto  7oftheClaytonAct,asno7allegationsaremadehere.#_4XX2# W x$USUS.,      2    __4X2X_4_CAPR_ԀdoespointoutthatAble'schairmanadmittedattrial  thattheothertwoandfivepoundbagsugardistributorsceased  operationsonJanuary1,2002,priortothealleged#_4XX2#Ԁpredatory \ X2X_4pricingperiodfromFebruaryof2002toSeptemberof2002.The F districtcourt'sfinding,however,hasnobearingonwhetherornot l thereissubjectmatterjurisdiction;wemerelynotethe B discrepancy.#_4XX2##_4q#   x$USUS.,      6    _X XX2X XXTosupportthefindingthatAble'stransactionscouldsatisfy  the"incommerce"requirement,thedistrictcourterroneouslyread  languageinGulfOil#X XXX2#X2X XX#_4XX2q#X2X_4thatstates,"2(a)applieswhereatleast \ oneofthetwotransactionswhich,whencompared,generatea 2 discrimination...crossesastateline." GulfOil,419U.S.at X 200(internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted).GulfOil#_4XX2#X2X_4#X XXX2#X2X XX . involvedasecondarylineviolationwhichrequires,amongother   things,thediscriminatingsellertoselltoonebuyer(thefavored   buyer)atalowerpricethantoanotherbuyer(thedisfavored `  buyer).Thetwotransactionstobecompared,asthiscourt's 6   opinioninCoastalFuelsexplained,are"eitherthesaletothe  \  favoredbuyerorthesaletothebuyerallegedlydiscriminated  2  against."CoastalFuels,79F.3dat189.Ineitheraprimaryline   violationorasecondarylineviolation,itisthesalesbythe   defendantwhicharethefocus.#_4XX2U# Z x$USUS.,      *    _X XX2X XXCircuitJudgeTorruellaparticipatedinoralargumentinthis  case,buthassincerecusedhimselfandhasnotparticipatedinthe  decisionofthecase#X XXX2#X2X XX.#X XXX2#ԀX2X XXTheremainingtwopanelists,pursuantto28 \ U.S.C.46(d),issuethisopinion.  x$USUS.,      1    __4X2X_4BecausewesetasidethejudgmentawardedtoAble,wedonot  address_CAPR_'ssecondargumentonappeal:thatthedistrictcourt  erredinthecalculationofdamages.#X XXX2q## XX#  x$USUS.,      7    _X XX2X XX_CAPR_Ԁsuggestsinitsreplybriefthattheonetime  importationofrawsugarcannotsatisfythe"incommerce"  requirementof2(a)because_CAPR_Ԁdidnotregularlyimport \ productsfromacrossstatelinesandtherewasnota"constant 2 flow"ofrawsugarintoPuertoRico.Weexpressnoviewonthe X validityofthisargument.#_4XX2q##_4#<  9Z+ Courier New  ! x$USUS.,      8    _X XX2X XXThedistrictcourtdidnotmakeaspecificfindingasto  whethertherefinementprocessinterruptedtheflowofcommerce.  Inresponseto_CAPR_'sargumentthatitdid,thedistrictcourt \ stated,"evenifthe_CAPR_'srefinedsugarisnotconsideredtobe 2 intheflowofcommerce,AbleSales'refinedsugar,whichdoesnot X undergoanyprocessing,isundeniablywithintheflowofcommerce." #_4XX2q##_4#  x$USUS.,      4    __4X2X_4Ingeneral,primarylineviolationsinvolveaclaimbythe  injuredpartythat"[a]businessrivalhaspriceditsproductsin  anunfairmannerwithanobjecttoeliminateorretard#_4XX2#Ԁcompetition \ X2X_4andtherebygainandexercisecontroloverpricesintherelevant F market."BrookeGroup,509U.S.at222;seealsoIII_Areeda_Ԁ& l _Hovenkamp_,AntitrustLaw745e,at477(2ded.2002).#X XXX2q#X2X XXԀ#X XXX2J#X2X XXWeexpress B noviewastowhetherthedistrictcourtcorrectlydeterminedthat   thefactsallegedbyAbleestablishaprimarylineviolationof   2(a)oftheRobinson_Patman_ԀAct.Thisissuehasnotbeenraisedon t  appeal.Theonlyquestionbeforeusiswhetherthe"incommerce" J   requirementoftheRobinson_Patman_ԀActissatisfied.#_4XX2##_4#TABLE A . x$USUS.,      3    __4X2X_4Inafootnote,thedistrictcourtreferencedthetransaction  betweenTropicaland_CAPR_Ԁasabasisforsubjectmatter  jurisdictionandstated"_CAPR_Ԁdidsellrefinedsugarfor \ exportation."#X XXX2q## XX# m x$USUS.,      10    _X XX2X XX_Areeda_Ԁalsowarnsagainstrelianceonaparty'sintentions,  asopposedtoactions,excepttocoverthesituationsof"evasions  calculatedtokeepillegalactivitiesentirelyintrastatewhile \ employingthechannelsofinterstatecommerce."IA_Areeda_Ԁ& 2 _Hovenkamp_,AntitrustLaw267b,at324327(2ded.2000)#X XXX2#X2X XX.#X XXX2#X2X XXԀ#_4XX2r##_4#  x$USUS.,      9    __4X2X_4WedonotunderstandAbletosayitcouldnotbuyfrom_CAPR_  atthesamepriceTropicaldidforsugar,whetherintendedfor  exportornot.NordoesAblesaythatitandTropicalcompetewith \ eachothertoexportsugarfromPuertoRico.WeunderstandAble's 2 argumenttobebasedonanoveralltheoryofpredatorypricing, X that_CAPR_ԀartificiallylowereditspriceinordertodriveAble, . itscompetitorinthedistributionofsugar,outofbusiness.#X XXX2q## XX#_4 d !USUS.,  _ a  UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#a@#  FortheFirstCircuit i;#_4i;#X2X_4  _A') ` dE<` A      `     h No.041922     ABLESALESCOMPANY,INC., ! q @@ Plaintiff,Appellee,  G   @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @  @p  @ @@tt)v.   @@ COMPA0ADEAZBCARDEPUERTORICO, O  @@Defendant,Appellant. %u  4A') ` dE<` A    @@` ` APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO b [Hon.0 @ JuanM.PrezGimnez,U.S.DistrictJudge] 8 A') ` dE<` A 4 @@'Before  @@SelyaandLynch,CircuitJudges.*!  #  *       u 5A') ` dE< ` A !q     GinaIsmaliaGutirrezGalang,withwhomLawOfficePedroE. V Ortizlvarezwasonbrief,forappellant. ,    CarlosA.RodrguezVidal,withwhomMyriamFernndez " Gonz#X XXX2#X2X XX#_4XX2:#X2X_4lez,andGoldmanAntonetti&Cordova,P.S.C.wereonbrief, ^ # forappellee. 4!$ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  $($  SI$@ ) @38477@SMay6,2005 %!+  RHC&!," @38477 @ R($@ -  (  * !  #_4XX2R#X2X_4#X XXX2#X2X XX x(#. Ї#X XXX2y #X2X XX  82XXdd8 *,X` XX*    = 2 XXdd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .Thiscasepresentstheissueof  themeaningofthejurisdictional"incommerce"requirementof x 2(a)oftheRobinsonPatmanAntiDiscriminationAct,15U.S.C. $t 13.    ` JudgmentwasenteredundertheActforAbleSales |  ("Able")andagainstCompaadeAzcardePuertoRico("CAPR"),a ( x  corporationthatisprimarilyengagedintherefiningofrawsugar $  andthesubsequentsaleofthissugarinthelocalPuertoRico   market.CAPRarguesonappealthatthedistrictcourtdidnothave ,|  subjectmatterjurisdictiontoentertainthesuitbroughtbyAble ( becausethe"incommerce"requirementwasnotmet.Ableisa  corporationprimarilyengagedintheimportationanddistribution 0 ofrefinedsugarinthelocalPuertoRicomarketandacompetitor , ofCAPR.    ` Specifically,CAPRarguesthatitssaleofrefinedsugar 4 tovariouslocalwholesalersandretailersinPuertoRicodoesnot 0 satisfythe"incommerce"requirementofthestatute. Able   countersthatanyofthreeseparatetransactions(1)CAPR's 8!" importationofrawsugarintoPuertoRicoforrefinementandsale; "4$ (2)Able'simportationofrefinedsugarfromFlorida;and/or(3) $& CAPR'ssaleofrefinedsugar#X XXX2 #X2X XX#_4XX27 #X2X_4Ԁtoalocalcompanywhichplannedto <&!( exportthesugarindependentlysatisfythisrequirementandthus '8#* provideabasisforsubjectmatterjurisdictioninthedistrict )$, court.  @+&.  ` Thedistrictcourtagreedandafteratwodaybenchtrial  foundthatCAPRhadviolated2(a)oftheRobinsonPatmanActand \ awarded$1,949,259.00indamagestoAble.  X  ` Weholdthatthetransactionsdonotsatisfythe"in   commerce"requirement,reversethejudgment,andremandwith `  directionsthatjudgmentbeenteredforCAPR.  #  1      ׀ #X XXX2}#X2X XX#_4XX2#X2X_4  \   I.      ` Webrieflyrecountthefacts,largelyasfoundbythe   districtcourt.CAPRdoesnotdisputethedistrictcourt's ,|  characterizationofthefacts. (  ` UntilDecemberof2000,thePuertoRicoSugarCorporation  ("PRSC"),apubliccorporationcreatedbyaResolutionoftheBoard 0 ofGovernorsofthePuertoRicoLandAuthorityin1973,wasthe , solesupplierof"SnowWhite"brandrefinedsugarinPuertoRico.   ThePuertoRicoDepartmentofConsumerAffairs("DACO") established 4 regulationswhichrequiredPRSCtosellallofitstwoandfive L poundbagsofrefinedsugartotenexclusivedistributors,oneof   whichwasAble. Thesedistributorsthensoldthebagsto T!" wholesalersandretailers;DACOfixedthemaximumpricesforsugar #P$ thatthedistributorscouldoffer.  $&  ` InJanuary2001,thePuertoRicoLegislaturemovedaway X&!( fromgovernmentalownershipandprivatizedthelocalsugar (T#* industry.See5P.R.LawsAnn.430(a).Ittransferredthe  operationsandassetsoftheMerceditaRefinerytoCAPR. Until \ September2001,CAPRsoldtheexistinginventoryofrefinedsugar X fromtherefinerytothedistributors,includingAble,attheprice   of$43.23perhundredweight,asestablishedbyDACOandas `  previouslyofferedbythePRSC.   \   ` BySeptember2001,CAPRhadsoldalltheMercedita   inventoryandwasunabletosupplythelocaldemandforrefined d  sugar. Duetothelackofrefinedsugar,Ableandanother `  distributor,inagreementwithDACO,importedrefinedsugar   requiredforlocalconsumption,withtheexpectationthatCAPR h wouldlaterimportrawsugar,refineit,andresumetheprevious d distributorsystem. Becausethecostoftheimportedrefinedsugar  washigherthanthepriceestablishedbyDACO,DACOissuedanorder l whichallowedtheimporterstoselltherefinedsugartoother h distributorsandwholesalersatahigherpricethanhadbeen  previouslypermittedbyregulation. Thenew,higherpricefor p  distributorswas$46.10perhundredweight;distributorssoldto !l" wholesalersatthepriceof$48.54perhundredweight.Thisorder "$ wasvacatedinJanuaryof2002,andthelowerpriceswere t$& reinstated.   &p!(  ` CAPR,havingsoldallofitsinventoryofrefinedsugar, '#* neededanewsourceofsupplyifitwishedtocontinueinthe x)$, business.Itchosetoimportrawsugartorefine.Inaonetime $+t&. purchase,CAPRimportedapproximately12,000tonsofrawsugarinto  PuertoRicowhichitrefinedatitsMerceditafacility. Thereis \ noevidenceofanyfurtherimportationofrawsugarbyCAPR.Able X attemptedtobuyrefinedsugarfromCAPR(apparentlyrefinedfrom   thisonetimeimportationofrawsugar)atthedistributors'price `  ($43.23perhundredweight),butonDecember26,2001,CAPRnotified  \  Ablethatitwascuttingdistributorsfromitssalesstrategyand   wouldnolongerbesellingtodistributors.Instead,CAPRwouldbe d  sellingdirectlytowholesalersandretailers:ifAblewantedto `  buyCAPR'srefinedsugar,itcoulddosoatthewholesalers'price   (notthelowerdistributors'price).UnfortunatelyforAble,this h pricewasalsothemaximumpricethatAblecould,bylaw,sellto d itsclients.    ` ThusCAPRmovedfrombeingasuppliertoAble,whichwas l adistributor,tobeingadirectcompetitortoAble,withCAPRalso h actingasadistributorandsellingdirectlytowholesalers.Both  CAPRandAblesolddirectlytowholesalersandretailers,allof p  whichwerelocalPuertoRicoentities.Onewholesaler,Tropical, !l" purchasedrefinedsugarfromCAPRforexport.  "$  ` InanefforttomakeaprofitandcompetewithCAPR,from t$& JanuarytoFebruaryof2002,AbleimportedfromFloridarefined  &p!( sugaratacostof$44.63perhundredweightunderthetrademark '#*  "FloridaCrystal."InconformancewithDACOguidelines,Able x)$, anticipatedsellingthesugartowholesaleclientsat$47.54per  hundredweight.  \   ` Shortlythereafter,#X XXX2;#X2X XX#_4XX2}#X2X_4CAPRreducedthepriceofthesugar X ithadrefinedforsaletowholesalersfrom$47.54to$45.10per   hundredweight.Thiswasthebeginningoftheallegedperiodof `  predatorypricing.Ablewasforcedtoreduceitspriceaswellto  \  competewithCAPR.       ` AttheendofApril2002,CAPRagainreduceditspriceto d  wholesalers,thistimeto$43.30perhundredweight.Thislower `  pricewasnotenoughtocoverCAPR'scosts,whichconsistedofthe   costsofrefiningtherawsugar,thesaleofthenowrefinedsugar, h andtheexcisetaxof$14.00perhundredweightwhichCAPRwas d obligatedtopaytothePuertoRicoDepartmentoftheTreasury.  ThroughoutthetimethatCAPRwasloweringitsprices,itdidnot l paythisexcisetaxasrequiredbylaw.  h  ` DespiteAble'seffortstocompetewithCAPR,itlosta  numberofitsclientsanditsmarketsharewasreducedbybetween p  fortyandfiftypercent. Thedistrictcourtfoundthatother !l" distributorswereeliminatedfromthemarketasaresultofCAPR's "$ pricing.  #  2      ׀ InSeptember2002,CAPRexhausteditsinventoriesand t$& didnotpurchaseanyadditionalrawsugar.Thereisnofurther  evidenceintherecordastowhetherCAPRhasremainedinthe \ businessofsellingrefinedsugartowholesalersafterithad X exhaustedtheinventoryofsugarithadrefinedfromtheonetime   importofthe12,000tonsofrawsugar. `   ` AblefiledtheverifiedcomplaintonMay22,2002  \  averringitsversionofthefactsandallegingthatCAPRengagedin   "predatorypricing"inviolationoftheRobinsonPatmanAct,15 d  U.S.C.13.Specifically,Ablestated: `  8 ` Defendant'spracticeconsistsofdistributing   sugaratpriceslowerthanthecostsofits  inventory.Theobjectiveofsaidpricing h structureistoeliminateAbleSalesfromthe > market,toallowCAPRtoprevailuponthe d marketasthesolesugardistributorinPuerto : Rico....[This]practicewillthenenable  [CAPR]torecoupthelossessustainedduring  itscurrentschemeofpredatorypricing.6 l` x` x  ` OnJune5,2002,thesummons,acopyoftheverified h complaint,andAble'sfirstsetofinterrogatoriesandrequestsfor  productionwereservedonCAPR. OnAugust9,2002,aftertwo p  extensionsoftime, CAPRfiledananswer.AfterCAPR'scontinual !l" failuretocomplywithdiscoveryorders,thedistrictcourt, "4$ pursuanttoanOrderofOctober28,2003,struckCAPR'sanswerto $& thecomplaintanditsaffirmativedefenses. CAPRdoesnotappeal <&!( thisorder. '8#*  ` OnNovember12and13,2003,abenchtrialwasheld )$, beforethedistrictjudge.Attrial,Ablepresenteddocumentary @+&. evidence,testimonyoftheChairmanoftheBoardofAbleSales,and  anexpertwhotestifiedastoAble'sdamages.CAPRwasgivenan \ opportunitytopresentevidenceandtocrossexaminewitnesses. X CAPRdeclinedtopresentevidence,butdidcrossexaminewitnesses.      ` Havingstrickenthedefendant'sanswersandaffirmative `  defensesfromtherecord,thecourtdeterminedthatCAPRengagedin  \  primarylinepricediscriminationincontraventionoftheRobinson   PatmanAct.Thecourtstated,"thiscaseclearlyentailsa d  primarylinepricediscrimination,inwhichCAPRimportedrawsugar `  fromsourcesoutsideofPuertoRico,refineditattheMercedita   Refinery,andsoldtherefinedsugaratbelowcostsoasto h eliminateitscompetitors."  d  ` CAPRchallengedthecourt'ssubjectmatterjurisdiction,  contendingthe"incommerce"requirementwasnotsatisfied.The l courtfoundthatitdidhavesubjectmatterjurisdictionbasedon h eitherCAPR'simportationofrawsugarwhichitfoundremainedin  theflowofcommerceorAble'simportationofrefinedsugar.!  #  3      ׀  p     II.  !l" A  ` Pricediscriminationismadeunlawfulby2(a)ofthe "4$ ClaytonAct,asamendedbytheRobinsonPatmanAct,whichprovides: $& 8 ` Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersonengagedin <&!( commerce,inthecourseofsuchcommerce, 'b") eitherdirectlyorindirectly,todiscriminate  inpricebetweendifferentpurchasersof  commoditiesoflikegradeandquality... \ wheretheeffectofsuchdiscriminationmaybe 2 substantiallytolessencompetitionortendto X createamonopolyinanylineofcommerce,or . toinjure,destroy,orpreventcompetition   withanypersonwhoeithergrantsorknowingly   receivesthebenefitofsuchdiscrimination, `  orwithcustomersofeitherofthem....6  ` x` x E15U.S.C.13(a);seeBrookeGroupLTDv.Brown&Williamson  2  TobaccoCorp.,509U.S.209,21920(1993).Thestatute   encompassestwodifferenttypesofviolations:primaryline :  violationsandsecondarylineviolations.Primarylineviolations 6 aredirectedatinjuringcompetitionwiththediscriminating  seller'sdirectcompetitors,whereassecondarylineviolationsare > directedatinjuringcompetitionamongthediscriminatingseller's : customers.SeeCoastalFuelsofP.R.,Inc.v.CaribbeanPetroleum  Corp.,79F.3d182,188(1stCir.1996);IAAreeda&Hovenkamp, B AntitrustLaw267c,at32930(2ded.2000).Inthiscase,the > districtcourtfoundthatCAPRhadcommittedaprimaryline  violationbyengaginginpredatorypricing.  #  4      ׀ F !  ` Whetherthedistrictcourthassubjectmatter  jurisdictionoverthesetypesofviolationsislargelydetermined \ bytheSupremeCourt'sdecisionconstruing2(a)oftheRobinson X PatmanAct,15U.S.C.13(a),inGulfOilCorporationv.Copp   PavingCompany,Inc.,419U.S.186(1974).GulfOil,which `  involvedasecondarylineviolation,held,asallpartiesagree,  \  that2(a)oftheRobinsonPatmanActdidnotextendjurisdiction   tothefullextentofCongress'sconstitutionalpowergrantedby d  theCommerceClause.Id.at199200.TheCourtstated: `  8 ` [T]hedistinct"incommerce"language...   appearstodenoteonlypersonsoractivities  withintheflowofinterstatecommerce.... h [T]hejurisdictionalrequirementsofthese > provisionscannotbesatisfiedmerelyby d showingthatallegedlyanticompetitive : acquisitionsandactivitiesaffectcommerce.` x` x Ѐ  MId.at195.Tosatisfythe"incommerce"requirement,oneofthe l discriminatorysalesmustcrossastateline.SeeId.at195; h CoastalFuels,79F.3dat190.Asthisrequirementis  jurisdictional,seeGulfOil,419U.S.at195,theburdentoprove p  theinterstatecharacterofthesalesisonthepartyasserting !l" subjectmatterjurisdiction.SeeBullHNInfo.Sys.,Inc.v. "$ Hutson,229F.3d321,328(1stCir.2000)(thepartyasserting t$& jurisdictionhastheburdenofprovingit).  &p!(  ` Inanefforttomeetthisburden,Ablepointstothree '#* transactionswhichitarguessatisfythe"incommerce"requirement x)$, of2(a):(1)CAPR'simportationofrawsugarintoPuertoRico $+t&. forrefinementandsale;(2)Able'simportationofrefinedsugar  fromFlorida;and(3)CAPR'ssaleofrefinedsugartoTropicalwith \ theknowledgethatTropicalplannedtoexportthissugar. X A.FocusonPlaintiff'sActivities    ` WefirstrejectAble'sargumentthatthe"incommerce" `  elementmaybesatisfiedbyreviewingtheinterstateactivitiesof  \  theplaintiff,whetherornotthedefendanthasacted"in   commerce."Specifically,Ablearguesthatitimportsrefinedsugar d  fromFloridaforsaleinPuertoRico,andthistransactioncrosses `  statelines.Wedisagreethattheplaintiff'ssalescanbeusedto   satisfythe"incommerce"requirementof2(a)oftheRobinson h PatmanAct. d  ` Followingthelanguageofthestatute,theSupremeCourt  inGulfOilheld  #  5      ׀thatinordertosatisfythe"incommerce" l requirementofthe2(a)oftheRobinsonPatmanAct,the h defendant'sactivitiesmustsatisfythefollowingtest:  8 ` Unlessitappears...thatthe[defendant's] p  allegedexclusivedealingarrangementsand F ! discriminatorysalesoccurinthecourseof !l" itsinterstateactivities...and... !B# thatatleastoneof[defendant's]allegedly "$ discriminatorysaleswasmadeininterstate #% commerce...,plaintiff'sclaimsmustfail.t$&` x` x   J% ' XGulfOil,419U.S.at195.  #  6      ׀Inotherwords,"ifoneofthe   discriminatorysalesis'incommerce,'thesellerisengagedin \ commerceanddiscriminationhasoccurredinthecoursethereof." X IAAreedaandHovenkamp,AntitrustLaw267c,at329(2ded.   2000).Theactivitieswhichmustmeettheincommercerequirements `  arethesalesbythedefendantseller.  \   ` Afocusonthedefendant'ssalesisconsistentwith   Congressionalpurpose.AstheSupremeCourtstatedinStandardOil d  Companyv.FTC,340U.S.231(1951),"therecognizedpurposeofthe `  RobinsonPatmanAct[is]toreachtheoperationsoflarge   interstatebusinessesincompetitionwithsmalllocalconcerns." h Id.at23738.Congresswasconcernedwithpredatorypricingby d defendantswhoengagedininterstatecommerce,notbythosewho  actedpurelylocally.SeeGulfOil,419U.S.at20001(reading l  theclearlanguageof2toexcludefromthereachofthestatute h "amultitudeoflocalactivitiesthathithertohavebeenleftto  stateandlocalregulation"). \   ` Toimposeliabilityonadefendantsellerforactivities X withinthesolecontrolofaplaintiffcompetitorwoulditselfbe   anticompetitive,andcontrarytothepurposesoftheRobinson `  PatmanAct.Adefendantsellermustbeabletoknowwhenitis  \  subjecttoRobinsonPatmanActliabilityinordertoconformits   behaviortothelaw.Wefocusthereforeonlyonthedefendant's d  behavior.Werejecttheargumentthatthesalesactivityofthe `  plaintiff,Able'simportationofrefinedsugarfromFlorida,canbe   thebasisforsatisfyingthe"incommerce"jurisdictional h requirementofthestatute. d B.Defendant'sAllegedInterstateTransactions  1.CAPR'sImportationofRawSugarAcrossStateLines l  ` AblearguesthateventhoughCAPR'ssalesofrefined h sugardidnotcrossstatelines,thesesalessatisfythe"in  commerce"requirementbecauseCAPRimported12,000tonsofraw p  sugar,  #  7      ׀andCAPR'srefinementinPuertoRicoofthisimportedsugar !l" didnotremovethesugarfromthe"flowofcommerce."Thisisan "$ aspectofthedoctrineconcernedwiththe"flowbackwardinto t$& interstatetransactionsinrawmaterials."IAAreeda&Hovenkamp,  AntitrustLaw267b,at324(2ded.2000). \ Ѐ ` Whateverthepresentcontoursoftheinthe"flowof X commerce"doctrineundertheRobinsonPatmanAct,itcertainlydoes   notapplywhentherearematerialdifferencesbetweentheproduct `  importedandtheproductsoldafterundergoingprocessing.The  \  factthattherawmaterialswereimportedintoPuertoRicodoesnot   necessarilymeanthatthe"incommerce"requirementof2(a)of d  theRobinsonPatmanActismet.SeeBellistonv.Texaco,Inc.,455 `  F.2d175,180(5thCir.1972)(Theproductionofgasolinefrom   crudeoilisa"highlycomplexprocess"whichinterruptstheflow h ofcommerce).Indeedthe"flowofcommerce"endswhentheseraw d materialsorgoodsare"transformedinamaterialway."SeeIA  Areeda&Hovenkamp,AntitrustLaw267b,at324(2ded.2000). l  ` CAPRarguesthattheimportedrawsugarwastransformed h insuchamaterialwaywhenitunderwentrefiningintorefined  sugar.CAPRstatesthattherawsugarwas"extensivelyprocessed p  withinPuertoRico,resultinginanalterationofthenatureofthe !l" product"andthattherefinementprocess"extract[s]molassesand "$ othernonsugarminerals[from]therawsugar." t$&  ` Weagreethattherefinementofrawsugarintorefined  &p!( sugarhastransformedthisproductsothatitcannotbefairlysaid '#* tocontinuetobeintheflowofcommerce.Thiscaseis x)$, distinguishablefromcaseswherecourtshavefoundtheflowof $+t&. commercewasnotinterrupted.Thisisnotacaseinwhichthesame  productwastemporarilystoredinthestateofultimatesale.See, \ e.g.,StandardOilCo.,340U.S.at23738(temporarystorageof X gasolinedoesnotdeprivethegasolineofitsinterstate   characteristic).Norisitacaseinwhichtheresultingsold `  productwasessentiallythesameastheimportedproduct.See,  \  e.g.,DeanMilkCo.v.FTC,395F.2d696,715(7thCir.1968);   ForemostDairies,Inc.v.FTC,348F.2d674,678(5thCir.1965) d  #X XXX2,#X2X XX#_4XX2-#X2X_4(bothholdingthattheprocessingofmilkimportedfromoutof `  statebeforelocalresaleisnotenoughtoremovethemilkfromthe   flowofcommerce). h  ` Despitestatingthattherefinementofsugarinvolves d "negligibleprocessing"andthattheprocessesinvolvedinthis  casearesimilartothoseinvolvedintheprocessingofmilkasin l theexamplesgivenabove,theplaintiffdoesnotseriouslydispute h CAPR'sclaimastothenatureoftherefinementprocess.  #  8        AccordinglyAblehasnotmetitsburdenofshowingthatthe p  importedrawsugarremainedintheflowofcommerce.This !l" transactiondoesnotsatisfythe"incommerce"requirement. "$ Ѐ t$& 2.CAPR'sSaletoTropicalforExport    ` IncontrastwithAble'spreviousargumentconcernedwith \ backwardinterstatemovementofmaterials,Ablemakesaforward X flowargumentasitsfinalargument.SeeIAAreeda&Hovenkamp,   AntitrustLaw267b,at324(2ded.2000).WhetherCAPR'ssaleof `  sugartoTropical,knowingthatTropicalplannedtoexportthe  \  sugar,cansatisfythe"incommerce"requirementisamorecomplex   question. d   ` Fromthe2002salessummary,itappearsthatCAPR `  apparentlymadesixsalesofanindeterminatenumberoftwopound   bagsofrefinedsugarandfoursalesoffivepoundbagsofrefined h sugartoTropicalin2002. Twoofthosesaleswereinthe$43to d $46rangeperhundredweight,andtherestwereinthe$30range.  AnotationnexttothesalestoTropicalsuggeststhatthosesales l receivedaspecialdiscountbecauseTropicalintendedtoexportthe h sugar,presumablyoutsideofPuertoRico.Thesesaleswerelikely  discountedbecauseCAPRdoesnothavetopayanexcisetaxonsuch p  sales,asexplainedbyAble'scounsel.&  #  9      ׀  !l"  ` WetakeAble'sargumenttobeapermutationofthe"flow "$ ofcommerce"theory:theinitialsalebetweenCAPRandAbletook t$& placeintrastate,butthegoodsremainedinthe"flowofcommerce"  becausetheyweretobeexportedbyTropicalandCAPR'sknowledge \ ofthatputsthegoodsintotheflowofcommerce.Theinterstate X activityofthebuyeristhereforeattributedbacktoCAPR,the   intrastateseller,underthetheory. `  Ѐ ` Thisforwardflowtheorymaybearguableoncertain  \  facts.CasesunderstatutesbasedonthefullscopeofCongress'   constitutionalcommercepowerovercertaintypesofintrastate d  transactionshavesuggested"[s]ofarasthe[intrastate]salesare `  forshipmenttootherStatesortoforeigncountries,itisidleto   contendthattheyarenotsalesininterstateorforeigncommerce h andsubjecttocongressionalregulation."Currinv.Wallace,306 d U.S.1,10(1939)(challengingtheTobaccoInspectionActof1935);  seealsoUnitedStatesv.RockRoyalCoOp.,307U.S.533,56869 l (1939)(challengingtheSecretary'sregulationofthehandlingof h milkintheNewYorkmetropolitanareaundertheAgricultural  MarketingAgreementActof1937)#X XXX2Nr#X2X XX#_4XX2r#X2X_4.Butofcourse,thescopeofthe p  "incommerce"clauseoftheRobinsonPatmanActislessthanthe !l" constitutionalreach. "$  ` WhileGulfOilheldthatamerenexustointerstate t$& commercewasinsufficient,itdidnotdecidewhethersome  &p!( intermediatedefinitionsof"incommerce"tocapturethe"practical '#* consequences"ofadiscriminatorysaleonnationalmarketsmightbe x)$, withinCongressionalintent.GulfOil,419U.S.at199.Indeed $+t&. theCourtspecificallynotedtheabsenceoftwoclaims:thatthe  defendantmadeinterstatesalesorwas"otherwisedirectlyinvolved \ innationalmarkets"orthatthe"localmarket...isanintegral X partoftheinterstatemarketinothercomponentcommoditiesor   products."Id.at19596.󀀀 `   ` Buttherecordbeforeusdoesnotestablishandindeed  \  theplaintiffdoesnotarguethateitherofthosesituationsapply.   Ultimately,Ablefailstoprovethatthe"flowofcommerce"testis d  satisfied.TheonlyevidencethatAblepointstoconcerningthe `  salefromCAPRtoTropicalisasalessummaryofthesaleto   Tropicalwhichhasthenotation,"[s]pecialpriceforexportation h ofsugar,plustaxes,"andastatementmadebyAble'strialcounsel d tothedistrictcourtthat"[a]mongthesalesthat[CAPR]wasable  toexecuteduringthatyear,oneoftheirclients,Tropical l Distributors,wassoldsugarataspecialpricebecausehewas h goingtoexportsugar."    ` Forseveralreasonsthisevidenceisinsufficientto p  provethatthesalewas"incommerce."Theflowofcommerceis !l" thoughttoendwhenthegoods"arestoredina[seller's]warehouse "$ orstoragefacilityforgeneralinventorypurposes,"subjecttoan t$& exceptionforwhenthegoodsarepurchasedandthenstoredinthe  &p!( seller'swarehouseinresponsetoaparticularcustomer'sneeds. '#* SeeZoslawv.MCADistributingCorp.,693F.2d870,878(9thCir. x)$, 1982).Thatexceptiondoesnotapplyhere.Thereisnoevidence $+t&. thatCAPR'ssaletoTropicalwasanythingotherthanfinal,with  Tropicaltakingpossessionofthesugar.Indeed,thereisno \ evidencewhetherTropicalactuallyeverexportedthesugar.But X whatTropical,anindependentcompany,intendedtodowiththe   sugar,inthesecircumstances,isnotgermanetothe"incommerce" `  inquiry.  \   ` Whilethereisevidenceofnegotiationoverpriceand   thatCAPRexpectedthatTropicalwouldexportthesugar,thereis d  noevidencethatCAPRexercisedanycontrolofthemanagement, `  business,ordistributiondecisionsofTropical.Incaseswhere   the"flowofcommerce"doctrineapplied,thesameentityhas h engagedinboththeintrastateandinterstatetransaction.See, d e.g.,StandardOil,340U.S.at237(intrastatesalewasinthe  flowofcommerce;boththeintrastateandinterstatetransactions l wereconductedbythesameentity);ForemostDairies,348F.2dat h 67677(same).Andcourtshaveheldthattotheextentthatthe  purchasersareindependentdistributorsintheirpricingand p  marketingdecisions,the"flowofcommerce"isinterruptedbythe !l" saleoftheproduct.SeeZoslaw,693F.2dat880;cf.,Acme "$ RefrigerationofBatonRouge,Inc.v.WhirlpoolCorp.,785F.2d t$& 1240,124344(5thCir.1986)(asubsidiary'ssalescouldnotbe  &p!( imputedtoitsparentcompanyiftheparentcompanydidnot '#*  "control"thesubsidiary). x)$,  ` Inasituationwhereawhollyindependentbuyerpurchases   fromthedefendantseller,andthereisnoevidenceofcollusionor \ controlbetweenthesellerandtheindependentbuyer,"  #  10      #X XXX2#X2X XX#_4XX27#X2X_4Ԁtheflowof X commercehasendedandtheintrastatesellercannotbeheldtohave   beenmade"incommerce"asaresultofthesubsequentinterstate `  salemadebytheindependentbuyer.  \  B   III.    > ` Weholdthatthedistrictcourtdidnothavesubject   matterjurisdictionoverthissuitasCAPR'sallegedly ,|  discriminatorysaleswerenot"incommerce."We reverse the ( decisionofthedistrictcourt,setasidetheawardofdamages  againstCAPR,andremandwithinstructionstodismissthecasefor L lackofjurisdiction.CostsareawardedtoCAPR.#X XXX2## XX˖# H ;