The U.S. Court of International Trade issued a writ of mandamus on 30 September ordering the DOC to immediately issue AD duty orders on diamond sawblades and parts thereof classified under HTSUS subheadings 8202.39.00 and 8206.00.00 from mainland China and South Korea. A writ of mandamus is an extremely rare and drastic remedy that is invoked by a court in extraordinary situations to compel a lower court or a public or private entity to do or forebear from doing a specific act.

In the original AD investigation, the DOC determined on 22 May 2006 that imports of subject merchandise were being dumped in the U.S. market and established AD duties ranging from 2.50 percent to 164.09 percent, as shown in the table below. However, the USITC issued a final negative injury determination on 11 July 2006, ruling that a domestic industry was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise from the mainland or South Korea. As a result, the investigation was terminated without the assessment of AD duties.

A domestic coalition of diamond sawblade manufacturers subsequently challenged the USITC’s decision before the CIT, which found that the USITC had failed to provide an adequate explanation or substantial evidentiary support for certain findings. The court remanded the matter to the USITC and the USITC reversed its position, finding that a U.S. industry was indeed threatened with injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise. The DOC was notified of this decision but decided not to issue an AD duty order or instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin collecting AD cash deposits pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, until the issuance of a conclusive court decision.

The CIT ruling makes a clear distinction between the liquidation of duties, the collection of cash deposits and the issuance of an AD duty order. The court states that “liquidation for customs purposes is the final computation or ascertainment of duties...accruing upon entry of goods from abroad into the United States.” Final liquidation occurs only once for each entry of goods and as a general principle may not be subsequently undone. While the CIT agrees that liquidation of entries of subject merchandise must await a final and conclusive decision by a court on the matter, it also states that the collection of cash deposits and the issuance of an AD duty order are different concepts that are not subject to the same requirements. The remand determination in this investigation therefore requires the DOC to issue an AD duty order and instruct CBP to collect cash deposits on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise at the rates shown in the table above. Liquidation of duties will continue to be suspended pending a final judicial outcome in this case.