Diamond Tools Tech. LLC v. United States

647 F.Supp.3d 1383

DIAMOND TOOLS TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant,andDiamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition, Defendant-Intervenor.

Slip Op. 23-111 Court No. 20-00060

United States Court of International Trade

July 28, 2023

Jay Charles Campbell, Allison Jessie Gartner Kepkay, Walter Joseph Spak, Dean Arne Barclay, Ron Kendler, White & Case, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Antonia Ramos Soares, Stephen Carl Tosini, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Tamari J. Lagvilava, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Daniel Brian Pickard, Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney PC, Washington, DC, Derick G. Holt, Maureen Elizabeth Thorson, Stephanie Manaker Bell, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, Amanda L. Wetzel, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Intervenor.

JUDGMENT

Timothy M. Reif, Judge

Before the court is the second remand redetermination of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs"), issued pursuant to the court's order in Diamond Tools Tech. LLC v. United States ("Diamond II"), 46 CIT —, 609 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2022). Final Remand Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, ECF No. 92 ("Remand Results").

On April 17, 2023, plaintiff Diamond Tools Technology LLC ("DTT USA" or "plaintiff") filed comments in response to the Remand Results. Pl.'s Cmts. Opp'n to Final Results of Second Redetermination, ECF No. 97. On April 17, 2023, defendant-intervenor Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition filed comments in response to the Remand Results. Def.-Intervenor's Cmts. Opp'n to Second Redetermination, ECF No. 96. On May 26, 2023, defendant United States filed a reply to plaintiff's and defendant-intervenor's comments on the Remand Results. Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s and Def.-Intervenor's Cmts. on Second Redetermination, ECF No. 98. On May 26, 2023, plaintiff filed further comments in support of the Remand Results. Pl.'s Resp. Cmts. Supp. of Final Results of Second Redetermination, ECF No. 99. The court reviewed parties' filings and responses thereto.

In Diamond I, the court remanded in part Customs' affirmative finding of evasion of the antidumping duty order in Customs' Final Determination as to Evasion and Final Administrative Decision on Certain Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China ("China"). Diamond Tools Tech. LLC v. United States ("Diamond I"), 45 CIT —, 545 F. Supp. 3d 1324 (2021) (citing Customs' Trade Remedy & Law Enforcement Directorate Final Determination as to Evasion, EAPA Case No. 7184 (Sept. 17, 2019), CR 199, PR 220; and Customs' Office of Regulations & Rulings Decision on Request for Admin. Review, EAPA Case No. 7184 (Jan. 29, 2020), PR 232). The court ordered Customs to make a finding and explain its reasoning as to whether DTT USA "enter[ed] covered merchandise . . . by means of any . . . act that is material and false, or any omission that is material," pursuant to the second statutory requirement set forth in the Enforce and Protect Act ("EAPA"), section 517(a)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1517(a)(5)(A) (2018). See Diamond I, 45 CIT at —, 545 F. Supp. 3d at 1356. In Diamond II, the court concluded that Customs did not explain how DTT USA's statement was material and false when DTT USA relied on the directive issued by Commerce and remanded:

Customs' Remand Results to Customs for reconsideration in conformity with this court's opinion. The court direct[ed] Customs to reconsider its conclusion consistent with this decision and the facts of this case and, in particular, the applicability of the EAP

...