626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010), 2010-1024, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States
|Docket Nº:||2010-1024, 2010-1090.|
|Citation:||626 F.3d 1374|
|Opinion Judge:||BRYSON, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURERS COALITION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, and Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd., and Husqvarna Construction Products North America, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, and Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd., Defendant-Appellant, and Bosun|
|Attorney:||Daniel B. Pickard, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was Maureen E. Thorson. Delisa M. Sanchez, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellan...|
|Judge Panel:||Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 09, 2010|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|
In this antidumping case, the Court of International Trade issued a writ of mandamus to the Department of Commerce directing Commerce to issue antidumping duty orders and require the collection of cash deposits on certain merchandise imported from China and Korea. Commerce and several importers appealed, arguing that Commerce had no duty to issue such
orders prior to the termination of all judicial proceedings challenging the underlying determination of the International Trade Commission. We affirm the order of the Court of International Trade.
An antidumping duty investigation begins when an interested party files a petition with Commerce and the International Trade Commission seeking the imposition of antidumping duties on designated imports. 19 U.S. C. § 1673a(b). Based on the petition and other available information, the Commission first determines whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by the subject imports. Id. § 1673b(a)(1). If the Commission makes an affirmative preliminary determination, it waits for Commerce to determine whether the subject merchandise is, or is likely to be, sold at less than fair value in the United States (" the LTFV determination" ). Id. § 1673b(b)(1)(A).
If Commerce makes an affirmative final LTFV determination, the Commission then makes a final injury determination. 19 U.S. C. § 1673d(b)(1). The Commission is required to notify the parties and Commerce of its determination and to publish notice of that determination in the Federal Register. Id. § 1673d(d). If the Commission's final determination of material injury or threat of material injury is affirmative, Commerce is required, within seven days after being notified by the Commission of the determination, to publish an antidumping duty order and begin collecting cash deposits for duties due under the order. See id. § 1673e(a) (obligation to publish antidumping duty order after notification); id. § 1673e(a)(3) (obligation to collect deposit of estimated antidumping duties pending liquidation of entries of subject goods).
Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition (" DSMC" ) represents domestic manufacturers of diamond sawblades. In 2005, DSMC petitioned Commerce to impose antidumping duty orders on certain diamond sawblades imported from China and Korea. Commerce and the International Trade Commission initiated antidumping investigations in response to the petition. The Commission made a preliminary determination that there was a reasonable likelihood that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury. Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China and Korea, 70 Fed.Reg. 43,903 (Int'l Trade Comm'n July 29, 2005). Commerce then made preliminary and final determinations that the subject imports were being sold at less than fair value in this country. Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 Fed.Reg. 77,121 (Dep't of Commerce Dec. 29, 2005) (preliminary determination); Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the Republic of Korea, 70 Fed.Reg. 77,135 (Dep't of Commerce Dec. 29, 2005) (preliminary determination); Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 71 Fed.Reg. 29,303 (Dep't of Commerce May 22, 2006) (final determination), amended by 71 Fed.Reg. 35,864 (Dep't of Commerce June 22, 2006); Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the Republic of Korea, 71 Fed.Reg. 29,310 (Dep't of Commerce May 22, 2006) (final determination). The International Trade Commission subsequently published its final " material injury" determination. In that determination, the Commission found that the diamond sawblades industry in the United States was not materially injured
or threatened with material injury by imports of diamond sawblades from China and Korea. Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From China and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-1092 & 1093, USITC Pub. 3862 (July 2006), notice published at 71 Fed.Reg. 39,128 (Int'l Trade Comm'n July 11, 2006). The administrative antidumping proceedings therefore came to an end.
DSMC filed a complaint in the Court of International Trade challenging both the Commission's final negative injury determination and Commerce's LTFV determinations. The court stayed the claim pertaining to Commerce pending the disposition of the claim pertaining to the Commission. On the merits, the court then ruled that the Commission had not provided an adequate explanation or substantial evidentiary support for its negative injury determinations. Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, slip op. No.2008-18, 2008 WL 576988 (Ct. Int'l Trade Feb. 6, 2008). The court therefore remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings. On remand, the Commission in May 2008 entered a new final determination, which partially reversed its earlier final determination. Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1092 &...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP