- Media Mentions
- Press Releases
- Blog Posts
- State Lobbying & Gift Law Guide
Senior Communications Manager
Two Victories for the U.S. Diamond Sawblades Industry at Court of International Trade
Washington, DC – The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) found for the domestic diamond sawblades industry in two separate rulings today regarding the administration of the antidumping duty order on Chinese sawblades. In the first ruling, the court found that the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) violated federal law when they initiated a “sunset” review of the antidumping duty order last year. In the second ruling, the court ordered Commerce to reconsider a number of aspects of its 2013 final results in the second annual administrative review of the order.
“These decisions are important steps toward ensuring that the domestic industry gets the relief to which it is entitled by law, and that U.S. workers are protected from the harmful effects of dumped imports,” said Daniel B. Pickard, a partner in Wiley Rein’s International Trade Practice and counsel to the domestic industry. “We are extremely gratified by today’s rulings.”
Under federal law, Commerce and the ITC are authorized to review an antidumping duty order to determine whether it should remain in effect after five years have passed from the order’s publication date. Last year, the agencies initiated a sunset review of the sawblades order despite the fact that there was almost a year left on the statutory five-year period. The Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition (DSMC), an ad-hoc group of small, mostly family-owned U.S. diamond sawblades producers, challenged the review, arguing that it stood to deprive them of nearly a year of relief while forcing them to expend time and resources in a way not provided for by law. Today, the CIT agreed, ordering the agencies to cease further proceedings, declaring the proceedings thus far to be void, and ordering the agencies to only begin a new review in accordance with the statutory timeframe.
In the second ruling, the court considered DSMC’s challenge to Commerce’s adjustment of Chinese producers’ dumping duty rates in a separate, administrative review process. Commerce asked the court that it be allowed to reconsider certain aspects of its decision, including its finding that Chinese producer Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company and its affiliates were independent from the Chinese government. In its ruling, the court also ordered the agency to reconsider its rejection of “targeted dumping” allegations filed by DSMC, in light of the apparent statutory mandate to conduct a targeted dumping analysis, as well as the agency’s explanation for its valuation of certain sawblade cores.