Diamond Sawblades and Parts

Thereof From China and Korea

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092-1093 (Final)

Publication 3862 July 2006
U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

COMMISSIONERS

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Jennifer A. Hillman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Stephen Koplan

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Staff assigned

Michael Szustakowski, Investigator

Dennis Fravel, Industry Analyst

Gerald Benedick, Economist

David Boyland, Accountant

Charles St. Charles, Attorney

Steven Hudgens, Statistician

Douglas E. Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

July 2006

www.usitc.gov

Publication 3862

Diamond Sawblades and Parts

Thereof From China and Korea

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092-1093 (Final)
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and

Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman Concerning Threat of Material Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary of data presented in the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

The nature and extent of sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary of market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................... II-1

Channels of distribution and market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Professional construction firms ................................................ II-6

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-6

 U.S. supply ............................................................... II-6

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18

 Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-27

 Factors affecting purchases ................................................... II-28

Comparisons of the U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades and parts . . . II-32

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-39

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-39

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-39

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-40

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment .......................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization of diamond sawblades ................. III-6

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and export shipments of diamond sawblades .............. III-6

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of imports of diamond sawblades ................. III-8

U.S. producers’ inventories of diamond sawblades ................................... III-9

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity of diamond sawblades ....................... III-9

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization of parts ............................. III-10

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and export shipments of parts .......................... III-11

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of imports of parts ............................. III-11
ii

CONTENTS

Page

Part III–Continued

U.S. producers’ inventories of parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-12

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity of parts ................................... III-12

 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and export shipments of diamond sawblades and parts ....... III-13

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports of diamond sawblades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Apparent U.S. consumption of diamond sawblades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

U.S. market shares of diamond sawblades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

U.S. imports of parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Apparent U.S. consumption of parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

U.S. market shares of parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Apparent U.S. consumption of diamond sawblades and parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

U.S. market shares of diamond sawblades and parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Critical circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Tariff rates and transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Finished diamond sawblades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Diamond sawblade parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13

Questionnaire price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13

Selling price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-33

Selling comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-37

Purchase price comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-41

Lost revenues and lost sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-46

Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on diamond sawblades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Value added on diamond sawblades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Operations on diamond sawblade parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Cores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

Combined operations on diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-10

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-10

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-11
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Part VII: Threat considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-1

The industry in Korea .......................................................... VII-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-5

U.S. importers’ current orders for diamond sawblades ................................ VII-8

Dumping in third-country markets ................................................ VII-8

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Transformation of parts into finished diamond sawblades and value added . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Finished diamond sawblades’ channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Value of U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of diamond sawblades and parts . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Net U.S. F.O.B. selling price data for the specified diamond sawblade products

imported from both subject countries combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore have been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks. 

 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman dissenting.

 3

 When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to

8205 of the HTS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under HTS heading 8206.

 4

 Blackhawk Diamond ceased operations in January 2006.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092-1093 (Final)

DIAMOND SAWBLADES AND PARTS THEREOF FROM CHINA AND KOREA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened

with material injury and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded,

by reason of imports from China and Korea of diamond sawblades and parts thereof, provided for in

subheading 8202.39.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by

the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).2

3

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective May 3, 2005, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers’ Coalition

(“DSMC”) and its individual members: Blackhawk Diamond, Inc., Fullerton, CA;4

 Diamond B, Inc.,

Santa Fe Springs, CA; Diamond Products, Elyria, OH; Dixie Diamond, Lilburn, GA; Hoffman Diamond,

Punxsutawney, PA; Hyde Manufacturing, Southbridge, MA; Sanders Saws, Honey Brook, PA; Terra

Diamond, Salt Lake City, UT; and Western Saw, Inc., Oxnard, CA. The final phase of the investigations

was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce

that imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China and Korea were being sold at LTFV

within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the

final phase of the Commission’s investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith

was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade

Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of January 20, 2006

(71 FR 3324). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2006, and all persons who

requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
 
 1

 Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Hillman dissent, finding that an industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Aranoff

and Commissioner Hillman. They join sections I-III of these views. 

 2

 The nine member of DSMC are: Blackhawk Diamond, Inc., Fullerton, CA; Diamond B, Inc., Santa Fe Springs,

CA; Diamond Products, Elyria, OH; Dixie Diamond, Lilburn, GA; Hoffman Diamond, Punxsutawney, PA; Hyde

Manufacturing, Southbridge, MA; Sanders Saws, Honey Brook, PA; Terra Diamond, Salt Lake City, UT; and

Western Saw, Inc., Oxnard, CA. CR at I-1, PR at I-1. Blackhawk Diamond was closed in January 2006. CR at I-1

n.1, PR at I-1 n.1.

 3

 CR/PR at III-1 & Table III-1. These 18 firms, believed to represent 90 percent of U.S. diamond sawblades

production in 2004, provided usable trade and financial data on their U.S. operations producing diamond sawblades. 

Data for two firms, Blackhawk, which is no longer operating, and *** are based on their questionnaire responses in

the preliminary phase of these investigations. CR at III-1 & n.2, PR at III-1 & n.2. 

 4

 CR at I-7 (citing Petition at 7-8), PR at -I-5.

 5

 CR at I-7 - I-8, PR at I-5.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States is

not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of diamond sawblades and

parts thereof from China and Korea that are sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).1

I. BACKGROUND

The petition was filed on behalf of the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition (“DSMC”) 

and its nine members.2

 There are at least 21 firms known to have produced diamond sawblades and parts

in the United States during the period of investigation, 18 of which provided questionnaire responses to

the Commission.3

Diamond sawblades are circular cutting tools composed of two fundamental components: an

inner steel core and a diamond-impregnated outer ring segment that constitutes the cutting surface. The

metal core is made of very high quality, treated, hardened alloy steel plate or sheet. The alloy steel plate

or sheet is laser cut to the approximate diamond core diameter. The metal core contains an arbor hole that

is precisely bored in the center. The core is either slotted to produce a segmented blade or not slotted to

produce a continuous rim blade.4

The segment contains a mixture of synthetic diamonds and metal powder held together in a “bond

matrix.” During the manufacturing process, the metal powder and diamond mixture is compressed at a

very high temperature to obtain a solid metal alloy, which holds the diamonds. The segment, or rim, is

slightly wider than the core to permit the leading edge to penetrate the material without the core rubbing

against it and to discourage blade binding. The diamond segments are specifically designed to wear at a

rate appropriate to the material being cut. Large particles of soft, abrasive materials wear down the matrix

faster than the small particles removed from hard dense materials. Consequently, softer, more abrasive

materials require a “tough to wear” (hard) bond; less abrasive materials require an “easy wear” (soft)

bond. The cutting edge of the diamond segments is designed to expose additional diamond as the blade is

consumed.5
 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 7

 Id.

 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 9

 See, e.g., NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel

Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the

particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of

factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution;

(4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes,

and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See, e.g., Nippon, 19 CIT at 455, n.4; Timken Co. v. 

United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 1996).

 10 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 90-91 (1979).

 11 See, e.g., Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 90-

91 (1979) (Congress has indicated that the domestic like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a

narrow fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the

product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a

fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”)

 12 See, e.g., Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may

find determination of six domestic like products in investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds);

Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming Commission’s determination of six domestic like products in

investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds).

 13 See Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000);

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v.

(continued...)

4

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. In General

To determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”6

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a [w]hole of a domestic like product,

or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of

the total domestic production of the product.”7

 In turn, the Act defines “domestic like product” as “a

product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article

subject to an investigation.”8

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.9

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.10 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards minor

variations.11 Although the Commission must accept the determination of the Department of Commerce

(Commerce) as to the scope of the imported merchandise allegedly subsidized or sold at LTFV, the

Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles that Commerce has

identified.12 The Commission must base its domestic like product determination on the record in the

investigation before it. The Commission is not bound by prior determinations, even those pertaining to

the same imported products, but may draw upon previous determinations in addressing pertinent like

product issues.13
 13 (...continued)

United States, 693 F. Supp. 1165, 1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (particularly addressing like product

determination); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F.Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988). 

 14 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 Fed. Reg. 29,303,

29,309 (Dep’t Commerce May 22, 2006); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea,

71 Fed. Reg. 29,310, 29,312 (Dep’t Commerce May 22, 2006). 

 15 In a semi-finished products analysis, the Commission currently examines: (1) whether the upstream article is

dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses; (2) whether there are perceived to be

separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles; (3) differences in the physical characteristics and 

functions of the upstream and downstream articles; (4) differences in the costs or value of the vertically

differentiated articles; and (5) significance and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream into the

(continued...)

5

B. Product Description

In its final determinations, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of

investigation as:

all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is

comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of

specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of

th[ese] investigation[s] are semifinished diamond sawblades, including diamond

sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are

circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. 

Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from

alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds

(whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and

metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten

carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not

limited to, a heating and pressing process).

Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or

electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not

included within the scope of the investigation[s]. Diamond sawblades and/or

sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness

greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the investigation[s]. 

Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as

external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not

finished, are excluded from the scope of th[ese] investigation[s]. Diamond

sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the

scope of the petition. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with

diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as

250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the investigation[s].14

C. Domestic Like Product

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission applied its semi-finished

product analysis in determining that finished sawblades and their parts (cores and segments) constituted a

single domestic like product.15 In that analysis, the Commission found some significant differences in
 15 (...continued)

downstream articles. See e.g., Outboard Engines from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-1069 (Final), USITC Pub. 3752 at

(Feb. 2005) at 6. 

 16 Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1092-1093 (Preliminary),

USITC Pub. 3791 (Aug. 2005) (“Preliminary Determination”) at 6-7.

 17 Korean Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 3 n. 5. In their Prehearing Brief, Korean Respondents noted that

Petitioners presented an argument apparently expanding the scope of these investigations to Commerce prior to its

final determinations, and suggested that it would raise domestic like product issues in the event that Commerce

accepted Petitioners’ argument. Korean Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 2-3, 5. Commerce did not change the

scope of the investigations in its final determinations. Accordingly, Korean Respondents retracted their domestic

like product challenge in their Posthearing Brief. 

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 19 See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 681-84 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d

1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 20 To determine whether a firm is engaged in sufficient production-related activities to be considered a domestic

producer of the like product, the Commission generally considers six factors: (1) source and extent of the firm’s

capital investment; (2) technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities; (3) value added to the product in

the United States; (4) employment levels; (5) quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States; and (6) any

other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the like product. No single factor is

(continued...)

6

costs and value between cores and segments when compared with finished diamond sawblades, and found

that the process for transformation of cores and segments into finished diamond sawblades was

significant. The Commission also found some overlap in the manufacturing processes, as most finished

diamond sawblade manufacturers produce segments, while three producers manufacture only cores. The

Commission observed that the components were largely dedicated to the production of finished diamond

sawblades and embody the essential characteristics of finished diamond sawblades. It thus found a single

domestic like product, coextensive with the scope of the investigations.16 

The petitioners concur with the preliminary finding of a single domestic like product. 

Respondents do not contest the finding of a single domestic like product.17

We find that nothing in the record warrants a departure from our definition of the domestic like

product in the preliminary phase of these investigations and, therefore, we continue to define the domestic

like product as diamond sawblades and parts thereof, coextensive with the scope of these investigations.

D. Domestic Industry

 The domestic industry is defined as the “producers as a [w]hole of a domestic like product, or

those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the

total domestic production of the product.”18 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general

practice has been to include in the industry all domestic production of the domestic like product, whether

toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.19

In these investigations, issues arise as to whether certain manufacturers of finished diamond

sawblades should be considered part of the domestic industry. Specifically, these issues are: (1) whether

the producers whose operations consist solely of assembling cores and parts perform sufficient

production-related activities to be considered domestic sawblade producers, and (2) whether appropriate

circumstances exist to exclude related parties from the domestic industry.

Assemblers. In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission addressed whether

two firms (SH and General Tool), whose manufacturing operations apparently consist solely of

assembling cores and segments, perform sufficient production-related activities to be considered domestic

diamond sawblade producers.20 The Commission found that their assembly operations constituted
 20 (...continued)

determinative and the Commission may consider any other factors it deems relevant in light of the specific facts of

any investigation. See, e.g., Outboard Engines from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-1069 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3673

at 10-12 (Mar. 2004); DRAMs and DRAM Modules from Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-431 (Final), USITC Pub. 3616 at

7-11 (Aug. 2003). 

 21 See Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3791 at 8-10. 

 22 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 5-8; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 22. At the hearing, industry

witnesses discussed the existence of “welded job shops” that attach cores and segments using laser-welding to

diamond sawblades. Tr. at 216-18 (Commissioner Hillman, Jedick, and Brakeman). In Petitioners’ Posthearing

Brief, they indicated that no such “welded job shops” exist. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 31.

 23 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 5-8; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 22-23.

 24 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 21-22.

 25 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 22-24.

 26 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1, p. 27 (calculating the costs for a 20" x .155 blade). 

 27 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 7. Petitioners contends in their Posthearing Brief that Korean Respondents

have taken inconsistent positions in the Commission and Commerce proceedings with regards to their manufacturing

operations. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1, p. 17. In the Commerce proceeding, they maintain that Korean

Respondents have argued their operations were too insignificant to require reporting to that agency. Id. at Exh. 1, p.

(continued...)

7

sufficient production-related activities to render them domestic producers. It determined that the

domestic industry comprised the assemblers in addition to all domestic producers of finished diamond

sawblades and its component parts. The Commission did not indicate that it would examine this issue 

further in any final phase of the investigations.21

1. Petitioners’ Arguments

Petitioners seek to exclude from the domestic industry those operations, owned by respondents,

that import subject diamond sawblade cores and segments and assemble them into finished diamond

sawblades. Petitioners contend that these entities do not engage in sufficient U.S. production operations. 

These firms are General Tool, which is related to Ehwa, a Korean producer of subject merchandise and

SH, which is owned by Shinhan, another Korean producer of subject diamond sawblades.22

Petitioners’ assert that the essence of manufacturing a finished diamond sawblade is the

production of a diamond segment, which is then joined to the steel core. Because the firms allegedly only

assemble the components in the United States, their activities do not equate to “production.” As the

foreign respondents are their parent companies, Petitioners argue that the source of any capital investment

is logically from those related companies. Regarding employee training, Petitioners contend that a person

who has the ability to operate a keyboard to input standard information can essentially operate laserwelding equipment; such expertise can be acquired in about three days.23 Petitioners also contend that the

value added data submitted by these firms are misleading because components have been found to be

dumped in the United States.24 Neither firm, in Petitioners’ opinion, has presented compelling evidence

that their employment levels are sufficient to deem them domestic producers.25 Petitioners estimate that

the labor involved to attach segments to cores accounts for approximately *** percent of the total cost of

production of a diamond sawblade.26

With regard to General Tool, Petitioners also contend that this firm has conceded that it maintains

assembly operations, rather than production. Although the firm has ***, Petitioners argue, it is also the

*** importer of segments from ***. Those imports account for *** percent of all segment imports from

***, according to Petitioners. They further note that General Tool’s capital expenditures were ***

throughout the period of investigation.27
 27 (...continued)

19 & Exh. 7. Exhibit 7 includes a questionnaire response submitted to Commerce by Ehwa. It describes General

Tool’s purpose as “primarily import[ing] and warehous[ing] subject merchandise for sale to [original equipment

manufacturers] and distributors/resellers in the United States, although . . . [it] also manufactures finished

sawblades.” Id. at Exh. 7, p. A-5.

 28 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 5-7, Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1, p. 24.

 29 Korean Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 17-19 (citing Petition at 9-10); Korean Respondents’ Posthearing

Brief at A-8-10 & Exh. 6-7. The petition provides that “a significant and extensive transformation process is

required to turn the diamond core and the diamond sawblade segments into a finished diamond sawblade.” Petition

at 10.

 30 We note that three domestic producers produce only cores and sell them to diamond sawblade producers. CR

at III-2, PR at III-1. Because the domestic like product includes cores, and no issue has been presented as to whether

core production is “production,” those producers are included in the domestic industry. 

8

With regards to SH, Petitioners argue that this firm conceded at the Preliminary Staff Conference

that it assembles components in the United States. Petitioners further argue that SH does not produce any

diamond sawblade segments or cores, but instead sources all components from ***. In other words,

Petitioners maintain that all of SH’s U.S. production operations consist of assembling imported

components. They also argue that SH has not made any *** in the last three years. According to

Petitioners, the value added by SH and the percentage of total unit cost, without selling, general &

administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, are small.28 

2. Respondents’ Arguments

Korean Respondents argue that General Tool and SH should be included in the domestic industry. 

They point out that Petitioners have stated that the assembly process, which includes welding, quality

screening, grinding, engraving, cleaning, and tensioning, is “significant and extensive.” They maintain

that one U.S. producer has indicated that the level of expertise for assembly operations has increased in

the last five years. Korean Respondents estimate that the value added by General Tool’s operations

accounts for approximately *** percent of the overall cost of a finished diamond sawblade, which they

indicate to be significant. Korean Respondents also observe that Commerce concluded that the location

of assembly confers country of origin, as the attachment process substantially transforms the segments

and cores.29

3. Analysis30

In determining whether the assembly operations, or other activities, are sufficient to be deemed

production, the Commission generally applies a six-factor test as noted above. We explore these factors

with respect to General Tool and SH in the discussion below.
 31 CR/PR at Table VI-12. 

 32 General Tool’s Producer Questionnaire Response.

 33 CR at D-3, PR at D-3.

 34 CR/PR at Table VI-6.

 35 CR at III-17 n.14, PR at III-9 n.14.

 36 CR/PR at Tables III-9, III-15.

 37 See Preliminary Staff Conference Tr. at 109 (Garrison and Palovochik). 

 38 General Tool’s Producer Questionnaire Response.

 39 CR/PR at Table III-13.

 40 Producer questionnaire response of ***. 

 41 General Tool shipped no segments in 2005. Over *** percent of the blades that General Tool ships are ***. 

General Tool producer questionnaire response.

 42 CR at I-13, PR at I-9.

 43 CR/PR at Table VI-8.

9

(a) General Tool

Source and Extent of the Firm’s Capital Investment. General Tool reported capital expenditures

of $*** in 2003 and $*** in 2004, but did not indicate the source of its funding. The company indicated

*** in 2005.31

Technical Expertise Involved in U.S. Production Activities. General Tool produces segments for

the merchant market, as well as assembles cores and segments to make finished diamond sawblades.32

General Tool reported that ***.33 

Value Added to the Product in the United States. For General Tool, the value added excluding

SG&A for fiscal year 2005 was *** percent, and including SG&A, the figure is *** percent.34

Employment Levels. General Tool had *** employees in 2005.35 Eighteen domestic producers

reported 529 production and related workers in that year; of which *** production workers were involved

in the manufacture of cores in 2005 and *** were involved in the production of segments for commercial

sale.36 While it is difficult to ascertain the number of workers that would typically be involved in

assembly, because most diamond sawblade manufacturers perform their own assembly operations, we

note that information provided at the Preliminary Staff Conference indicates that General Tool’s assembly

operations are likely staffed in the same manner as other domestic diamond sawblade manufacturers.37

Quantity and Type of Parts Sourced in the United States. General Tool did not report any

purchases of domestically-produced diamond sawblade cores or segments during the period of

investigation.38 It does, however, produce diamond sawblade segments for internal consumption as well

as merchant market sales. Over the period, its production of segments fluctuated, *** units in 2003 to

*** units in 2004, then *** units in 2005.39

General Tool is one of only six U.S. producers that sold segments to the commercial market

during the period of investigation.40 General Tool’s shipments to the commercial market, on a value

basis, accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of segments for commercial shipments in 2003 and

*** percent in 2004.41

Diamond sawblade segments are a critical component in the production of finished diamond

sawblades and are sometimes used to repair diamond sawblades.42 In 2005, total net sales of diamond

sawblade segments by domestic producers totaled *** units, valued at $***.43

Any Other Costs and Activities in the United States Directly Leading to Production of the Like

Product. The evidence in the record of these final investigations does not indicate that General Tool has
 44 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 5; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 22.

 45 CR/PR at Table VI-12.

 46 The company reported ***. CR at III-4 & n. 6, PR at III-4 & n. 6.

 47 CR at D-4, PR at D-3.

 48 CR/PR at Table VI-6.

 49 CR/PR at Table VI-6.

 50 See Preliminary Staff Conference Tr. at 109 (Garrison and Palovochik) (indicating that all assemblers perform

the same general operations).

 51 SH’s Producer Questionnaire Response.

 52 CR at I-13, PR at I-9.

 53 CR/PR at Table VI-8.

10

incurred any other costs or engaged in any other activities in the United States that directly lead to

production of the domestic like product.

The fact that General Tool reported *** does not necessarily indicate that its production-related

activities in the United States are minimal. General Tool does have some capital investment as it engages

in production-related activities, including both the production of segments and the assembly of cores and

segments into finished sawblades. The value added to the product is significant. For this industry, the

number of its employees was not insubstantial, and General Tool employs sufficiently similar numbers of

production related workers as other domestic producers. Moreover, Petitioners essentially concede that at

least some of General Tool’s operations are not insignificant, as they contend that the essence of

manufacturing a finished diamond sawblade is the production of a diamond segment.44 On balance, we

find that General Tool engages in sufficient production-related activities to render General Tool a

domestic producer. 

(b.) SH

Source and Extent of the Firm’s Capital Investment. SH indicated *** and the source of its funds

is, accordingly, ***.45

Technical Expertise Involved in U.S. Production Activities. SH assembles cores and segments to

make the finished diamond sawblades.46 SH utilizes the laser-welding and silver soldering techniques to

affix the segments to the cores. It commented that these processes ***.47

Value Added to the Product in the United States. It is estimated that the value added by SH for

fiscal year 2005, excluding SG&A expenses, was *** percent.48 Including SG&A expenses, the figure is

*** percent.49

Employment Levels. SH had *** employees in 2005. While it is difficult to ascertain the number

of workers that would typically be involved in assembly, because most diamond sawblade manufacturers

perform their own assembly operations, we note that information provided at the Preliminary Staff

Conference indicates that SH’s assembly operations are likely staffed in the same manner as other

domestic producers.50

Quantity and Type of Parts Sourced in the United States. SH purchases cores; in 2005, it 

purchased *** domestic cores from ***.51 Diamond sawblade cores are a critical component in the

production of finished diamond sawblades and have no use in other finished products.52 In 2005, total net

sales of diamond sawblade cores totaled *** units, valued at $***.53

Any Other Costs and Activities in the United States Directly Leading to Production of the Like

Product. The evidence in the record of these final investigations does not indicate that SH has incurred

any other costs or engaged in any other activities in the United States that directly lead to production of

the domestic like product.
 54 Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Hillman do not join this paragraph. They join the Commission in

finding that SH should be excluded from the domestic industry under the related parties provision. However, they

would also exclude SH from the domestic industry on the basis of insufficient production-related activities in the

United States.

 55 *** engages in the assembly of large diameter sawblades (greater than *** inches) and reported no production

of either segments or cores during the period of investigation. CR/PR at Table III-1. *** accounted for a very small

share of finished sawblade production in 2005. Id. Petitioners have not alleged that ***’s operations do not

constitute domestic production. Moreover, the nature of its production operations do not appear to be significantly

distinguishable from those of SH, the operations of which we find do constitute domestic production. Therefore, and

in the absence of a basis for concluding the contrary, we find that ***’s assembly operations constitute domestic

production. 

 56 Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331-1332 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d without opinion, 904

F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). The

primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude

related parties include: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the

reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the firm benefits

from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and

compete in the U.S. market; and (3) the position of the related producers vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, i.e.,

whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See, e.g.,

Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809

(Fed. Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for related

producers and whether the primary interests of the related producers lie in domestic production or in importation. 

See, e.g., Melamine Institutional Dinnerware from China, Indonesia, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-741-743 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3016 (Feb. 1997) at 14 n.81.

11

The fact that SH has *** and does not manufacture cores or segments, but assembles them, does

not necessarily indicate that its production-related activities in the United States are minimal. SH does

have some capital investment as it does engage in production-related activities, namely the assembly of

cores and segments into finished sawblades. The value added by its activities is not insubstantial. The

fact that it has *** employees does not indicate that its production-related activities are minimal, as SH

performs the same types of assembly operations as all other domestic producers and employs sufficiently

similar numbers of production related workers as other domestic producers. Its purchase of *** cores

from a U.S. producer in 2005 likewise does not indicate that its production-related activities are

insufficient for inclusion in the domestic industry. On balance, we believe the record contains sufficient

information to justify finding that SH engages in sufficient production-related activities to render it a

domestic producer.54

In sum, we find that the operations of General Tool and SH constitute domestic production. 

Accordingly, we do not exclude them from the domestic industry on the basis of petitioners’ argument

that their operations do not constitute production.55

B. Related Parties

We must further determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded

from the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). That provision of the statute allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers. Exclusion

of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each case.56

In the preliminary determination, the Commission discussed whether appropriate circumstances

existed to exclude *** as related parties from the domestic industry. Vice Chairman Okun,

Commissioner Miller, and Commissioner Pearson determined not to exclude any related parties from the

domestic industry. Chairman Koplan, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Lane determined that
 57 Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3791 at 8, 13 & n. 35.

 58 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 7-8. We note that Petitioners observe that the Commission need not reach this

issue in the final determination with respect to SH and General Tool if it determines that those two firms do not

engage in sufficient production-related activities. Id. at 7 n. 11. Their presentation of arguments under the related

party provision are made in the alternative.

 59 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 11.

 60 As a preliminary matter, Korean Respondents argue that the Commission should conduct its related party

analysis using value to measure industry production. Korean Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 7-8. We determine to

rely primarily on value measures for subject import volume, apparent consumption, and domestic shipments. We are

mindful of limitations in use of value measures rather than quantity measures, such as the difficulty in determining

whether changes in value totals are caused by changes in product mix or price. Nonetheless, we rely on value-based

indicators as the best measure for the continuum product here that includes a vast and disparate grouping of items

differing in size, characteristics, and applications. We have also considered quantity data where appropriate,

including in our related party analysis. 

 61 Saint-Gobain’s Prehearing Brief at 12-16; Saint-Gobain’s Posthearing Brief at 4-6.

 62 CR/PR at Table III-2.

12

appropriate circumstances existed to exclude *** from the domestic industry. The Commission expressly

indicated that it intended to reexamine the status of all related parties in any final phase of the

investigations. It further indicated its intent to explore more fully whether the significant importation by a

number of firms is a means to provide customers with a full product line by supplementing U.S.

production with imported products that they cannot or will not produce. In particular, the Commission

stated that it intended to seek information regarding the extent to which these firms are benefitting from

the subject imports and whether they conduct their operations so as to be shielded from any injurious

effects of the subject imports, including the types of products they import and the types of products they

produce.57

1. Parties’ Arguments

Petitioners argue the Commission should find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude

several U.S. producers from the domestic industry: Husqvarna; General Tool; Saint-Gobain; and SH. 

According to Petitioners, these firms’ interests are not aligned with the domestic industry, but rather

primarily lie in importation.58 Petitioners also argue that unlike the domestic industry that imports subject

product to fill out its product lines, these firms are related to or owned by producers of subject

merchandise in China and Korea.59 60 

Korean respondents argue that the Commission should not exclude *** from the definition of the

domestic industry. 

Saint-Gobain argues that exclusion of the firm from the domestic industry is contrary to the

statute and Commission practice.61

2. Analysis

Direct Importers of Subject Merchandise. Seven U.S. producers -- *** – reported that they

imported subject diamond sawblades and parts over the period of investigation.62 Thus, they may be
 63 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 64 CR/PR at Table III-2. We note that *** also directly imports nonsubject merchandise from *** and is related

to ***, a sister firm in ***. *** is jointly owned by *** and was created to provide products to *** at prices

competitive with imports from China and Korea. CR at III-5 n. 8, PR at III-4 n.8. 

 65 CR at III-11, III-21, & n.20; PR at III-8, III-11, & n.20.

 66 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 67 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 68 Petitioners argued that a producer’s position on the petition is an important element of the Commission’s

related party analysis. E.g., Tr. at 200-201. While the Commission may consider whether a producer supports or

opposes the petition as one factor in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude that producer as a

related party, support or opposition to the petition is not dispositive of the question. See e.g., Allied Mineral

Products, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 04-139 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 12, 2004) at 9-10 & n. 5.

 69 CR/PR at Table F-2; ***’s Producer Questionnaire Response.

 70 CR/PR at Table F-2.

 71 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 72 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

 73 We exclude Concut from the industry even though its inclusion would not skew the industry data ***.

 74 In these investigations, Vice Chairman Aranoff does not rely on individual-company operating income margins

in assessing whether particular related parties benefit from importation of subject merchandise, except where a

related party produces finished diamond sawblades using subject imported parts. Rather, she has based her

determination regarding whether to exclude related parties principally on their ratios of subject imports to domestic

shipments and on whether their primary interests lie in domestic production or importation.

 75 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 76 CR at III-12, PR at III-8.

 77 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 78 See CR at III-11, PR at III-8.

 79 CR/PR at Table F-2.

13

excluded from the industry if appropriate circumstances exist.63 ***.64 Price and product range were the

primary reasons reported by most companies for their decisions to import subject merchandise.65

*** accounted for *** percent of domestic production of finished diamond sawblades in 2005

and *** percent of domestic production of segments in that year.66 It supports the petition.67 68 It

imported finished diamond sawblades from China, although it did not provide a reason for such imports.69

On a value basis, Concut’s ratio of subject imports from China to its U.S. shipments of its U.S. production

was *** percent in 2005, increasing from *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004.70 On a quantity

basis, its ratio of imports from China to production was *** percent in 2005, increasing from *** percent

in 2003 and *** percent in 2004.71 Its operating income as a ratio of net sales was *** percent in fiscal

year 2005 – an increase from ***.72 Although *** supports the petition, it appears that its primary

interests lie in importation rather than domestic production in light of its ratio of imports to production. It

also appears to derive some benefit from those imports. Based on these facts, we find that appropriate

circumstance exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry.73 74

*** accounted for *** percent of domestic production of finished diamond sawblades in 2005

and *** percent of domestic production of segments in that year.75 It produces customized products in the

United States primarily for the professional market.76 *** opposes the petition.77 It imported finished

diamond sawblades from China and Korea for price and product range reasons.78 It also imported cores

from China and Korea as well as segments from Korea during the period examined.79 Its ratio of imports

of finished diamond sawblades from China to production was *** percent in 2005, increasing from ***
 80 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 81 CR/PR at Table F-2.

 82 CR/PR at Table III-13. *** internally consumes all imports of diamond sawblade cores from China and Korea. 

It does not produce cores in the United States. *** imports of cores from China were equivalent to *** percent of the

quantity of finished diamond saw blades that it produced in 2003, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2005,

while its imports of cores from Korea were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of diminished diamond saw

blades that it produced in 2003.

 83 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

 84 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 85 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 86 CR/PR at III-11-12.

 87 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 88 CR/PR at Table F-2. We note that *** internally consumes all imports of diamond sawblade cores from China

and Korea. It does not produce cores in the United states. Its imports of cores from Korea were equivalent to ***

percent of the quantity of finished diamond saw blades that it produced in 2003, *** percent in 2004, and ***

percent in 2005, while its imports of cores from China were *** percent of the quantity of finished diamond saw

blades that it produced in 2004 and *** percent in 2005. 

 89 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

14

percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004. Its ratio of imports of diamond sawblades from Korea to

production was *** percent in 2005, increasing from 2,176.8 percent in 2003 and 5,086.9 percent in

2004.80 On a value basis, ***’s ratio of total imports from China to total U.S. shipments of U.S.

production was *** percent in 2005, increasing from *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004. Its

ratio of total imports of finished diamond sawblades from Korea to total U.S. shipments of U.S.

production was *** in 2005, increasing from *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004.81 ***’s ratio

of imports of segments from Korea to production was *** percent in 2005, decreasing from *** percent

in 2003 and *** percent in 2004.82 Its operating income as a ratio of net sales was *** percent in fiscal

year 2005 – an increase from ***.83 We find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the

domestic industry based on its high ratio of imports to production and the fact that it appears to derive

some benefit from those imports.

*** accounted for *** percent of domestic production of finished sawblades and *** percent of

production of segments in 2005.84 It is the *** producer of diamond sawblades and ***.85 It imported

finished diamond sawblades from China and cores from both China and Korea during the period ***.86

Its ratio of imports of finished diamond sawblades from China to production was *** percent on a

quantity basis in 2005.87 On a value basis, Husqvarna’s ratio of total imports from China to total U.S.

shipments of U.S. production was *** percent in 2005, while its ratio of total imports from Korea to total

U.S. shipments of U.S. production was *** percent in that year.88 Its operating income as a ratio of net

sales *** the period of investigation: *** percent in fiscal year 2003, *** percent in fiscal year 2004, and

*** percent in fiscal year 2005.89 It appears that domestic producer *** interests lie in domestic

production rather than importation. Although, on a quantity basis, *** increased its imports of subject

merchandise over the period examined, on a value basis, its ratio of total imports from both China and

Korea to total U.S. shipments was less than *** percent in 2005. Thus, *** imports of subject

merchandise on a value basis are minimal in relation to its domestic production. Indeed, it is the ***

domestic producer. We therefore find that circumstances are not appropriate to exclude *** from the

domestic industry. 
 90 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 91 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 92 CR at III-11.

 93 CR/PR at Table F-2.

 94 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 95 CR/PR at Table F-2. Saint-Gobain internally consumes all imports of diamond sawblade cores from China. It

does not produce cores in the United States. Saint-Gobain’s imports of cores from China were equivalent to ***

percent of the quantity of finished diamond saw blades that it produced in 2004 and *** percent in 2005. 

 96 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

 97 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 98 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 99 SH’s Producer Questionnaire.

 100 CR/PR at Tables III-7. SH does not produce cores or segments in the United States, but rather assembles

diamond sawblade parts. Its imports of parts are internally consumed. Its imports of cores from Korea were

equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of finished diamond saw blades that it produced in 2003, *** percent in

2004, and *** percent in 2005. 

 101 CR/PR at Table F-2.

 102 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

15

*** accounted for *** percent of domestic production of finished diamond sawblades in 2005,

and *** percent of production of segments in that year.90 It opposes the petition.91 It imported finished

diamond sawblades from China.92 It also imported cores from China during the period reviewed.93 On a

quantity basis, its ratio of imports from China to production was *** percent in 2005.94 On a value basis,

***’s ratio of total imports from China to total U.S. shipments of U.S. production was *** percent in

2005, increasing from *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004.95 Its operating income as a ratio of

net sales was *** percent in fiscal year 2005, increasing from ***.96 ***’s interests appear to lie primarily

in domestic production. Based on the difference in its ratio of imports to production on a quantity and a

value basis, ***’s U.S. production operations focus on larger diameter, higher value sawblades. ***

imports products that it does not produce in its domestic facilities. Moreover, although the improvement

in *** financial condition as the volume of its subject imports increased could suggest some benefit from

those imports, we note that it experienced improved profitability in 2005 even as its ratio declined, and

that its financial performance in 2005 was below the industry average. Therefore, because its interests

appear to lie primarily in domestic production rather than importation, and because its inclusion would

not skew the industry data, we find that circumstances are not appropriate to exclude *** from the

domestic industry.

*** accounted for *** percent of domestic production of finished diamond sawblades in 2005.97

It *** the petition.98 It imported finished diamond sawblades, cores, and segments from Korea to provide

a broader product range, because it only produces certain custom and quick turnaround merchandise in

the United States.99 On a quantity basis its ratio of imports of finished diamond sawblades from Korea to

production was *** percent in 2005, a decrease from *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004. 100 On

a value basis, ***’s ratio of total imports from Korea to total U.S. shipments of U.S. production was ***

percent in 2005, a decrease from *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004.101 It does not appear that

*** benefitted from its importation of subject merchandise. Its operating income as a ratio of net sales

was *** percent in fiscal year 2003, *** percent in fiscal year 2004, and *** percent in fiscal year

2005.102 Like ***, owing to its large import to production ratios, it appears that SH’s interests lie in

importation rather than in production. Based on these facts, we find that appropriate circumstances exist

to exclude *** from the domestic industry. 
 103 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 104 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 105 CR at III-12.

 106 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 107 CR/PR at Table F-2.

 108 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

 109 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 110 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 111 CR at III-12.

 112 CR/PR at Tables III-7 and F-2. 

 113 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

 114 As indicated above, *** are related to firms in subject countries. CR/PR at Table III-1. These firms thus

qualify as related parties under the common ownership prong of the related parties provision. The analysis

discussing these firms’ domestic and import operations is presented immediately above. 

 115 CR/PR at Table III-1; MK Diamond Products, Inc.’s Importer Questionnaire Response.

16

*** accounted for *** percent of domestic production of finished diamond sawblades in 2005

and *** percent of production of segments in that year.103 It is a petitioner.104 The firm reported imports

of finished diamond sawblades because ***.105 Its ratio of imports from Korea to production was ***

percent in 2005 a decrease from *** percent in 2004.106 On a value basis, ***’s ratio of total imports

from Korea to total U.S. shipments of U.S. production was *** percent in 2004 and 2005 (it ***.107 Thus,

the imports were at very low levels throughout the period of investigation. Its operating income as a ratio

of net sales was *** percent in fiscal year 2003, *** percent in fiscal year 2004, and *** percent in fiscal

year 2004.108 Given its small ratios of imports to production on both a quantity and value basis, it appears

that ***’s interests lie more in production than importation. *** is a member of the petitioning coalition. 

It does not appear to have derived significant financial benefit from its relatively small amount of imports. 

Accordingly, we find that circumstances are not appropriate to exclude *** from the domestic industry.

*** accounted for *** percent of domestic production of finished diamond sawblades in 2005

and *** percent of domestic production for segments.109 It *** the petition.110 It imports finished

diamond sawblades from China that it ***.111 On a value basis, ***’s ratio of imports from China to its

total shipments of U.S. production was *** percent in 2005, down from *** percent in 2004, while the

ratio on a quantity basis was *** percent, a decline from *** percent in 2004.112 The difference in this

ratio on a value and quantity basis would appear to indicate a greater focus on larger diameter, higher

value sawblades in its domestic production and a greater focus on smaller diameter, lower value

sawblades for its imports. Its operating income as a ratio of net sales was at a *** percent in fiscal year

2003, *** percent in fiscal year 2004, and *** percent in fiscal year 2005.113 Thus, ***’s imports of

subject merchandise on a value basis are minimal in relation to its domestic production. *** imports

subject merchandise that it does not produce. Although *** may have derived some financial benefit

from its subject imports, it experienced its largest increase in profitability from 2004 to 2005, even as its

ratio of imports to production declined. We therefore find that circumstances are not appropriate to

exclude *** from the domestic industry. 

In sum, we find that circumstances are appropriate to exclude *** from the domestic industry

and that circumstances are not appropriate to exclude ***. 

Ownership by Subject Importers or Exporters.

114 Baranca Diamond (“Baranca”) is wholly owned

by MK Diamond Products, Inc., an importer of subject merchandise from Korea.115 Because MK

Diamond Products, Inc. wholly owns Baranca, it is deemed to control Baranca. The Commission must

examine whether to exclude Baranca from the domestic industry under the related party provision. 
 116 CR/PR at Table III-1 & n. 2. 

 117 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 118 CR/PR at Table F-2.

 119 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

 120 CR/PR at Table F-2. The Prehearing Report indicated that ***, but we note that ***, a circumstance

(domestic producer purchases subject merchandise purchased by its affiliate) to which the Commission’s analysis of

importer or equivalent status has not extended.

 121 *** primarily imports finished diamond sawblades from Korea, accounting for *** percent by value of its total

imports of finished diamond sawblades and segments in 2005. *** purchases of ***’s subject imports of *** from

*** therefore represent a relatively small portion of ***’s overall subject imports. 

 122 *** primarily imports finished diamond sawblades from ***, accounting for *** percent by value of its total

imports of finished diamond sawblades and cores in 2005. *** purchases of ***’s subject imports of *** from ***

therefore represent a relatively small portion of ***’s overall subject imports. 

 123 *** Trading only reported imports of cores during the period examined. 

 124 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 125 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 126 See CR at III-12, PR at III-8.

 127 CR/PR at Table F-2.

 128 CR/PR at Table III-7.

17

Baranca accounted for *** percent of domestic production of finished diamond sawblades in 2005. It

opposes the petition and only produces continuous rim sintered diamond sawblades; it does not produce

segmented diamond sawblades.116 Its ratio of purchases of subject diamond sawblades from Korea to

production was *** percent in 2005.117 On a value basis, the ratio of Baranca’s purchases of imports from

Korea to its total U.S. shipments of U.S. production was *** percent.118 This *** producer’s operating

income as a ratio of net sales was *** percent in fiscal year 2003, *** percent in fiscal year 2004, and ***

percent in fiscal year 2005.119 Baranca ***. While Baranca’s performance indicates that it may be

deriving some benefit from its related party status, in light of its small size, its inclusion will not skew the

data for the industry and, at least on a value basis, its ratio of subject purchases to production is small. 

Accordingly, we find that circumstances are not appropriate to exclude Baranca from the domestic

industry.

Purchases of Subject Imports. Eleven domestic producers *** reported that they purchased

subject imports of diamond sawblades, cores, or segments during the period of investigation.120 They

qualify as related parties if they control large volumes of imports. As with the related parties who

imported subject merchandise directly, price and product range were the primary reasons reported by

these companies for their decisions to purchase subject imports of diamond sawblades. In only a few

instances did these firms account for more than five percent of any individual importer’s sales of diamond

sawblades from the subject countries in 2005. According to their questionnaire responses, ***.121 ***.122

***.123 Because the other domestic producers that purchased subject imports do not control large volumes

of those imports, they do not qualify as related parties. We have discussed ***’s and ***’s direct imports

above. We therefore discuss below only ***, for which we do not find appropriate circumstances for

exclusion.

*** accounted for *** percent of production of finished sawblades and *** percent of production

of segments in 2005.124 It is a petitioner and *** producer of diamond sawblades.125 It purchased finished

diamond sawblades from Korea during the period ***.126 On a value basis, the ratio of ***’ purchases

from Korea to its total U.S. shipments of U.S. production was *** percent.127 On a quantity basis, its ratio

of purchases from China to production was *** percent in 2005.128 Diamond Products’ operating income
 129 CR/PR at Table VI-11.

 130 *** reported that it imported *** in 2005 and that *** percent of those imported cores (*** units) were

purchased by ***. *** did not itself report these core purchases, which would be equivalent to only *** percent of

*** production of finished diamond sawblades. See ***’s importer questionnaire response and *** producer

questionnaire response. We find that *** purchases of cores from ***, although likely reflecting control of those

importations, equates to a very small relative quantity of imports and, for the same reasons that we do not exclude

*** with respect to its purchases of the Korean merchandise, we do not find appropriate circumstances to exclude

*** on the basis of its purchase of the Chinese merchandise reported by ***. 

 131 We do not find that the subject imports from either of the subject countries were negligible for purposes of

these investigations. The subject imports from China and Korea were above the three percent negligibility threshold

during the most recent twelve-month period for which data were available preceding the filing of the petition. 

CR/PR at Table IV-1; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 132 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i).

 133 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-

280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff'd, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int'l

Trade), aff'd, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 134 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1989).

18

as a ratio of net sales *** over the period of investigation: from *** percent in fiscal year 2003 to ***

percent in fiscal year 2004, then to *** percent in fiscal year 2005.129 Because *** is *** producer, a

petitioner, and it does not appear to have benefitted financially from the subject imports, its interests

clearly lie in domestic production. We therefore find that circumstances are not appropriate to exclude

*** from the domestic industry.130

In sum, we find appropriate circumstances to exclude *** from the domestic industry. We find

that circumstances are not appropriate to exclude from the domestic industry ***. 

III. CUMULATION131

For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination of material injury by

reason of the subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act requires the Commission to cumulate

subject imports from all countries for which petitions were filed and/or investigations self-initiated by

Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete with each other and with domestic like products in

the U.S. market.132 In assessing whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic

like product, the Commission has generally considered four factors, including:

(1) the degree of fungibility between the subject imports from different countries and

between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific

customer requirements and other quality related questions;

(2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject

imports from different countries and the domestic like product;

(3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports

from different countries and the domestic like product; and

(4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.133

While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these

factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the subject

imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.134 Only a “reasonable overlap” of
 135 The SAA (at 848) expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under

which the statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” Citing Fundicao Tupy,

S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898, 902 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See Goss

Graphic System, Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082,1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not

require two products to be highly fungible”); Mukand Ltd., 937 F. Supp. at 916; Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp.

at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”).

 136 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G) (ii).

 137 CR/PR at Table II-5 (indicating that 9 of 13 responding U.S. producers indicated that subject imports from

China and Korea are always or frequently interchangeable; 15 of 26 responding importers indicated that subject

imports from China and Korea are always or frequently interchangeable; and 20 of 26 responding purchasers

indicated that subject imports from China and Korea are always or frequently interchangeable). 

 138 CR at II-69, PR at II-34.

19

competition is required.135 None of the statutory exceptions to the general cumulation rule apply to these

investigations.136

In the preliminary determinations in these investigations, we found that the antidumping duty

petitions for China and Korea were filed on the same day and that there was a reasonable overlap of

competition among subject imports from China, subject imports from Korea, and the domestic like

product. Accordingly, we cumulatively assessed the volume and price effects of the subject imports. In

this final phase of these investigations, petitioners have asserted that there is a reasonable overlap of

competition. No party disagrees with the petitioners’ position in this regard. 

The antidumping petitions for China and Korea were both filed on May 3, 2005. Subject imports

from China and Korea are thus eligible for cumulation. We consequently examine whether there is a

reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports, as well as between subject imports and the

domestic like product.

1. Fungibility. 

Most market participants indicated that domestically-produced finished diamond sawblades and

imported merchandise from China and Korea were always or frequently interchangeable.137 Five of nine

U.S. producers explained that some differences between domestic and imported diamond sawblades exist. 

Three producers noted differences in the types of diamond sawblades produced by domestic producers

and by subject producers in China. Three U.S. producers also mentioned differences in applications

between the domestic like product and subject imports from China, indicating that a large percentage of

domestically-produced diamond sawblades is typically large-diameter blades for use in professional

applications while subject imports are typically smaller, continuous rim blades. Two U.S. producers

stated that there are quality differences between subject imports from China and the domestic like

product. Two producers also indicated that there were differences in manufacturing processes: 

domestically-produced diamond sawblades are typically laser-welded, while imports are typically

sintered.138

Ten importers of subject imports from China identified differences between the domestic and

subject diamond sawblades. Six indicated that subject imports from China were inferior in quality to the

domestic like product. Five importers noted product differences between the domestic like product and

subject diamond sawblades, specifically indicating that the domestic like product was mostly largediameter segmented diamond sawblades, whereas subject imports from China were mostly smalldiameter, sintered continuous rim sawblades. Several importers indicated that these types of diamond
 139 CR at II-69, PR at II-34. As noted elsewhere in these Views, a very small quantity of continuous rim, sintered

sawblades are produced in the United States. Sintered, continuous rim sawblades are used in applications where

segmented blades cannot be used or will not produce a clean cut; they have lower performance abilities than

segmented blades, and are mass produced. Korean Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 33-35. 

 140 CR at II-69, PR at II-34. As noted elsewhere in these Views, small diameter sawblades are produced in the

United States. 

 141 CR at II-70, PR at II-34.

 142 CR at II-70, PR at II-35. As noted above, small diameter diamond sawblades are produced in the United

States, as is a very small quantity of sintered sawblades.

 143 CR at II-70, PR at II-35. As noted above, small diameter diamond sawblades are produced in the United

States, as is a very small quantity of sintered sawblades.

 144 CR/PR at Table II-6. 

 145 CR/PR at Table II-6.

20

sawblades are not produced in the United States and some noted differences in applications and in the

manufacturing processes of the domestic like product and the subject imports.139

Four purchasers of subject imports from China and the domestic like product noted differences

between these products. Three of the responding purchasers indicated performance differences between

subject imports from China and the domestic like product. Three purchasers indicated that there are no

known U.S. producers of small-diameter diamond sawblades.140 Two purchasers indicated that there were

quality differences between subject imports from China and the domestic like product and subject imports

from Korea.

Five domestic producers noted differences between domestic and imported diamond sawblades

from Korea. Two producers cited quality differences, one of these indicating that domestically-produced

diamond sawblades are superior. Two other producers mentioned product differences; they indicated that

foreign producers from Korea offer a broader range of products. These producers also identified the

same differences in manufacturing processes discussed immediately above and added that the availability

of sintered diamond sawblades in the U.S. market is limited.141 

Eight importers of subject imports from Korea identified differences between the domestic like

product and subject diamond sawblades from Korea. Two importers indicated that subject imports from

Korea were inferior in quality to the domestic like product. Three importers noted product differences

between the domestic like product and subject diamond sawblades, specifically indicating that the

domestic like product is mostly large-diameter, segmented diamond sawblades, whereas subject imports

were mostly small-diameter, sintered continuous rim diamond sawblades; several observed that these

types of sawblades are not produced in the United States.142

Two purchasers of subject imports from Korea and the domestic like product provided

explanations of the types of differences between these products, indicating that there are no known U.S.

producers of small-diameter, sintered diamond sawblades.143

Most domestic producers stated that differences in factors other than price sometimes or never

distinguish domestic diamond sawblades from subject imports from China and Korea as well as between

diamond sawblades from China and diamond sawblades from Korea.144 Importers were fairly divided in

their responses with a slight majority indicating that factors other than price were sometimes or never

significant.145 

Purchasers compared domestically-produced diamond sawblades and subject diamond sawblades

from China and Korea according to specified factors. Nearly all of the responding purchasers indicated

that domestically-produced diamond sawblades and imported finished diamond sawblades from China

and Korea were generally comparable with each other with respect to such factors. Domestically-
 146 CR/PR at Table II-8.

 147 Segments are either sintered, soldered/brazed, or laser welded onto the core. For sintered blades, a mixture of

diamonds and matrix bond of metal powders is baked onto the sawblade core. Diamond sawblades with segments

soldered/brazed to the core are blades that must be used in a “wet” cutting process, with a fluid lubricating and

cooling the blade during cutting. If the blade is used in a “dry” cutting process, heat generated by the cutting action

will melt the solder used to attach the segments to the core. Diamond sawblades that have segments laser welded to

the core are stronger, have few failure rates, and are more reliable than sintered sawblades. CR at I-11 - I-12, PR at

I-9; see also CR at II-45 - II-47, PR at II-45 (limited interchangeability among various types). Sintering is a common

means of attaching a continuous rim, as distinct from a segmented rim, to a core. Regarding the limits on

interchangeability between continuous rim and segmented sawblades, see CR at I-20, PR at I-13 & Korean

Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 33-35. Segmented blades can also be sintered. E.g., CR/PR at Table I-2 (nearly

20 percent of subject imports from China were sintered segmented blades; 0.2 percent of those from Korea and of

U.S. producers were sintered segmented blades). 

 148 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 149 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 150 CR at II-71-73, PR at II-35-37. 

 151 CR at II-73, PR at II-36.

21

produced diamond sawblades were considered inferior, or higher priced, over both subject diamond

sawblades from China and Korea.146 

The Commission also collected data on U.S. shipments of finished diamond sawblades by type of

blade and method of attachment, diameter size, and country of origin. The type of blade (continuous rim

or segmented) and the method of attachment of the rim or segments to the sawblade core are key

characteristic of finished diamond sawblades.147 In 2005, domestic and subject foreign producers of

diamond sawblades produced laser-welded, soldered, or sintered segment blades as well as sintered

continuous rim blades, though to varying degrees. In that year, the majority of domestically-produced

diamond sawblades and of the subject imports (84.6 percent and 62.6, percent respectively) were laserwelded segmented product. However, less than 1 percent of U.S. production was of sintered sawblades,

while a significant percentage of shipments of subject imports from China and Korea (31.4 and

27.6 percent, respectively) were sintered continuous rim diamond sawblades. Additionally, nearly

15 percent of U.S. production was of soldered/braised segmented blades, while less than 2 percent of

subject imports from China and 5 percent of subject imports from Korea were soldered/braised diamond

sawblades.148

As noted below, there are significant differences in the sizes of finished sawblades that were

shipped by the subject countries, on the one hand, and the domestic like product, on the other. However,

for purposes of assessing reasonable overlap of competition, we note that 83.6 percent of U.S. diamond

sawblade had a diameter greater than 12 inches, and 41.1 percent of subject imports from China and

45.2 percent of subject imports from Korea were of these diameters.149 While the difference between the

share of the domestic like product and of subject imports in this size range has important implications for

our assessment of causation, this intersection is sufficient to warrant cumulation. 

With respect to components, the majority of responding market participants reported that

domestically-produced and imported cores and segments from China and Korea are always

interchangeable.150

One market participant reported that differences in factors other than price were frequently

significant between domestic diamond sawblades cores and subject imports from China and Korea, while

another participant reported that these factors were never significant.151 With respect to segments, one

market participant reported that differences in factors other than price were frequently significant between
 152 CR at II-73, PR at II-36-37.

 153 The record indicates that there were no reported imports of diamond sawblade segments from China during the

period. CR at II-76 n. 159, PR at II-37.

 154 CR at II-76, PR at II-37.

 155 CR at V-4, PR at V-2.

 156 CR/PR at Tables V-1a-7c.

 157 Branded distributor purchase and resell under their own brand names. This includes tele-marketers that sell

under their brand names. Other distributors sell under the brand names of the U.S. producer or importer. 

Questionnaire, General Information, Instructions, and Definitions at 6. 

22

domestic diamond sawblades segments and subject imports from China and Korea, while another

participant reported that these factors were never significant.152

Purchasers were also requested to compare purchase factors for domestically-produced parts and

imported parts. Only one purchaser provided a response comparing cores from the United States with

cores from China and Korea, and only one other purchaser compared domestically-produced segments

with segments produced in Korea.153 With respect to cores, the responding purchaser indicated that

domestically-produced diamond sawblade cores were generally superior or comparable with those

imported from China and Korea. With respect to segments, the responding purchaser indicated that

domestically-produced segments were generally inferior to those imported from Korea with some

exceptions. These include the factors minimum quantity requirements, packaging, product consistency,

product quality equals the standard, and product quality exceeds the standard. For these factors, the

purchaser indicated that domestically-produced segments and Korean segments were comparable.154

Based on the evidence discussed above, it appears that domestically-produced diamond

sawblades and parts are at least somewhat fungible with subject imports. Though there are differences by

size and end-use markets, there is overlap among the subject imports and the domestic like product in the

12-inch to 14-inch diameter range. Thus, it appears that there is sufficient fungibility between and among

the domestic like product and subject diamond sawblades, cores, and segments from China and Korea.

2. Same Geographical Markets. 

The majority of responding U.S. producers and importers sell finished diamond sawblades on a

nationwide basis. Certain of the responding firms reported selling their products in various of eight

regions of the United States.155 This evidence of nationwide sales of the domestic like product and

subject imports from China and Korea, as well as sales by individual producers and importers in specific

regions, demonstrates a reasonable overlap of sales in the same geographic markets.

3. Simultaneous Presence.

The data indicate that subject imports from China, subject imports from Korea and the domestic

like product were simultaneously present in the U.S. market throughout the period examined. Pricing

data collected in the final phase of these investigations demonstrates that domestically-produced diamond

sawblades and imports of diamond sawblades from China and Korea were present in each quarter during

2003-05.156

4. Channels of Distribution. 

In the U.S. market, the majority of domestically-produced finished diamond sawblades are sold to

distributors, including branded distributors and other distributors (50.3 percent for 2003-05),157 or to end

users, including professional construction firms and all other end users (46.2 percent for 2003-05). The
 158 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 159 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 160 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 161 CR/PR at Table II-1.

23

third largest channel of distribution for domestic diamond sawblades, retailers, accounts for only 1.8

percent of U.S. producers’ commercial shipments over the period examined. This channel includes

national big-box retailers and other retailers. The final channel of distribution includes original

equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”), which account for 1.6 percent of U.S. producers’ commercial

shipments during the period examined.158

The majority of commercial shipments of subject diamond sawblades from China were sold to

distributors and OEMs, accounting for 64.4 percent and 18.1 percent, respectively, during the period

examined. The third largest channel of distribution for subject diamond sawblades from China is to end

users and accounted for 9.0 percent of U.S. commercial shipments from 2003 to 2005. The smallest

channel of distribution through which subject diamond sawblades from China are sold is to retailers,

accounting for 8.5 percent during the period.159

The majority of commercial shipments of subject diamond sawblades from Korea were sold to

distributors and OEMs, accounting for 60.4 percent and 27.9 percent, respectively, during the period

examined. The third largest channel of distribution for subject diamond sawblades from Korea is to end

users and accounts for 9.9 percent from 2003 to 2005. Direct shipments to retailers accounted for

1.9 percent of subject import shipments from Korea.160

These figures indicate that there is some overlap in the channels of distribution, as most

shipments of domestically-produced diamond sawblades and subject imports are sold through

“distributor,” including both branded distributors and other distributors. Within this broad distributor

channel the largest share of subject imports from China and Korea were sold to branded distributors (47.9

percent and 44.8 percent of their total shipment, respectively). However, the largest share of

domestically-produced diamond sawblades were sold to other distributors (36.1 percent), with branded

distributors accounting for 14.2 percent of U.S. shipments.161 Nonetheless, for purposes of our

cumulation analysis, we find that there is at least a reasonable overlap in channels of distribution between

and among the domestic like product and subject imports from China and Korea.

Again, we note that for purposes of cumulation a complete overlap of competition is not required. 

Based on our consideration of the four criteria identified above, on balance, we find that there is a

reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports from China, subject imports from

Korea, and the domestic like product, sufficient to justify cumulation. Thus, we determine to

cumulatively assess the volume and price effects of subject imports.

V. CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION AND THE BUSINESS CYCLE

We have taken the following conditions of competition into account when assessing whether the

domestic diamond sawblades industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of

the cumulated subject imports from China and Korea.
 162 E.g., Conference Tr. At 106 (Garrison, Palavochik). 

 163 CR at II-33, PR at II-20-21. Of the firms that cited increased U.S. demand, six U.S. producers, 23 U.S.

importers, and 27 U.S. purchasers provided useable comments; these comments are provided in the Staff Report on

pages II-34 to II-36.

 164 CR/PR at Table IV-9. To obtain complete coverage of subject imports, the Commission aggregated finished

diamond sawblades and parts. In so doing, commercial shipments of parts are counted twice. Double counting is

believed to be minimal, however, as commercial sales of cores and segments in the U.S. market accounted for less

than one-tenth *** percent of aggregate sales of finished diamond sawblades and parts. Calculated from CR/PR at

Tables C-2 and C-3. These data are presented in Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 165 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 166 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 167 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 168 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 169 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 170 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

24

A. Demand Conditions

Demand for diamond sawblades is derived from the demand for construction projects involving

the cutting of various aggregates like stone, concrete, asphalt, masonry, brick, block, marble granite, and

tile. Demand is considered somewhat seasonal, especially in the Northern portion of the United States

where seasonal weather patterns vary greatly over the year. As a result, the second and third quarters

each account for approximately 30 percent of yearly demand, and the first and fourth quarter of the year

each account for approximately 20 percent.162

A large majority of responding market participants indicated that demand increased or was

unchanged over the period of investigation.163 Apparent U.S. consumption of diamond sawblades and

parts collectively increased by value during the period examined, from $199.2 million in 2003 to $221.1

million in 2004, and to $231.2 million in 2005.164 Apparent U.S. consumption of finished diamond

sawblades, diamond sawblade cores, and diamond sawblade segments increased individually during the

period examined by quantity and value, with one exception: segments decreased somewhat by quantity

from 2003 to 2004, but increased slightly from 2004 to 2005.

Apparent U.S. consumption of finished diamond sawblades increased by quantity from

4.5 million units in 2003, to 6.1 million units in 2004, rising to 6.8 million units in 2005. By value,

apparent U.S. consumption of finished diamond sawblades increased from $184.7 million in 2003 to

$205.6 million in 2004, and rose to $214.9 million in 2005.165 Likewise, apparent U.S. consumption of

diamond sawblades cores increased by quantity from *** units in 2003, to *** units in 2004, rising to

*** units in 2005. By value, apparent U.S. consumption of diamond sawblade cores increased from $***

in 2003, to $*** in 2004, and rose to $*** in 2005.166 In contrast, apparent U.S. consumption of diamond

sawblade segments for the merchant market decreased from *** units in 2003, to *** units in 2004, then

rose slightly to *** units in 2005. By value, apparent U.S. consumption of diamond sawblade segments

in the merchant market increased from $*** in 2003, to $*** in 2004, and rose to $*** in 2005.167

Over the period of investigation, there were some differences in the trends in consumption of

finished diamond sawblades by blade diameter. Consumption of diamond sawblades with a diameter

between 7 inches and 10 inches experienced the fastest rate of growth between 2003 and 2005

(30.7 percent).168 Consumption of diamond sawblades with a diameter of 14 inches or less increased by

18.6 percent over the period of investigation.169 In contrast, consumption of diamond sawblades with a

diameter greater than 14 inches increased somewhat less; by 12.4 percent.170
 171 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 172 CR/PR at Table C-4A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 173 CR at I-1, PR at I-1, CR/PR Table III-1.

 174 CR/PR at Table III-1. ***, a non-petitioning firm, is the *** U.S. producer of diamond sawblade segments,

accounting for *** percent of reported U.S. production in 2005.

 175 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 176 CR/PR at Table C-1A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 177 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 178 CR/PR at Table C-3.

25

The trends in consumption also varied by channel of distribution. Consumption in the OEM and

the broader distributors channels increased the greatest amount, by 78.4 percent and 18.6 percent,

respectively. Consumption in the end-user channels, by contrast, registered only a slight increase,

2.8 percent, and consumption in the retailers channel decreased by 2.3 percent. Commercial shipments of

the domestic like product and subject imports through retail channels increased notwithstanding the

decline in consumption in the retail channel, however, as a result of a decline in nonsubject imports in

that channel.171

B. Supply Conditions

The U.S. diamond sawblade market is supplied by three sources: domestic producers, subject

imports from Korea and China, and nonsubject imports. Overall, U.S. producers account for the largest

share of the U.S. market, measured in value terms. The domestic industry (excluding three related

parties) supplied *** percent of aggregate market value in 2003, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in

2005.172

The Commission received questionnaire responses from sixteen U.S. producers of diamond

sawblades, nine of which were petitioners, that collectively accounted for approximately *** percent of

reported U.S. production of diamond sawblades, *** percent of reported U.S. production of diamond

sawblade segments, and *** percent of reported U.S. production of diamond sawblade cores in 2005.173

Diamond Products is the *** U.S. producer of finished diamond sawblades, accounting for *** percent of

reported U.S. production in 2005 and the *** largest producer of diamond sawblade segments, accounting

for *** percent of reported U.S. production in 2005.174 Western Saw is the *** U.S. producer of diamond

sawblade cores, accounting for *** percent of U.S. production in 2005.175

Domestic producers’ share of apparent consumption varied significantly when measured on a

quantity versus a value basis. For finished diamond sawblades, the domestic industry’s market share on a

quantity basis peaked in 2003 at *** percent and declined somewhat thereafter to *** percent. In

contrast, the domestic industry’s market share on a value basis was *** percent in 2003, declining to ***

percent in 2005.176 For diamond sawblade cores, the domestic industry’s market share fell from ***

percent by quantity in 2003 to *** percent in 2005, and declined from *** percent by value in 2003 to

*** percent in 2005.177 For diamond sawblade segments sold in the merchant market, the domestic

industry’s market share fluctuated from *** percent by quantity in 2003 to *** percent in 2005, and from

*** percent by value in 2003 to *** percent in 2005.178

Subject import market share on a quantity basis was 61.2 percent in 2003, increasing to

75.1 percent in 2005. On a value basis, subject import market share increased, albeit from a smaller base,
 179 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 180 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 181 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 182 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 183 CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-3.

 184 CR at III-5 n. 8, PR at III-4 n.8.

 185 CR at I-6, PR at I-4 - I-5.

 186 CR at II-2, PR at II-1.

 187 See CR at Appendix E.

 188 CR/PR at Table I-2.

26

from 27.7 percent in 2003 to 40.0 percent in 2005.179 For diamond sawblade cores, subject import market

shares increased from *** percent by quantity in 2003 to *** percent in 2005, and from *** percent by

value in 2003 to *** percent by value.180 For diamond sawblade segments sold in the merchant market,

subject import market shares declined from *** percent by quantity in 2003 to *** percent in 2005, and

from *** percent by value in 2003 to *** percent in 2005.181

In addition to subject imports from China and Korea, there were also nonsubject imports in the

U.S. market throughout the period of investigation. The market share of U.S. shipments of nonsubject

imports of finished diamond sawblades, measured by value, increased slightly from 10.3 percent in 2003

to 10.9 percent in 2004, then declined to 8.1 percent in 2005.182 Imports from nonsubject sources of

diamond sawblade cores exhibited a similar decline; however nonsubject imports of diamond sawblade

segments increased as a share of the U.S. market.183 We note that *** directly imports nonsubject

merchandise from *** and is related to ***, a sister firm in ***. *** is jointly owned by *** and was

created to provide products to *** at prices competitive with China and Korea.184

C. Other Considerations

Finished diamond sawblades come in a variety of sizes and types, ranging from under seven

inches to 70 inches in diameter, and different methods are used to join the cores and segments, including

laser-welding, soldering, and sintering.185 The material to be cut, such as concrete, brick, tile, granite, or

asphalt, largely determines the type of diamond sawblade needed with respect to diameter, method of

blade construction, and type of edge.186

Competition between the subject imports and the domestic like product is limited by differences

in the type of end user to which sales are made, the diameters of blades sold, and differences in blade type

and the manufacturing process. U.S. producers’ focus is on larger blades, a significant share of which are

sold directly to end users, including professional construction users that may require customization to

meet the clients’ needs. Imports of diamond sawblades from China and Korea are more focused on the

smaller diameter blades more commonly used in the OEM and do-it-yourself (“DIY”) or general

contractor applications.187 A significant portion of the subject imports are produced using a sintering

process to join component parts, whereas very little sintering is used by the U.S. industry. In addition,

continuous rim blades accounted for a greater share of subject imports than of the domestic like

product.188 

Based on the reported information in this investigation, where there is overlap in product type, the

diamond sawblades produced domestically and those imported from China and Korea appear to be

generally substitutable, but some reported product differentiation and other differences limit the degree of

substitution even in those instances. 

As noted in the overlap of competition discussion, supra, on a value basis, 37.3 percent of 

shipments of finished diamond sawblades from China, and 28.6 percent of U.S. shipments of the diamond
 189 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 190 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 191 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 192 CR/PR at Table II-3. See also CR at II-61, PR at II-29 (quality was identified more frequently than price as

the most important or second most important factor in purchasers decision). 

 193 CR/PR at Table II-1, Appendix E. The overlap of customers and end uses for diamond sawblades sold by

branded distributors versus those sold by other distributors appears limited based on differences in diamond

sawblade products and types of customers. U.S. importers of the Chinese and Korean diamond sawblades reported

selling 47.9 percent and 44.8 percent, respectively, of the value of their U.S. commercial shipments of these products

to branded distributors during 2003-05. These sales of the imported Chinese and Korean diamond sawblades

represented 74.4 percent and 74.2 percent, respectively, of the U.S. importers’ sales to all U.S. distributors during

this period. U.S. producers reported selling 36.1 percent of their U.S. commercial shipments of their U.S.-produced

diamond sawblades to other distributors. These sales represented 71.8 percent of the U.S. producers’ sales to all

U.S. distributors during this period. In addition, distributors were the single largest channel of distribution during

this period for U.S. producers and importers selling diamond sawblades in the size range of greater than 12" to 14" in

diameter, the size range showing the most overlap between U.S.-produced and subject imported diamond sawblades.

CR/PR at Table II-1. Differences were reported between sales of diamond sawblades reported by branded

distributors from those reported by other distributors. Ten branded distributors and 3 “other” distributors responded

in their questionnaire responses to a question requesting information on the types of diamond sawblades, their end

uses, and the types of customers to which they sell these products. U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section

(continued...)

27

sawblades from Korea, were less than or equal to 7-inches in diameter, whereas commercial shipments of

domestically-produced diamond sawblades in those diameters were only 3.9 percent of total U.S.

shipments over the period. U.S. shipments of domestically-produced diamond sawblades 20-inches or

larger were 28.7 percent of domestic producers’ shipments over the period but only 1.5 percent of U.S.

shipments of imports from China and only 3.3 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Korea. 

U.S. shipments of domestically-produced diamond sawblades greater than 14 inches but less than or equal

to 20-inches were 20.0 percent of domestic producers’ shipments over the period, but only 5.4 percent of

U.S. shipments of imports from China and only 10.8 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Korea. The greatest degree of size overlap with respect to finished sawblades appears to be in the 10-to12 inch diameters: 8.7 percent of shipments of the imports from China, 9.1 percent of shipments of

imports from Korea, and *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments on a value basis.189

Thus, based on value nearly half of U.S. shipments of U.S. diamond sawblades are in sizes

14 inches and larger, compared to 7 percent of subject imports from China and 14 percent of those from

Korea. This indicates that, based on size considerations alone, the majority of domestic shipments of

finished U.S. diamond sawblades were in sizes in which the subject imports had a relatively small

presence.190

On the other hand, nearly half of subject imports’ U.S. shipment value was of sizes 10 inches or

less – 50.2 percent China, 44.4 percent Korea – while only 6.3 percent of the U.S. product was shipped in

that size range. This indicates that a very substantial portion of subject imports were shipped in sizes in

which the domestic product’s presence was relatively small.191

It is important to note in this regard, as referenced in the discussion of price, infra, that purchasers

identified several non-price factors – availability, delivery time, product consistency, product quality

meeting standard, and reliable supply – more frequently than they did price as “very important” in their

purchasing decision.192 

We find that, even when subject imports and U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades are sold

in similar size ranges, the end users to which the blades are sold generally differ, with the majority of

subject diamond sawblade imports sold to branded distributors and the majority of the domesticallyproduced sawblades sold to other distributors.193 Accordingly, competition between the subject imports
 193 (...continued)

V-3. The branded distributors reported selling a larger range of smaller diameter products and a smaller range of

larger diameter products and a broader range of type of diamond sawblade (laser-welded segmented, sintered

continuous-rim, soldered/brazed, etc.) than the other distributors. In addition, the branded distributors sold to both

end users and to resellers, the latter, in turn, sell to end users, whereas the other distributors reported selling only to

end users. Differences among various suppliers regarding what constitutes professional construction end users of

diamond sawblades also suggest differences in the types of contractors that the responding branded and other

distributors refer to as their customers (U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-A-1 and IIIA-1, respectively, and shown in the CR at II-7 - II-8, PR at II-6).

 194 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a) and 1673b(a).

 195 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.”

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

 196 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 197 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 198 Id.

 199 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(e). She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by the

participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does not

automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the level

of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to consider all

evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis

superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding

a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the

evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

28

and the domestic like product is limited, largely by reason of differences in the mixes of blade diameters

and customers. 

VI. NO MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF THE SUBJECT IMPORTS

In an antidumping or countervailing duty investigation, the Commission determines whether an

industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under investigation.194 In

making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on

prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product,

but only in the context of U.S. production operations.195 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm

which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”196 In assessing whether there is a reasonable

indication that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all

relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.197 No single factor is

dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”198

Some subject producers did not provide questionnaire responses and/or participate in these

investigations. Accordingly, where appropriate, we have relied on the facts available in these reviews,

which consist primarily of the evidence collected by the Commission since the institution of these

reviews, and information submitted by parties in these reviews.199 

For the reasons discussed below, we find that the domestic industry producing diamond

sawblades is not materially injured by reason of subject imports from China and Korea.
 200 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 201 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 202 CR/PR at Tables IV-2 and IV-3. 

 203 As noted above, we determine to rely primarily on value measures as the best measure for the continuum of

products here.

 204 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 205 CR/PR at Tables IV-2 and IV-3. 

 206 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 207 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 208 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 209 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 210 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 211 CR/PR at Table C-3.

29

A. Volume of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(I) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”200

The volume of cumulated subject imports of finished diamond sawblades, measured by value,

increased over the period of investigation from $37.4 million in 2003 to $49.4 million in 2004, and then

to $64.2 million in 2005.201 Shipments of subject imports of finished diamond sawblades, measured by

value, increased from $51.3 million in 2003 to $71.4 million in 2004, then to $86.1 million in 2005, and

their market share by value rose from 27.7 percent in 2003 to 34.7 percent in 2004, then to 40.0 percent in

2004.202 203

 The volume of cumulated subject imports of finished diamond sawblades, measured by quantity,

increased over the period of investigation from 3.1 million units in 2003 to 4.5 million units in 2004, and

then to 6.0 million units in 2005.204 Shipments of subject imports, measured by quantity, increased from

2.7 million units in 2003 to 4.1 million units in 2004, then to 5.1 million units in 2005, and their market

share by quantity rose from 61.2 percent in 2003 to 67.6 percent in 2004, then to 75.1 percent in 2004.205

The volume of cumulated subject imports of diamond sawblade cores, measured by value,

increased over the period of investigation from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004, and then to $*** in

2005.206 Shipments of subject imports of diamond sawblade cores, measured by value, increased from

$*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004, then to $*** in 2005, and their market share by value rose from ***

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004, then to *** percent in 2004.207

 The volume of cumulated subject imports of diamond sawblade cores, measured by quantity,

increased over the period of investigation from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004, and then to ***

units in 2005.208 Shipments of subject imports, measured by quantity, increased from *** units in 2003 to

*** units in 2004, then to *** units in 2005, and their market share by quantity rose from *** percent in

2003 to *** percent in 2004, then to *** percent in 2004.209

The volume of cumulated subject imports of diamond sawblade segments, measured by value,

decreased over the period of investigation from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004 and 2005.210 Shipments of

subject imports of diamond sawblade segments, measured by value, decreased from $*** in 2003 to $***

in 2004, then rose slightly to $*** in 2005, and their market share by value fell from *** percent in 2003

to *** percent in 2004, then to *** percent in 2004.211

 The volume of cumulated subject imports of diamond sawblade segments, measured by quantity,

decreased over the period of investigation from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004, and then to ***
 212 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 213 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 214 CR/PR at Tables E-1 - E-6.

 215 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 216 CR/PR at Table II-3 (purchasers identified these factors more frequently than price as “very important” in their

purchasing decision); see also CR at II-61, PR at II-29 (quality was identified more frequently than price as the most

important or second important factor in purchasers decision). 

 217 Korean Respondents argue that the products the Commission used for the quarterly price comparisons were

not detailed enough to permit conclusions to be drawn regarding the significance of the extensive underselling

shown by the quarterly comparisons and that these data should be viewed with caution. Korean Respondents’

Posthearing Brief at A-52. Petitioners assert that the underselling shown by the quarterly price comparisons is

particularly significant because the list of products for which the Commission obtained pricing data is detailed and

was largely defined by the respondents themselves. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 42-45, Petitioners’ Posthearing

Brief at 10. We find that the product descriptions and price data gathered by the Commission is sufficiently detailed

and representative of the market.

30

units in 2005.212 Shipments of subject imports, measured by quantity, decreased from *** units in 2003

to *** units in 2004, then to *** units in 2005, and their market share by quantity fell from *** percent in

2003 to *** percent in 2004, then to *** percent in 2004.213

We find that, when considered in isolation, the increase in the volume of subject imports,

measured by value or quantity, was significant over the period of investigation, and that the 2005 volume,

measured by value or quantity, was also significant both in absolute terms and relative to domestic

consumption. However, as addressed supra, prevailing conditions of competition during the period of

investigation indicate this large and growing volume of subject imports was largely concentrated in size

ranges and customer types other than those served principally by the domestic industry.214 Thus,

competition between the subject imports and the domestic like product has been limited and, as addressed

in the price and impact discussions following, this significant volume has not had a significant impact on

the prices or performance of the domestic producers.

B. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling

by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.215

Purchasers identified a number of factors that are more important than price in their purchasing

decisions. These factors include availability, delivery time, product consistency, product quality meeting

standard, and reliable supply.216 Moreover, as discussed above with respect to prevailing conditions of

competition, subject imports have been largely concentrated in size ranges and customer types other than

those served principally by the domestic industry. Accordingly, while there may be a moderate degree of

substitutability where there is overlap between the sizes and customer types, such an overlap between

domestic sawblades and the subject imports has been limited overall.

The Commission requested quarterly selling price data on seven products for 2003 to 2005 with

respect to three purchaser categories: branded distributors, other distributors, and professional

construction firms. 217 The subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 301 of 360 possible
 218 CR at V-58-59, PR at V-37; CR/PR at Table V-9a.

 219 The Commission also requested quarterly pricing data for sales to big-box retailers but, because no U.S.

producers reported data for sales to that customer category, those data were not presented in the staff report. As

identified in the preliminary determination, the Commission obtained quarterly pricing data from purchasers in the

final phase of the investigation, which are presented in the staff report. However, there is no reason to consider

those data to be more dispositive indicators of price effects than the data upon which the Commission typically relies

in its analysis of price and on which it relied here. 

 220 See, e.g., Tables V-1a (4-inch to branded distributors), V-1b (4-inch to other distributors), V-1c (4-inch to

professional construction firms), V-2c (12-inch to professional construction firms).

 221 See, e.g., Tables V-5a (14-inch to branded distributors), V-5b (14-inch to other distributors), V-6b (18-inch to

other distributors), V-7a (24-inch to branded distributors), V-7b (24-inch to other distributors), V-7c (24-inch to

professional construction firms).

 222 See, e.g., Tables V-3b (14-inch to other distributors), V-4c (a different 14-inch to professional construction

firms).

 223 CR/PR at Tables V-32 and V-35 - V-45.

 224 There were considerable differences among quarterly weighted average prices of certain producers (petitioners

and supporters of the petition) on sales of products 2, 5, and 7 in certain channels. CR at V-53, n.73.; PR at V-17, n.

73. 

31

comparisons, at margins ranging from 1.2 percent to 83.6 percent.218 Accordingly, we find that there was

significant underselling of the domestic like product by the subject imports. 

However, the data do not show any significant effect of the underselling on prices for the

domestic product. The lack of significant price effects is consistent with our finding of limited

competition between subject imports and the domestic like product. Those data also indicate that nonprice factors identified as very important by purchasers – availability, delivery time, product consistency,

product quality meeting standard, and reliable supply – are limiting the significance of underselling.219

The limited impact that subject import prices have upon the domestic like product’s prices,

notwithstanding any observed underselling margins, is highlighted by those instances in which the price

for the domestic product was higher at the end of the period of investigation than at the beginning of the

period, notwithstanding that prices for the subject imports decreased or remained relatively constant over

the period.220 Similarly, for several comparisons, the price for the domestic product was lower at the end

than at the beginning of the period, as the subject import price for the product increased or remained

relatively constant over the period.221 Further showing the limited correlation between the prices of the

subject imports and prices for the domestic like product, the domestic product prices declined in certain

instances in which the subject imported product oversold the domestic like product or in which the

Korean product oversold the domestic product and the volumes from China were very small relative to

the U.S. producers’ and the Korean volumes.222 Moreover, in 12 of 17 combinations in which U.S.

producers’ prices trended downward over the period, the downward prices were accompanied by

increased volumes of the U.S. product over the period,223 suggesting price/volume tradeoffs that reflect a

broad range of factors unrelated to subject imports, including competition among domestic producers or

demand conditions affecting only certain end users.224

We also find no basis to attribute significantly to the subject imports any price depression

experienced by the domestic producers. Although there are instances in which the price for the U.S.

product declined while the subject imports undersold the U.S. product, the fact that domestic product

price declines or increases appear to be unrelated to the subject imports militate against finding that

subject imports’ underselling had a significant impact on U.S. producer prices.

Unit cost of goods sold (COGS) increased only slightly over the period of investigation, from

$*** in 2003 to $*** in 2005. Cost of goods sold as a percent of net sales increased from *** percent in
 225 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 226 Commissioner Koplan considers compliance with staff data requests to be a significant aid in his analysis of

the record. He notes that allegations of lost sales and lost revenue by petitioners are only relevant in a Commission 

determination to the extent that those allegations can be verified by Commission staff. The staff report states: “The

staff requested during the final phase of these investigations that the petitioners provide the requested lost revenue

and lost sales information for the general assertions that were cited in the petition, but the petitioners did not provide

any of the requested information.” CR at V-77, PR at V-46-47. The staff report also notes that, “[t]he staff had sent

a similar request during the preliminary phase of these investigations, but did not receive the information requested.” 

CR at V-77, n.87, PR at V-47, n.87. At the May 16, 2006, hearing, Commissioner Koplan reiterated to petitioners’

counsel that Commission staff needs verifiable information, such as the name of the customer, the date of the

allegation, the product, the alleged quantity in units, the alleged rejected U.S. price, total value in dollars, the alleged

accepted import price, total value in dollars, alleged country of origin, and alleged lost sales. Tr. at 67. Except as

noted at CR at V-76 through V-79, PR at V-46 - 47, the necessary specifics were not provided.

 227 Respondents argued that, because the number of petitioners’ allegations of lost sales and lost revenue that

could be confirmed was limited, the Commission should draw adverse inferences in that regard and, on that basis,

find that the subject imports did not have a significant price effects or impact on the domestic industry. Although we

decline to draw adverse inferences in this regard, we find the limited number of lost sale and revenue allegations that

could be confirmed as consistent with our finding of no material injury by reason of the subject imports.

32

2003 to *** percent in 2005.225 The modest rise in COGS/net sales does not indicate that prices are being

significantly suppressed relative to costs. Moreover, given the limited competition between subject

imports and the domestic like product, subject imports have not had a significant role in the limited price

suppression that may have occurred.

We also note that the Commission was able to confirm certain lost sales reported by the

petitioners, but those volumes are a very small share of domestic producers shipments during 2003 -

2005. Many of the petitioners’ lost sale and lost revenue allegations lacked the specificity necessary to

verify their accuracy and, despite Commission requests for further information, the allegations remained

unsupported.226 227

For the reasons stated above, we find that the subject imports did not significantly suppress or

depress domestic producers’ prices and they have not otherwise had significant adverse effects on

domestic producers’ prices. 
 228 In its final affirmative determination for subject diamond sawblades from China, Commerce calculated a

weighted-average dumping margin of 20.72 percent for 26 specific producer-export combinations, a rate of

34.19 percent for Bosun Tools Group, a rate of 48.50 percent for Hebei Jikai Industrial Group, a rate of 2.50 percent

for Advanced Technology & Materials Co., and a China wide rate of 164.09 percent. Advanced Technology &

Materials Co. includes the following firms: Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company as an exporter when

merchandise was produced by Beijing GangYan Diamond Products Company, and Yichang HXF Circular Saw

Industrial Co., Ltd as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial

Co., Ltd. 71 Fed. Reg. 29303, 29309 (May 22, 2006). In its final affirmative determination for subject diamond

sawblades from Korea, Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 12.76 percent for Ehwa,

6.43 percent for Hyosung, 26.55 for Shinhan, and 16.39 percent for all other producers and/or exporters of diamond

sawblades from Korea. 71 Fed. Reg. 29310, 29312 (May 22, 2006). 

 229 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851, 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” Id. at 885.).

 230 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 (Feb. 1999) at 25 n.148.

 231 Among the various data on the record, and considering the exclusion of producers from the industry, we have

relied largely on the following sources of trade and financial data: for finished diamond sawblades, data are

presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views (derived from CR/PR at table C-1A less data reported

in ***’s producer questionnaire); for diamond sawblade cores, table C-2 (as none of the excluded related parties

produce cores); for diamond sawblade segments, table C-3 (as the excluded related parties account for less than ***

percent of U.S. commercial production of segments); and for diamond sawblades and parts, data are presented in

Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views (derived from CR/PR at table C-4A less data reported in ***’s

producer questionnaire).

 232 CR/PR at Table C-1A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

33

C. Impact of the Subject Imports228

In examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.229 These factors include

output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits,

cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, and research and development. No single factor is

dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions

of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”230 

Indicators of the condition of the domestic industry are largely positive, most have changed only

modestly over the period of investigation, and the industry has remained profitable over the period. The

domestic industry’s capacity to produce finished diamond sawblades231 increased throughout the period

examined, rising from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004 (an increase of *** percent) and to *** units

in 2005 (an increase of *** percent), resulting in a net increase of *** percent. Output (production)

increased from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004 (an increase of *** percent) but then decreased to

*** units in 2005 (a decline of *** percent), resulting in an overall increase of *** percent. Even as the

domestic industry added new capacity, capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2003 to ***

percent in 2004 (an increase of *** percentage point). As the domestic industry continued to add

capacity, in 2005, capacity utilization decreased to *** percent in 2005 (a decline of *** percentage

points), resulting in a net decrease in capacity utilization of only *** percentage points.232

The domestic industry’s capacity to produce diamond sawblade cores increased throughout the

period examined, rising from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004 (an increase of *** percent) and to

*** units in 2005 (a further increase of *** percent), resulting in a net increase of *** percent. Core
 233 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 234 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 235 CR/PR at Table C-4A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 236 CR/PR at Table C-1A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 237 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 238 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 239 CR/PR at Table C-1A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

34

output, however, decreased from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004 (a decline of *** percent), and

decreased further to *** units in 2005 (a decline of *** percent), resulting in a net decrease of ***

percent. Utilization of capacity for production of cores, therefore, decreased throughout the period

examined, falling from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004 (a decline of *** percentage points)

and then to *** percent in 2005 (a decline of *** percentage points), resulting in a net decrease of ***

percentage points.233

U.S. production for commercial sale (primarily export) of diamond sawblade segments was very

limited. Allocated capacity decreased from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004 (a decline of ***

percent), then increased to *** units in 2005 (an increase of *** percent), resulting in a net decrease of

*** percent. Output decreased from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004 (a decline of *** percent) and

then increased to *** units in 2005 (an increase of *** percent), resulting in a net increase of *** percent. 

Capacity utilization, therefore fell from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004 (a decline of ***

percentage point) and then increased to *** percent in 2005 (an increase of *** percentage points),

resulting in a net decrease of *** percentage points.234 As noted supra, the commercial market for

segments accounts for a very small fraction of total segment production.

The domestic industry’s aggregate net sales decreased slightly over the period examined,

declining from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004 (a decline of *** percent) and then to $*** in 2005 (a

decline of *** percent), resulting in an overall decrease of only *** percent. The domestic industry’s

aggregate U.S. shipment values fell by *** percent in 2004 and by *** percent in 2005, resulting in a net

decrease of *** percent over the period. The domestic industry’s aggregate market share fell from ***

percent of market value in 2003 to *** percent in 2004 and to *** percent in 2005.235

During the period 2003-05, inventories of finished diamond sawblades increased both absolutely

and relative to the quantity of total shipments, rising from *** units in 2003 (*** percent of total

shipments) to *** units in 2004 (*** percent of total sales) to *** units in 2005 (*** percent of total

shipments).236 However, there were no reported end-of-period inventories of cores,237 however, and

inventories of segments for commercial sale fell from *** in 2003 to *** in 2005, a net decline of ***

percent, and remained equivalent to *** percent or less of total shipments throughout the period

examined.238

Overall employment decreased slightly during the period for which data were collected. The

number of production and related workers (PRWs) producing finished diamond sawblades fell from ***

in 2003 to *** in 2004, before partially recovering to *** in 2005, resulting in a net decrease of ***

workers, or *** percent of the workforce. PRW hours worked fell from *** in 2003 to *** in 2004 and

to *** in 2005, a net decrease of *** percent. Productivity, however, increased by *** percent between

2003 and 2005.239 The number of PRWs producing cores fell from *** in 2003 to *** in 2004 and 2005,

resulting in a net decrease of *** workers, or *** percent of the workforce producing cores. PRW hours

worked in production of cores fell from *** in 2003 to *** in 2004 and 2005, a net decrease of ***
 240 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 241 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 242 CR/PR at Table C-1A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 243 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 244 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 245 CR/PR at Table C-4A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 246 CR/PR at Table C-4A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 247 CR/PR at Table VI-13 less data reported in *** producer questionnaires.

 248 CR/PR at Table VI-10 less data reported in *** producer questionnaires.

 249 CR/PR at Table C-4A less data reported in ***’s producer questionnaire. These data are presented in

Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 250 CR/PR at Table VI-12 less data reported in *** producer questionnaires.

35

percent. Productivity in core production fell during the period examined by *** percent.240 The number

of PRWs producing segments for commercial shipment remained stable at *** during the period, while

PRW hours worked in segment production fell from *** in 2003 and 2004 to *** in 2005, resulting in a

net decrease of *** percent. Productivity in segment production, however, increased by *** percent

between 2003 and 2005.241

Wages paid to PRWs increased during the period for which data were collected. PRWs

producing finished diamond sawblades earned $*** in 2003, $*** in 2004, and $*** in 2005, resulting in

a net increase of *** percent.242 PRWs producing cores earned $*** in 2003, $*** in 2004, and $*** in

2005, resulting in a net increase of *** percent.243 PRWs producing segments earned $*** in 2003, $***

in 2004, and $*** in 2005, resulting in a net increase of *** percent.244

As noted above, the domestic industry generated operating profits at high levels throughout the

period examined. Aggregate operating income fell from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004 (a decrease of ***

percent), then fell to $*** in 2005 (a decrease of *** percent), resulting in a net decrease of ***

percent.245 Aggregate operating income margins fell from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004 and

to *** percent in 2005, resulting in a net decrease of ***.246 Aggregate return on assets declined from

*** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004 and to *** percent in 2005.247 Thus, even after these modest

declines, the domestic industry remained highly profitable.

Aggregate cash flow fluctuated over the period examined, increasing from $*** in 2003 to $***

in 2004, then decreasing to *** in 2005, slightly above the 2003 level.248 These cash flow numbers are

particularly significant in light of the size of the domestic industry.

The industry has not been prevented from making significant capital expenditures over the period

examined. Aggregate capital expenditures increased during the period from $*** in 2003 to $*** in

2004, before declining to $*** in 2005, resulting in a net increase of *** percent.249 Research and

development expenditures also increased over the period examined from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004

and to $*** in 2005.250

For the reasons stated above, in light of the prevailing conditions of competition in the U.S.

market, we find the volume of subject imports to be large and growing significantly, but largely

concentrated in size ranges and customer types other than those served principally by the domestic

industry. Moreover, as discussed above, certain non-price factors are very important to purchasers. 

Accordingly, competition between the subject imports and the domestic like product has been limited

over the period. Further, we do not find that the subject imports had any significant adverse effects on
 251 The petitioners contend that domestic producers were pushed out of the retail, do-it-yourself market. 

Respondents claim that they in fact created that market and that subject imports should be viewed in light of their

creating a market channel that did not previously exist. We note that domestic producers were not significantly

present in that market during the period of investigation. 

 252 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H).

 253 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b) and 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 254 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 255 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). Factor VII is inapplicable in these investigations because they do not involve

imports of a raw agricultural product. Factor I is not applicable because there is no countervailable subsidy in these

investigations.

36

domestic prices during the period examined. Finally, indicators of the industry’s condition, while

somewhat mixed, are generally favorable.

Thus, not only is the industry in a relatively positive condition, but the prevailing conditions of

competition we have described above indicate that the adverse effects of the subject imports are not

significant. As noted above, we find that the record indicates no causal nexus between the subject

imports and the condition of the domestic industry.

For these reasons, we find that subject imports are not having a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. Accordingly, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially

injured by reason of subject imports from China and Korea.251

V. NO THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF LESS THAN FAIR VALUE

IMPORTS

A. Cumulation for Purposes of Analyzing Threat of Material Injury

Cumulation for threat analysis is treated in Section 771(7)(H) of the Act.252 This provision leaves

to the Commission’s discretion the cumulation of imports in analyzing threat of material injury. Based on

an evaluation of the relevant criteria as well as our analysis supporting cumulation in the context of

assessing present material injury, we exercise our discretion to cumulate imports from China and Korea

for purposes of assessing threat of material injury.

B. Analysis of the Statutory Factors

Section 771(7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S. industry is

threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further dumped or

subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an

order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”253 The Commission may not make such a

determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as a

whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued.254 In making our

determination, we have considered all statutory factors that are relevant to this investigation,255 including

the rate of the increase in the volume and market penetration of subject imports, unused production

capacity in the subject countries, whether subject imports are entering at prices that are likely to have

significant depressing or suppressing effects on domestic prices, the inventories of the subject

merchandise, the potential for product-shifting, and the actual and potential negative effects of subject

imports on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry.

For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the domestic industry is not threatened with

material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports. We note at the outset that, in light of strong
 256 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-3; II-1; E-1 and E-6.

 257 Although shipments of subject imports from China and Korea to the end-user channel clearly increased in

absolute terms over the period of investigation, commercial shipments of subject imports from China to end users as

a share of total commercial shipments of the subject imports from China declined from 14.5 percent in 2003 to 8.2

percent in 2004, and then to 7.1 percent in 2005. Commercial shipments of subject imports from Korea to end users

as a share of total commercial shipments of the subject imports from Korea declined from 10.3 percent in 2003 to

10.0 percent in 2004, and then to 9.5 percent in 2005. CR/PR at Table I-3. Commercial shipments of subject

imports to end users were only 8.6 percent of total shipments of subject imports in 2005. Id.

 258 E.g., Tr. at 226-227 (Kim), 237 (Steiner).

 259 Chinese producers’ finished diamond sawblades capacity utilization rates were *** percent in 2003, ***

percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2005. Chinese producers’ capacity utilization rates are projected to be ***

percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. Korean producers’ finished diamond sawblades capacity utilization rates

were *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2005. Korean producers’ capacity utilization

rates are projected to be *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. CR and PR at Tables VII-2 and VII-7.

 260 The petitioners contended that the Commission should draw adverse inference in considering the subject

producers data because they contend that fewer than all subject producers responded to the Commission’s foreign

producers questionnaire. The questionnaire responses in any investigation often reflect less than complete coverage

of the domestic industry, foreign producers, importers, and purchasers. In the absence of complete information, the

Commission relies on the facts available, which, in the absence of a reason to believe that those data are not

representative, is often the data actually on the record. We do not draw adverse inferences here.

 261 CR/PR at Tables VII-2, VII-10.

37

overall demand for diamond sawblades in the U.S. market; the limited overlap in direct competition with

imports generally, and subject imports in particular, in the sale of smaller- and larger-diameter diamond

sawblades; and the domestic industry’s ongoing sturdy financial performance between 2003 and 2005, we

do not consider the U.S. industry producing diamond sawblades to be vulnerable.

We acknowledge that subject imports have increased in volume and U.S. market share during the

period of investigation. However, as explained above, we find that these increases have come in size

ranges and types of diamond sawblades that are not the focus of the domestic industry. We further note

that, even where subject imports and the domestic like product overlap in terms of size range and type of

blade, they tend to be sold through different channels of distribution.256

Based on the record in these investigations, we find that it is unlikely that the product mix of

subject imports, or types of customers to which subject imports are sold will change significantly in the

foreseeable future. The petitioners suggest that a threat of material injury to the domestic industry is

indicated by increases over the period of investigation of subject imports that are larger diameter

sawblades sold to end users, which include professional construction firms. The data show, however, that

shipments of subject imports to the end-user channel, of some relevance with respect to the portion of the

market agreed by the parties to be professional users, actually declined as a percentage of total subject

import shipments over the period, and remain only a small portion of import shipments.257 The

respondent interested parties have explained, moreover, that they have tried to serve the higher end of the

professional user market with imports in the past but, in light of the many non-price factors discussed

above, including product availability, quality, and delivery time, they have not been able to do so; they

observe that that market may be meaningfully served only by production in the United States.258 This is

further evidence that an increase in subject imports to injurious levels in the channels in which U.S.

shipments are focused is not likely.

Chinese and Korean producers have limited unused finished diamond sawblade production

capacity. The industries in China and Korea currently operate at high capacity utilization rates, in excess

of 90 percent.259 260 Furthermore, Chinese and Korean producers’ finished diamond sawblades

inventories/total shipments ratios were small, less than 6 percent during the investigation period.261 U.S.

importers’ inventories of the subject imports increased over the period commensurate with increased
 262 CR/PR at Table VII-11.

 263 CR II-23, II-29; see also CR/PR at Tables VII-1 and VII-6. 

 264 CR/PR at Tables VII-2 - VII-4, VII-7 - VII-9.

 265 Chinese shipments of finished diamond sawblades in the 12 inch and under diameter size range accounted for

*** percent of Chinese total shipments in 2003, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2005. CR and PR at Table

VII-5.

 266 Korean shipments of finished diamond sawblades in the 12 inch and under diameter size range accounted for

*** percent of Korean total shipments in 2003, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2005. CR and PR at Table

VII-10.

 267 CR/PR at Tables VII-5, VII-10.

 268 Projected increases in subject producers capacity for finished diamond sawblades is greatest in China. 

Capacity for finished diamond sawblades production in China is projected to increase by *** million units from

2005 to 2007, or by *** percent. CR/PR at Table VII-2. *** percent of the projected expansion is accounted for by

***, which will produce continuous rim blades, which are produced in only minimal quantities in the United States. 

CR/PR at Table VII-2. Moreover, petitioners’ argument that subject imports are increasingly larger diameter

sawblades, is true only with respect to imports from Korea. There is no basis for concluding that additional

production in China or increased exports of the subject merchandise from China to the United States will result in

any significant heightening of head-to-head competition in the markets for larger diameter diamond sawblades. 

Korean production is projected to increase only by *** units from 2005 to 2007, or by *** percent. CR/PR at Table

VII-7.

 269 Spending on transportation, road, and office construction increased by 10.6 percent during 2003-2005. Korean

Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 40.

 270 Spending on home improvements increased by 20.4 percent. Korean Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 40.

38

shipments of the subject imports, such that importers inventories as a ratio to U.S. shipments of the

subject imports in 2005 was one percentage point below the ratio in 2003.262

In addition, only four of 14 Chinese producers and no Korean producers reported producing other

products on the equipment used to produce diamond sawblades, suggesting limited potential for product

shifting to increase exports to the United States.263 These factors indicate that Chinese and Korean

producers have only a limited ability to increase production of finished diamond sawblades with their

current capacity.

We acknowledge, however, that both the Chinese and Korean diamond sawblades industries

project increases in production capacity in 2006-07 and an increase in their cumulated exports to the

United States.264 However, we do not find it likely that any increases in Chinese and Korean production

capacity will lead to a significant shift in their available product range in the reasonably foreseeable

future. During the period of the investigation, Chinese total shipments (world-wide) of finished diamond

sawblades were consistently concentrated in the smaller-diameter size ranges.265 With a somewhat lesser

concentration, Korean producers’ total shipments were also primarily of the smaller-diameter blade size

ranges during that period.266 Over the period of investigation, Chinese and Korean total shipment shares

by diameter size were relatively static, showing little evidence of a move up the value chain.267 268

We further note that, although the U.S. construction industry as a whole experienced significant

growth over the period of investigation, that growth was not experience equally by all sectors within the

industry. Specifically, spending for non-residential construction (e.g., road, infrastructure, and office

buildings), where larger diameter diamond sawblades are concentrated, was relatively flat over the period

of investigation.269 In contrast, the residential and home improvement sectors of the U.S. construction

industry, which generally require smaller-diameter and general-use blades, showed significantly greater

spending growth during this period.270 In light of these demand patterns, we find it likely that a

substantial share of any production capacity expansions by Chinese and Korean producers will be
 271 Demand is growing in other major world markets, suggesting that the U.S. market is not likely be the

disproportionate destination for any additional production in China and Korea. Korean Respondents' Prehearing

Brief at 71-72.

39

directed towards production of the smaller-diameter diamond sawblades that have been experiencing the

greatest increases in demand.271

For all of these reasons, we find that it is likely that any capacity expansions by Chinese and

Korean producers in the reasonable foreseeable future will continue to focus on production of the smallerdiameter finished diamond sawblades, as opposed to production of the larger-diameter finished diamond

sawblades that are the focus of the domestic industry.

As outlined in our discussion of material injury, we find the current volume of subject imports to

be non-injurious. Notwithstanding the significant increase in the volume of subject imports over the

period of investigation, and significant underselling by the subject imports, the subject imports have not

depressed or suppressed domestic prices for diamond sawblades. The domestic industry has remained

very profitable, and production, shipments, sales, and employment have not been significantly negatively

impacted. The evidence does not indicate that subject imports are likely to depress or suppress domestic

producers’ prices in the imminent future as there is no indication that subject imports, even at somewhat

increased volumes, would imminently depart from their current concentration in size ranges and customer

types other than those served principally by the domestic industry. Therefore, we do not find it likely that

subject imports will have adverse effects on domestic producers’ prices in the imminent future.

For the reasons stated above, we find nothing on the record to indicate a likely substantial causal

nexus between the likely volume of subject imports and the condition of the domestic industry in the

imminent future. 

VI. CONCLUSION

In light of these findings, we find that subject imports are not likely to have a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry in the imminent future. Accordingly, we determine that an industry in

the United States is not threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China and

Korea.

For the reasons stated above, we find that the domestic industry producing diamond sawblades is

not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China and

Korea sold at less than fair value.
 
 1

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H).

 2

 See Kern-Liebers v. United States, 19 CIT 87, 103–104 (1995).

 3

 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission's determination not to

cumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniform

and import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United

States, 728 F. Supp. 730, 741–742 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v.

United States, 704 F. Supp. 1068, 1072 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988).

 4

 See Certain Structural Steel Beams from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-853 (Final), USITC Pub. 3308 (June 2000). 

41

DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN SHARA L. ARANOFF AND

COMMISSIONER JENNIFER A. HILLMAN

CONCERNING THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY

Based on the record in these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (LTFV) imports of diamond sawblades

and parts from China and Korea.

Although we do not find that the domestic industry is currently materially injured by reason of

the subject imports from China and Korea, we find that import trends, together with declining prices and

the weakening condition of the domestic industry, will result in material injury by reason of subject

imports unless antidumping orders are issued. During the period of investigation (POI) (2003–2005),

subject imports increased significantly, both on an absolute basis and relative to domestic consumption. 

Also during the POI, subject imports undersold the domestic like product by significant margins, and

prices for the domestic like product declined. That the domestic industry as a whole has not yet suffered

material injury is attributable to the industry’s success during the period in reducing expenses and

improving productivity. However, most financial indicators trended downward during the POI, and

operational improvements are reportedly leveling off, indicating that domestic producers will not be able

to maintain their current levels of profitability in the face of LTFV imports, which we expect will

continue to increase from their already significant levels. Accordingly, we determine that, absent

issuance of antidumping duty orders, further subject imports are imminent and material injury by reason

of subject imports will occur. We explain our findings below.

I. CUMULATION

Cumulation for purposes of a threat of material injury determination is treated in section

771(7)(H) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).1

 This provision permits the Commission, to

the extent practicable, to assess cumulatively the volume and effect of imports for purposes of conducting

its threat analysis.2

 The limitations concerning what imports are eligible for cumulation and the

exceptions to cumulation are applicable to cumulation for threat as well as to cumulation for present

material injury. In addition, the Commission also considers whether the imports are increasing at similar

rates in the same markets, whether the imports have similar margins of underselling, and the probability

that imports will enter the United States at prices that would have a depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices of that merchandise.3

 Furthermore, likely different conditions of competition among the

subject imports also may be relevant to this issue.4

For the reasons stated in our determination on cumulation for purposes of our current material

injury analysis, we exercise our discretion to cumulate imports from China and Korea for purposes of our

analysis of threat of material injury.
 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b).

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 9

 Id.

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 11 Id.

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). These factors include any existing unused production capacity or imminent,

substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country; a significant rate of increase of the volume or

market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports;

whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or

suppressing effect on the domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports; inventories of the

subject merchandise; the potential for product shifting; and the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production effects of the domestic industry. Id. Statutory threat factors I and VII are inapplicable

because these investigations do not involve a countervailable subsidy or raw and processed agricultural products.

42

II. THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF CUMULATED LESS-THAN-FAIRVALUE IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND KOREA

A. Legal Standard for Current Material Injury and Threat of Material Injury

In the final phase of antidumping duty investigations, the Commission determines whether an

industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under investigation.5

 In

making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of imports, their effect on prices

for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but

only in the context of U.S. production operations.6

 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which

is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”7

 In assessing whether the domestic industry is

materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the

state of the industry in the United States.8

 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are

considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to

the affected industry.”9

Section 771(7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S. industry is

threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further dumped or

subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an

order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”10 The Commission may not make such a

determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition” and considers the threat factors “as a

whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued.11 In making our

determinations, we considered all statutory factors that are relevant to these investigations.12

B. Conditions of Competition

Several conditions of competition are pertinent to our analysis in the final phase of this

investigation. We discuss these conditions below.
 13 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 14 Respondents assert that professional-use blades are often 20 inches in diameter or greater. Conference

transcript (Conference tr.) at 142 (Lewis).

 15 CR at I-16 n.39, PR at I-10 n.39.

 16 Hearing transcript (Hearing tr.) at 293 (Kim). During the hearing, respondents defined the professional-use

market by the horsepower of the saw, stating that “we've chosen 35 horsepower as kind of the line in the sand that

depicts the professional user.” Hearing tr. at 296 (Nixon).

 17 Hearing tr. at 355 (Park).

 18 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 19 General-use blades run on one-quarter to one-half horsepower equipment, while professional-use blades run on

high-horsepower (e.g., 65 horsepower) equipment. Professional-use blades are therefore subjected to tolerance

testing to ensure the elimination of imperfections that would otherwise render the blade too dangerous to use. CR at

I-17, PR at I-11.

 20 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

43

1. Physical characteristics, end uses, and channels of distribution

Finished diamond sawblades are used for cutting solid surfaces, such as cement, asphalt, marble,

tile, brick, and stone. These sawblades are produced in a wide range of sizes, typically ranging from 4

inches to 70 inches in diameter, with diamond sawblades in the 10-inch to 14-inch size range considered

“midrange” blades.13 In general, finished diamond sawblades greater than 14 inches in diameter are used

by contractors involved in nonresidential construction projects, such as road construction and repair and

other large construction projects. By comparison, finished diamond sawblades with diameters of 14

inches or less are typically used by general contractors and “do-it-yourself” (DIY) end users who are

more often engaged in smaller-scale, residential construction projects. Although respondents contend that

the U.S. diamond sawblade market is “highly segmented” into “professional-use” and “general-use”

categories, with larger-diameter blades often being used by the professional-use segment,14 petitioners

argue that there are no clear dividing lines.15 Moreover, respondents failed to define the professional-use

market clearly, arguing during the preliminary phase investigations that size was an important factor in

establishing a dividing line between “professional” and “general” use and then arguing during the final

phase investigations that the dividing line was based on the horsepower of the saw in which the blade was

used.16 We note that there is at least some overlap in usage in the midrange-diameter category, with some

12-inch to 14-inch blades used both by “professional” contractors and DIY end users.17 Further, we note

that size is only one of the factors that determines a blade’s end use. 

Other physical attributes of the finished diamond sawblade in addition to size further dictate its

ultimate end use. As noted in the background section above, diamond sawblade cores may be slotted to

produce a notched, or “segmented,” rim or smooth to produce a “continuous” rim. Segmented rims allow

the blades to flex under pressure, cool the blade while cutting, and facilitate the removal of cut material

from the blade.18 As such, segmented blades are generally used in the nonresidential construction market,

where blades may be subjected to higher pressures than in the general contractor/DIY market. Although

finished diamond sawblades for the general contractor/DIY market may be segmented or continuous rim,

they are used on lower-horsepower equipment and therefore are not designed to withstand the highintensity usage to which nonresidential construction blades may be subjected.19

Other considerations that may determine end uses for finished diamond sawblades include the

physical characteristics of the diamond section and the method used for joining the diamond segments to

the core of the blade.20 With respect to the physical characteristics of the diamond section, the strength

and concentration of diamonds within the bonding matrix may differ among blades, with more diamonds

in a stronger bond matrix resulting in better quality cuts. With respect to the method of attachment,
 21 CR at I-11–I-12, PR at I-9.

 22 In the absence of the cooling lubricant, the heat generated in the cutting process would melt the solder,

potentially destroying the blade and creating a safety hazard. CR at I-12, I-23, PR at I-9, I-15.

 23 CR at I-11, PR at I-9.

 24 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 25 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 26 Branded distributors primarily sell finished diamond sawblades with their own label, affixed by the supplier or

by the distributor. CR at II-1 n.1, PR at II-1 n.1.

 27 Other distributors primarily sell finished diamond sawblades with the label of their suppliers. Id.

 28 CR/PR at Table E-1, Table E-6. During the POI, U.S. producers’ shipments of finished diamond sawblades to

branded distributors accounted for 14.2 percent of all shipments by value of U.S. product, while their shipments to

other distributors accounted for 36.1 percent of all shipments. By contrast, U.S. importers’ shipments of finished

diamond sawblades from China to branded distributors accounted for 47.9 percent of all shipments by value of

Chinese product, while their shipments to other distributors accounted for 16.6 percent of all shipments; and U.S.

importers’ shipments of finished diamond sawblades from Korea to branded distributors accounted for 44.8 percent

of all shipments by value of Korean product, while their shipments to other distributors accounted for 15.5 percent of

all shipments. Id.

 29 ***.

 30 Notably, the one distributor that responded to the Commission's questionnaires as a branded distributor and as

an other distributor explicitly stated this in its questionnaire response. *** questionnaire response (directing the

reader to their answer under “branded distributors” in their answer under “other distributors”).

44

diamond segments are either baked onto the sawblade core in a process known as “sintering,”

soldered/brazed onto the sawblade’s core, or laser welded to the sawblade’s core.21 For sawblades that

were made using the soldered/brazed process of diamond attachment, a fluid must be used while cutting

to lubricate and cool the blade.22 Finished diamond sawblades that are laser welded are stronger, with

fewer failure rates.23 In 2005 the overwhelming majority of U.S. commercial shipments both of U.S.-

produced diamond sawblades and cumulated subject imports were laser-welded, segmented blades.24

With respect to distribution channels, the majority of the domestic like product and cumulated

subject imports was sold to distributors during the POI. During the POI, sales to distributors represented

50.3 percent of U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades, 64.4 percent of finished diamond sawblades

from China, and 60.4 percent of finished diamond sawblades from Korea.25 Within the distributor

category during the POI, the record draws distinctions between the “branded” distributor channel,26 where

subject imports were mostly sold, and the “other” distributor channel,27 where the domestic like product

was mostly sold.28 Yet, questionnaire responses by a number of diamond sawblades purchasers, both

branded distributors and other distributors, indicate that blades in these size ranges sold through each of

these channels ultimately go to the same customers, primarily general contractors.29 30 Although

respondents are correct in their assertion that the immediate channels of distribution into which domestic

and imported diamond sawblades are sold are frequently different, the products ultimately are purchased

and used largely by the same end users.

In addition to distributors, finished diamond sawblades are also commercially shipped to national

“big-box” retail stores (e.g., Home Depot and Lowes) and other retail outlets, original equipment

manufacturers (OEMs), professional construction firms, and other end users. After distributors, the

second-largest distribution channel for U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades during the POI was

the end user channel, and particularly the professional construction firm category, which alone

represented 44.1 percent of U.S. shipments by value. The second-largest distribution channel for subject
 31 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 32 Id.

 33 Hearing tr. at 355 (Park).

 34 CR at II-30, PR at II-18–II-19.

 35 Id.

 36 These data are presented in Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 37 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 38 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 39 Only 3 of 12 responding U.S. producers, 12 of 26 responding U.S. importers, and 14 of 44 responding U.S.

purchasers expect future U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades to increase. The balance of respondents in

each of these respondent categories expects demand to remain the same or decline. CR at II-37, PR at II-21–II-22.

 40 Derived from CR/PR at Table II-2.

45

imports was the OEM channel.31 This channel represented 18.1 percent and 27.9 percent of U.S.

commercial shipments of imports from China and Korea, respectively.32

Based on the discussion above, although the physical characteristics of a diamond sawblade have

some bearing on its ultimate end use, we do not find that the record supports respondents’ argument that

the U.S. diamond sawblades market is highly segmented. As previously discussed, there appears to be at

least some overlap in usage in the mid-range size category, with respondents admitting that some 12-inch

to 14-inch blades are used both by professional contractors and DIY end users.33 Additionally, the record

demonstrates that the domestic like product and subject imports competed against each other during the

POI, as they were each present in every size category and both were sold for use in a wide range of

applications.

2. Demand considerations

Demand for finished diamond sawblades is derived from activity in the residential construction

market, including the home improvement market, and the nonresidential construction market, principally

transportation, road, and office construction.34 In some regions of the United States, demand for finished

diamond sawblades is seasonal, especially in northern states where unfavorable weather conditions during

winter months prohibit certain construction projects. Accordingly, one producer reports that the peak

season for finished diamond sawblades is May through November.35

The record in these final phase investigations indicates that, by value, apparent U.S. consumption

for finished diamond sawblades and parts increased significantly during the POI. Such consumption

increased from $199.2 million in 2003 to $231.2 million in 2005, or by 16.1 percent.36 Similarly,

apparent U.S. consumption of finished diamond sawblades increased during the POI, both on a quantity

basis and on a value basis. By quantity, apparent U.S. consumption of finished diamond sawblades

increased from 4.464 million units in 2003 to 6.754 million units in 2005, representing an increase of 51.3

percent.37 On a value basis, apparent U.S. consumption of finished diamond sawblades increased from

$184.7 million in 2003 to $214.9 in 2005, or by 16.4 percent.38 The majority of U.S. producers,

importers, and purchasers expect U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades to remain the same or

decrease in the future.39

The increase in apparent U.S. diamond sawblade consumption was largely driven by increased

activity in the construction sector, where the combined value of residential and nonresidential

construction increased by 21.4 percent during the POI.40 Within the construction sector, the value of

residential construction increased at a faster rate than nonresidential construction, with the former

increasing at an average annual rate of 9.7 percent during the POI, compared with an average annual
 41 CR at II-33, PR at II-20.

 42 CR/PR at Table II-2.

 43 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 44 Id.

 45 CR at II-9, PR at II-6.

 46 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 47 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 48 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views. In these investigations, because

of the wide range of sizes and values of diamond sawblades, we find that market share is most accurately measured

on the basis of value rather than quantity. 

 49 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 50 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

46

increase of 5.2 percent for nonresidential construction.41 In addition, the number of U.S. big-box

hardware stores, identified by respondents as a proxy for measuring DIY/general-purpose demand for

diamond sawblades, increased from 2,590 stores to 3,253 stores during the POI, or by 25.6 percent.42

3. Supply considerations

The U.S. diamond sawblade market is supplied by U.S. producers, subject imports from China

and Korea, and imports from countries not subject to these investigations. On a value basis, U.S.

producers accounted for the largest share of apparent U.S. consumption, although their share declined

steadily throughout the POI. With respect to individual domestic producers, Diamond Products and

Husqvarna accounted for the bulk of U.S. finished diamond sawblade production quantity, representing

*** percent and *** percent of production, respectively.43 These two firms also accounted for the bulk of

U.S. segment production, representing *** percent and *** percent of such production, respectively. In

addition to these firms, there are a number of smaller domestic producers of finished diamond sawblades

and segments. Western is the largest domestic producer of sawblade cores, accounting for *** percent of

domestic production.44

The record indicates that U.S. producers had the ability to increase shipments of finished diamond

sawblades during the POI in response to changes in demand. Such responsiveness was largely

attributable to excess capacity, available inventories, and efficient production capabilities.45 Indeed, U.S.

producers’ total reported capacity utilization in the production of finished diamond sawblades declined

during the POI, from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005.46 At the same time, U.S. producers’

ending inventory quantities increased from *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2005.47

Despite their ability to increase shipments in response to rising demand, non-excluded U.S.

producers’ share of domestic consumption value declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in

2004 and to *** percent in 2005.48 At the same time, the value of imports of finished diamond sawblades

from China and Korea as a share of domestic consumption increased. The share of such imports from

China increased from 7.5 percent in 2003 to 11.0 percent in 2004 and to 14.3 percent in 2005, and the

share of such imports from Korea increased from 20.3 percent in 2003 to 23.7 percent in 2004 and to 25.7

percent in 2005.49 The value of nonsubject imports as a share of domestic consumption increased slightly

from 10.3 percent in 2003 to 10.9 percent in 2004 before declining to 8.1 percent in 2005.50

4. Other considerations: substitutability

The parties disagree as to the degree of substitutability between U.S.-produced diamond

sawblades and those imported from China and Korea. Petitioners contend that domestic and subject
 51 Petitioners prehearing brief at 25.

 52 Respondents prehearing brief at 19. 

 53 Derived from CR/PR at Table I-1.

 54 Id.

 55 Finished diamond sawblades in the 14-inch and smaller size range represented 51.3 percent of the value of

U.S. producers’ commercial shipments, 93.1 percent of the value of U.S. commercial shipments of imports from

China, and 85.9 percent of the value of U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Korea during the POI. Derived

from CR/PR at Table II-1.

 56 Respondents’ posthearing brief at 21.

 57 Derived from CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 58 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, Exhibit 1 at 5.

47

producers of diamond sawblades compete directly, with U.S., Chinese, Korean, and nonsubject producers

manufacturing and selling essentially the same product and competing directly within each size

category.51 In contrast, respondents argue that the U.S. diamond sawblades market is highly segmented. 

They maintain that there are thousands of sizes and product variations and that there are significant

differences between the types of products that U.S. producers sell and those that are imported from China

and Korea. Further, they note differences in channels of distribution and end-user categories into which

subject and domestic diamond sawblades are sold.52

As noted above, the size and physical characteristics of a finished diamond sawblade have some

bearing on its ultimate end use, with larger-diameter blades typically used for large-scale, nonresidential

construction projects and smaller-diameter blades typically used in the general contractor/DIY market. It

is clear from the record that U.S. and subject imports of finished diamond sawblades were present in each

size category throughout the POI. There is significant overlap in the 10-inch to 14-inch size range,

which, in 2005, accounted for 43.4 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments by value and

44.4 percent of U.S. commercial shipments by value of cumulated subject imports.53 However, U.S.-

produced diamond sawblades were present in smaller-diameter ranges as well, accounting for 6.1 percent

of U.S. commercial shipments by value of finished diamond sawblades of sizes of 10 inches in diameter

or less.54 By value, a majority or near-majority of U.S. commercial shipments of U.S.-, Chinese-, and

Korean-produced finished diamond sawblades were concentrated in the 14-inch and smaller size range

throughout the POI.55

Respondents contend that the customization requirements, servicing needs, and quick turnaround

times in the professional-use market make it impossible to serve this market from abroad.56 However, the

record in these final phase investigations demonstrates otherwise. Subject imports of finished diamond

sawblades from China and Korea were present in and increased their share of the larger-diameter size

ranges throughout the POI. In the 14-inch to 20-inch and larger size ranges, subject imports of finished

diamond sawblades from China and Korea as a share of U.S. commercial shipments by value increased

from 3.5 percent in 2003 to 4.1 percent in 2004 and to 5.0 percent in 2003.57 The trend indicates that

subject import producers have the ability to produce and sell the larger-diameter finished diamond

sawblades that are typically used in the nonresidential construction market. Moreover, a number of

respondent firms reported shipping finished diamond sawblades via air freight, with one company stating

that it ships its products via air freight on the same day it receives the order.58

In addition to size, other considerations, such as whether the blade has a segmented or continuous

rim and the way the diamonds are joined with the core, determine the ultimate end use of the blade. As

discussed above, segmented, laser-welded blades are better suited for use in high-pressure-use

environments, such as those in the nonresidential construction market, because they are easier to cool and

have fewer failure rates. As noted, the record demonstrates that, by value in 2005, the overwhelming

majority of U.S. commercial shipments of U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades and those imported
 59 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 60 CR at II-67, PR at II-34; CR/PR at Table II-5.

 61 Specifically, of 14 responding producers, 10 indicated that U.S.- and Chinese-produced finished diamond

sawblades were always or frequently interchangeable, and 11 indicated that U.S.- and Korean-produced finished

diamond sawblades were always or frequently interchangeable. Of 33 responding importers, 18 believed U.S.- and

Chinese-produced finished diamond sawblades were always or frequently interchangeable, and 19 indicated that

U.S.- and Korean-produced finished diamond sawblades were always or frequently interchangeable. Of 32

responding purchasers, 18 indicated that U.S.- and Chinese-produced finished diamond sawblades were always or

frequently interchangeable, and 23 indicated that U.S.- and Korean-produced finished diamond sawblades were

always or frequently interchangeable. CR/PR at Table II-5.

 62 Petitioners’ prehearing brief at 39–42.

 63 Id. at 37.

48

from China and Korea were laser-welded, segmented blades. In 2005, such blades accounted for 84.6

percent of U.S. commercial shipments of U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades and 62.6 percent of

U.S. commercial shipment values of cumulated subject imports.59

Finally, the majority of U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser responses to the Commission’s

questionnaire indicated that U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades and those imported from China

and Korea were always or frequently interchangeable.60 61

While it is true that subject imports are more concentrated in the smaller size blades and domestic

production is more concentrated in blades greater than 14 inches, the record leaves no doubt that there is

considerable overlap in the mid-range sizes and that U.S.-, Chinese-, and Korean-produced finished

diamond sawblades compete with each other in the same end-user markets and across the range of

product sizes.

C. Industry Condition and Threat of Material Injury

In this section of these Views, we discuss how the domestic industry is threatened with material

injury by reason of subject imports. In so doing, we first analyze data during the POI, including volume

and price trends. We then examine the current condition of the domestic industry in order to understand

the impact that subject import volumes have had and why the domestic industry is threatened with

material injury in the imminent future.

1. General Industry Trends

a. Volume

There is no dispute among parties that subject import volume increased, both on an absolute basis

and relative to domestic consumption during the POI. Petitioners argue that the increase in subject

imports, whether measured on a value or quantity basis, directly affected domestic producers, as their

market share declined and subject imports’ market share increased.62 In contrast, respondents contend

that the increases in subject imports did not come at the expense of U.S. producers because competition

between them is attenuated.63 However, as discussed in the Conditions of Competition section above, we

find that subject imports do indeed compete with the domestic like product, as demonstrated by the

presence of U.S.-, Chinese-, and Korean-produced finished diamond sawblades across the range of sizes

and within each end-user market.

During the POI, the volume of subject imports increased significantly, both on an absolute basis

and relative to domestic consumption. The value of U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports of

finished diamond sawblades increased by 67.9 percent during the period, from $51.3 million in 2003 to
 64 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 65 These data are presented in Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 66 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 67 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 68 These data are presented in Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 69 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 70 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 71 These data are presented in Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 72 For a list and description of the products, as well as the coverage of the data, see CR at V-18–V-24, PR at

V-13–V-17.

 73 See CR/PR at Tables V-1–V-7. Although the Korean respondents argue that the products the Commission

used for quarterly price comparisons were not detailed enough to permit conclusions to be drawn regarding the

significance of underselling shown by the quarterly comparisons and that these data should be viewed with caution

(Korean respondents’ posthearing brief at A-52), we find that the product descriptions and price data used by the

(continued...)

49

$86.1 million in 2005.64 By quantity, U.S. shipments of subject imports of finished diamond sawblades

increased by 85.7 percent during the period, from 2.7 million units in 2003 to 5.1 million units in 2005. 

With respect to finished diamond sawblades and parts, the value of U.S. shipments of subject imports

increased by 66.2 percent, from $54.4 million in 2003 to $90.4 million in 2005.65

As discussed above, as a share of apparent U.S. consumption, both the value and quantity of

cumulated subject imports of finished diamond sawblades increased throughout the POI. By value, the

share of such imports increased from 27.7 percent in 2003 to 34.7 percent in 2004 and to 40.0 percent in

2005.66 On a quantity basis, cumulated imports of finished diamond sawblades from subject countries

increased from 61.2 percent in 2003 to 67.6 percent in 2004 and to 75.1 percent in 2005.67 Cumulated

imports of finished diamond sawblades and parts from subject countries followed a similar trend, with

their share of apparent U.S. consumption value increasing from 27.3 percent in 2003 to 33.9 percent in

2004 and to 39.1 percent in 2005.68

As the market share of subject imports increased, the market share of non-excluded U.S.

producers declined during the period. With respect to finished diamond sawblades, non-excluded U.S.

producers’ share of domestic consumption by value declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in

2004 and to *** percent in 2005.69 On a quantity basis, U.S. producers share of domestic consumption

declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004 and to *** percent in 2005.70 Similarly, with

respect to finished diamond sawblades and parts, non-excluded U.S. producers’ share of domestic

consumption value declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004 and to *** percent in

2005.71

Accordingly, we find that the volume of subject imports increased significantly, both on an

absolute basis and relative to domestic consumption, during the POI.

b. Price

During the final phase investigation, the Commission collected pricing data for seven finished

diamond sawblade products produced in the United States and imported from China and Korea.72 Despite

the significant increase in apparent U.S. consumption during the POI, a time in which we would expect to

see rising prices, the data clearly demonstrate significant underselling by subject imports and declining

prices for the domestic like product across the range of price comparisons. 

Underselling with respect to Chinese imports was evident in 108 of 111 price comparisons and in

189 of 245 price comparisons with respect to imports from Korea.73 For imports from China, the greatest
 73 (...continued)

Commission is sufficiently detailed and representative of the market. 

 74 CR at V-59, PR at V-37.

 75 CR/PR at Table V-3a, Table V-3c.

 76 Id.

 77 CR at V-59, PR at V-37.

 78 CR/PR at Table V-5a.

 79 Id.

 80 Id.

 81 Respondents’ prehearing brief at 43–44.

 82 CR at I-18, PR at I-12.

 83 Hearing tr. at 155 (Jedick).

 84 Id.

50

concentration of underselling occurred in products 3 (14-inch-diameter laser-welded blades for dry

cutting) and 5 (14-inch diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete) with respect to sales

to branded distributors and sales to professional construction firms.74 For product 3, with respect to sales

to branded distributors, underselling margins remained relatively steady between 61.4 percent and 63.7

percent during the quarters in which comparisons were possible; and with respect to sales to professional

construction firms, underselling margins ranged from 53.0 percent to 74.5 percent.75 For product 5, with

respect to branded distributors, underselling margins ranged from 37.3 percent to 64.7 percent; and with

respect to professional construction firms, underselling margins ranged from 48.4 percent to 65.5 percent

during quarters for which pricing data were available.76 With respect to imports from Korea, the greatest

concentration of underselling occurred in product 5, for shipments to branded distributors.77 For that

product, Korea’s underselling margins were generally steady, ranging between 61.9 percent and 71.9

percent throughout the POI.78

Petitioners assert that the margins of underselling during the POI were “staggering,” often

exceeding 50 percent, occasionally nearing 80 percent.79 Petitioners argue that the persistent underselling

led to declining prices for U.S. producers.80 Respondents maintain that the Commission’s pricing data

confirm that competition between subject imports and the domestic like product is attenuated. They argue

that the huge price differences between the subject product and the domestic like product are indicative of

the lack of competition between the two. They assert that, given the large margins of underselling, if

there really were competition U.S. prices should have come down more than they did.81 

As noted above, we find that subject imports compete with the domestic like product across the

range of blade sizes and within the same end-use markets. Accordingly, we reject respondents’ argument

that we should discount the significance of the underselling data.

We note that within each blade category, blades may be marketed and sold based on grade, which

further defines a blade’s performance.82 In an effort to compete with lower-priced subject imports, U.S.

producers have been forced to introduce lower-cost, lower-value products, which, for example, may

contain fewer diamonds.83 Such products are typically found in the smaller-size (4-inch to 18-inch)

categories and are designed to compete with subject imports on price.84

Thus, despite rising demand in both segments of the construction industry and a significant

increase in apparent U.S. consumption during the POI, underselling by subject imports caused prices for

the domestic like product to decline by significant margins. For sales to branded and other distributors,
 85 CR/PR at Table V-8a, Table V-8b. The exception was product 1 (4-inch laser-welded blades), where the

quantity sold was relatively little. Domestic producers commercial shipments of finished diamond sawblades less

than 7 inches in diameter averaged 3.9 percent of total commercial shipments during the POI. Derived from CR/PR

at Table I-1.

 86 CR/PR at Table V-8a. 

 87 CR/PR at Table V-8b.

 88 CR/PR at Table V-8c.

 89 *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2005. These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s

views.

 90 *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2005. These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s

views.

 91 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 92 *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2005. These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s

views.

 93 $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2005. These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 94 *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2005. These data are presented in Appendix 1 at

the end of the Commission’s views.

 95 Apparent U.S. consumption as measured by value increased from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2005. These data

are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 96 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

51

the U.S. price declined in all but one of the product categories.85 For branded distributors, price declines

ranged between 7.6 percent for product 3 and 18.4 percent for product 6 (18-inch-diameter laser-welded

blades for wet cutting).86 For other distributors, price declines ranged from 6.1 percent for product 6 to

30.7 percent for product 3.87 With respect to professional construction firms, the price of the U.S. product

declined in five of seven comparisons, with price declines ranging from 9.7 percent for product 7 (24-

inch-diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting) to 26 percent for product 6.88

Accordingly, we find that subject imports undersold the domestic like product by significant

margins during the POI and that such underselling contributed significantly to price depression.

2. Condition of the Domestic Industry

The domestic industry’s finished diamond sawblades production capacity increased *** percent

during the POI,89 but its production did not kept pace, increasing only *** percent,90 as reflected in a

capacity utilization decline from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005.91 Consistent with the rising

demand but falling prices, the domestic industry’s net sales of finished diamond sawblades increased by

quantity over the POI by *** percent,92 but the unit value of those sales decreased *** percent.93 In large

part, these trends have contributed to operating income to net sales ratios during the POI that, although

positive, trend steadily downward94 during a time when apparent U.S. apparent consumption measured by

value increased more than 16 percent.95

The domestic industry as a whole has remained profitable during the POI, despite declining prices

and shipment values, but only because some of the larger domestic producers were able to take aggressive

cost-cutting measures. However, the producers of cores and a number of the smaller producers of finished

blades were not able to continue to operate profitably in the wake of declining prices. Several indicators

are representative of the factors contributing to the healthy but declining operating income ratios of the

overall domestic industry during the POI. As a result of cost cutting, the selling, general, and

administrative (SG&A) expenses for the domestic industry decreased by *** percent over the POI,96

driven primarily by SG&A declines attributable to *** but reflective of SG&A expense reductions made
 97 *** reported declining operating income ratios; *** did not. CR/PR at Table VI-3. We note that data for ***

were taken from the preliminary phase of these investigations and that *** SG&A expenses are estimated. CR/PR at

VI-1 n.1, Table VI-3 n.2.

 98 *** reported declining operating income ratios; *** did not. CR/PR at Table VI-3.

 99 *** reported declining operating income margins; *** did not. Id. We note that data for *** were taken from

the preliminary phase of these investigations and that *** SG&A expenses are estimated. CR/PR at VI-1 n.1, Table

VI-3 n.2.

 100 The operating income ratios of *** decline from positive (profits) to negative (losses) during the period of

investigation; the operating income ratios of *** declined deeper into losses during the period of investigation. 

CR/PR at Table VI-3.

 101 Hearing tr. at 155–156 (Jedick, O’Day).

 102 Id. at 33 (Brakeman), 145 (O’Day, Baron).

 103 Over the POI, the operating income ratio of ***. CR/PR at Table VI-3, Table VI-8.

 104 In light of the significant share of diamond sawblades and parts accounted for by finished diamond sawblades,

we have focused our analysis on data for finished diamond sawblades.

 105 CR/PR at Table VII-2, Table VII-7.

52

by smaller companies as well. Of the 12 companies that reported SG&A expenses during the POI, eight

reported declines (including ***); of those eight, five also reported declining operating income ratios.97

Of the four companies that reported SG&A expense increases during the POI, three also reported

declining operating income ratios.98 Moreover, although ***, seven of the 10 smaller diamond sawblades

producers had operating income ratios that dropped during the POI,99 and five of those seven reported

losses in 2005 or during the entire POI.100

Another cost-cutting measure adopted by the domestic industry involved the introduction of new

value-priced products to compete with subject imports. U.S. producers have been forced to develop and

market lower-value products in most size ranges, with a new product every few years.101 In addition,

several U.S. diamond sawblade producers, including one of the largest, turned to increasing automation

and productivity as a method of reducing costs, which proved to be successful but at the expense of some

producers’ production workers.102 The U.S. producers that took these cost-cutting steps to remain

competitive with subject imports managed to mitigate the operating income ratio decline over the POI of

the industry as a whole, but ***,103 indicating that the effectiveness of the cost-cutting measures was

waning.

3. Threat Analysis104

Although the domestic industry as a whole has managed to avert significant adverse impacts to

date despite the rising volume and far lower prices of subject imports, we find that the industry has

exhausted its options for averting such effects in the future and is likely to suffer imminent material injury

for the following reasons.

We find that the volume of subject imports is likely to rise at the same rate as demonstrated

during the POI or at an accelerated rate because of the subject producers’ export orientation and need for

new markets, due in part to their increasing production capacity, especially with regard to the Chinese

producers. Cumulated subject finished diamond sawblades production capacity, production, and overall

export orientation has increased over the POI, while the Chinese and Korean producers’ share of sales

into their respective home markets has declined and the capacity utilization rate for the Chinese producers

has decreased.105 In addition, although subject producer projections must be analyzed with some caution
 106 CR/PR at Table VII-2. The staff report details the expansion plans of four Chinese companies, ***, in

2006–2007. CR at VII-2, PR at VII-1.

 107 Hearing tr. at 346–347 (Kim {Ehwa} and Nixon {Saint Gobain}).

 108 In comparing the domestic and Chinese products, the Chinese product undersold the domestic product in 112

of 115 quarterly comparisons with margins of 17.8–86.4 percent. In comparing the domestic and Korean products,

the Korean product undersold the domestic product in 189 of 245 quarterly comparisons with margins of 1.2–80.8

percent. CR at V-58 n.77, PR at V-33 n.77; CR/PR at Table V-9c.

 109 CR/PR at Table E-6. For the 14-inch to 20-inch size range, cumulated subject imports increased by value

from 2003 to 2005 in the OEM channel of distribution as well. Id.

 110 Respondents’ posthearing brief at 21. The parties disagree on the percentage of sales in the largest sizeranges of diamond sawblades that require immediate or overnight producer delivery and/or onsite, post-sale

customer service. The petitioners allege that the percentage is fairly small, while the respondents allege that the

percentage is quite sizeable. See hearing tr. at 87 (Garrison), 219 (Kim), 228 (Steiner), 232 (Nixon). The record in

these investigations supports the conclusion that some but not all sales to professional concrete contractors may

require customization, quick turnaround, or onsite customer service. We find, however, that subject producers can

provide overnight shipping from production facilities in subject countries and onsite customer service through their

U.S. sales affiliates. We also find that some distributors provide the desired customer service rather than the

manufacturers. See Petitioners’ posthearing brief, Exhibit 1 at 5. Therefore, we reject respondents’ argument that

they cannot sell subject product in the higher-value larger sizes to professional concrete contractors. See hearing tr.

at 338–339 (Steiner).

53

in general, Chinese producers are projecting an increase in finished diamond sawblades production

capacity of *** percent by 2007.106

Cumulated subject imports have increased by 67.9 percent by value over the POI, taking market

share from domestic producers and nonsubject imports alike but more heavily from the domestic industry. 

There is no indication that these imports trends will slow or reverse themselves, as representatives of

Korean producers and of a domestic producer that opposed the petition indicated at the hearing that the

U.S. diamond sawblades market is higher priced than the European market, which is the other major

diamond sawblades market. Therefore, the U.S. market is likely to remain the most attractive market for

subject imports.107 Subject producers have been selling and apparently can continue to sell into the

higher-priced U.S. market to their benefit at prices detrimental to the domestic industry, as evidenced by

the persistent and in many cases large underselling margins.108

Contrary to respondents’ arguments, no segment of the market, as defined by size or end-user

category, is sheltered from competition with subject imports. Cumulated subject import sales are

increasing in each size range, including the larger sizes in which professional customers that require postsale customer service dominate, and through many different channels of distribution. With regard to the

largest size ranges examined in these investigations, cumulated subject imports by value in the 14-inch to

20-inch size range increased from $4.7 million in 2003 to $7.7 million in 2005, and in the larger than 20-

inch size range, they increased from $1.5 million in 2003 to $2.4 million in 2005. Furthermore,

cumulated subject imports in each of these size ranges increased by value during the POI in all major

distribution channels: branded distributors, other distributors, retailers, and professional construction.109

Cumulated subject import increases in these sizes ranges during the POI contradict respondents’

contentions that they are largely precluded from selling foreign-made diamond sawblades to these

customers because of the post-sale customer service that purchasers require and that foreign producers are

unable to provide.110

We further find that subject imports are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on prices for domestic diamond sawblades. Underselling is likely to

continue, as the record reflects that U.S. prices declined broadly across the seven products and three

distribution channels for which pricing information was sought during the POI, falling in 72 of 84
 111 CR/PR at Tables V-1a – V-7c. First-quarter 2003 to first-quarter 2005 and similar quarterly comparisons

control for seasonal fluctuations in the pricing data, as petitioners and respondents agreed that diamond sawblades

can be a seasonal-sale item. See CR at II-30, PR at II-19.

 112 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 113 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 114 CR/PR at Table VII-11.

 115 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 116 These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 117 Although a majority of the R&D expenses were attributable to ***, four other domestic producers reported

some R&D expenses during the period of investigation. Similarly, *** of the domestic industry’s capital

expenditures were made by ***, but 11 other domestic producers had some level of capital expenditures during the

period of investigation. CR/PR at Table VI-12, Table VI-13.

 118 Conference tr. at 17 (Burnett: “{W}e continued to grow, even though imports of Chinese and Korean products

were increasing. As we grew, we were doing everything in our power to keep costs down, including building our

own manufacturing equipment, setting up our own computing systems, and refining our processes. ... As we worked

to reduce our labor costs, indirect labor, indirect overhead, including administrative costs, and to reduce our material

costs, we have had to keep reducing our prices to maintain our customer base.”); id. at 23 (Brakeman: “Even though

we were able to decrease manufacturing, overhead, and material costs on goods we produced, we have had to

continually reduce the selling price to get orders.”); id. at 37 (Palovochik: “Hoffman will continue to cut costs while

maintaining our commitment through our employees and customers. Having said this, though, it’s becoming more

and more difficult as prices continue to erode.”); hearing tr. at 100 (Kaplan: The domestic producers “have expressed

that any types of cost savings, some of which were dramatic for individual firms, are now over. Everything is

squeezed out.”); id. at 137 (Jedick: “{O}ver the last six to eight years, we have lost several percentage points of

operating income and consistently through the period of the investigation, we’ve lost operating income maybe not as

dramatically as previously. But, we have made a lot of cost improvements and cost controls that came into effect

(continued...)

54

quarter-to-quarter comparisons.111 No evidence has been offered to indicate that this underselling will

cease.

Growing inventory levels, both of domestic and subject product, will continue to put pressure on

U.S. market prices as well. Over the POI, non-excluded U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of finished

diamond sawblades by quantity declined *** percent, and U.S. shipments of finished diamond sawblades

by unit value and, therefore, overall value declined by *** percent and *** percent, respectively.112

Because production capacity and production each increased during the POI and export shipments by

value declined *** percent, this unsold finished diamond sawblades production moved into inventory,

which increased from *** percent of total shipments in 2003 to *** percent in 2005.113 Similarly, subject

import inventories almost doubled by quantity over the POI and declined from 42.9 percent of U.S.

shipments of imports in 2003 to 41.9 percent in 2005114 only because overall subject imports during the

POI increased by 85.7 percent, as noted earlier.115

Net sales by value declined *** percent, and the cost of goods sold as a percentage of sales rose

*** percentage points, while operating income ratios fell *** percentage points. It would be reasonable

to expect operating income ratios to have declined more steeply over the POI in the face of falling prices

and rising material costs. A number of domestic producers, however, have proven successful at reducing

their costs of production through increased productivity, reductions in employment and investment in

upgraded equipment. This effort by the domestic industry is reflected in a *** percent decrease in their

gross SG&A expenses and a *** percent decrease in their unit SG&A expenses,116 as well as a ***

percent increase in capital expenditures and a *** percent increase in R&D expenses.117

Nevertheless, various domestic industry representatives testified that improvements that they

have made to their operations and cuts in costs of production they have enacted have reached a limit

beyond which no further improvements can be expected.118 As we have already determined that
 118 (...continued)

over the last few years, so that could probably be part of the reason.”); id. at 105 (O’Day: “We have eliminated our

engineering department; we have eliminated two metallurgical positions; and we have cut our production staff. ...

We have reached the place where there is very little more that we can cut.”).

 119 These data are presented in Appendix 2 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 120 The number of production workers over the POI declined from *** to ***, or by *** percent, but the number

of hours worked declined from *** to ***, or by *** percent. Total wages paid during in the POI increased from

$*** to $***, or by *** percent, but that rise was largely because of an increase in hourly wages from $*** to $***

(*** percent). These data are presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the Commission’s views.

 121 Aggregate return on assets declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005. CR/PR at Table VI-13

adjusted for *** data.

55

reductions by the domestic industry in their cost of production slowed the rate of decline in the industry’s

operating income ratio over the POI, now that these reductions are nearing the exhaustion point, the

domestic industry can no longer rely on them to forestall the material injury that would inevitably follow,

even if subject import levels remained at their current volume and price levels. Inasmuch as it is likely

that subject import levels will continue rising immediately following the POI, absent antidumping relief,

the increased volumes of imports will cause prices to decline further. These import increases and price

declines will accelerate the loss of operating income, leading to adverse overall consequences for the

condition of the domestic industry and material injury.

Finally, we find that subject imports will have negative effects on the development and

production efforts of the domestic industry in the imminent future. For finished diamond sawblades and

parts, the ratio of cost of goods sold to net sales rose from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005,119

indicating that the domestic industry cannot raise its prices to recoup its increasing raw material costs,

despite rising demand throughout all segments of the market. As we noted earlier, the domestic industry

has reached its limit regarding the production improvements and cost-cutting measures that have thus far

allowed the domestic industry to maintain positive but declining levels of profitability. Because it will be

unable to rely on further cost savings, the declining operating income ratios are likely to become losses

under the present trends, with the expected negative effects on employment120 and returns on assets.121

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing diamond sawblades

and parts is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China and Korea sold at

less than fair value.
 
57

Appendix table 1

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from domestic

industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit)

Item 2003 2004 2005

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,464,298 6,065,126 6,753,839

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 3 firms (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Excluded 3 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 9.1 8.0

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 32.3 41.1

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 35.3 34.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2 67.6 75.1

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 23.3 16.9

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.8 90.9 92.0

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,719 205,592 214,939

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 3 firms (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Excluded 3 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.9 54.3 51.9

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 11.0 14.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.7 25.7

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 34.7 40.0

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 10.9 8.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 45.7 48.1

Table continued on next page.
58

Appendix table 1

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from domestic

industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit)

Item 2003 2004 2005

U.S. producers' (2):

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $***

 Productivity (units/1,000 hours) . . . . *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $***

Table continued on next page.
59

Appendix table 1

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from domestic

industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit)

Item 2003 2004 2005

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . $*** $*** $***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . $*** $*** $***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

(1) “Reported data are in percent.

(2) Excluding data for ***.

(3) ***.

Note.– Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar

year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the

unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
60

Appendix table 2

Finished diamond sawblades and parts: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from

domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Value=1,000 dollars)

Item 2003 2004 2005

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,173 221,100 231,200

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 3 firms (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Excluded 3 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 55.1 52.6

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 10.3 13.6

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.6 25.5

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 33.9 39.1

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 11.0 8.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 44.9 47.4

Value of U.S. shipments

 of imports from:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,048 22,716 31,436

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,341 52,205 58,970

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,389 74,921 90,406

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,852 24,276 19,127

 All sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,240 99,197 109,534

Value of U.S. producers' (2):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
61

Appendix table 2

Finished diamond sawblades and parts: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms

from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Value=1,000 dollars)

Item 2003 2004 2005

 Net sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

Value of U.S. producers' (3):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** ***

(1) “Reported data are in percent.

(2) Excluding data for ***.

(3) ***.

Note.– Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar

year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the

unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 
 1

 Blackhawk Diamond ceased operations in January 2006.

 2

 The petition covered finished diamond sawblades as well as diamond sawblade cores and segments. A

complete description of the imported products subject to these investigations, as well as information regarding tariff

treatment, is presented in The Subject Merchandise section of this part of the report.

 3 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

 4

 A list of witnesses that appeared at the hearing is presented in app. B.

 5 Professional Electric Cutting and Sanding/Grinding Tools from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-571, USITC

Publication 2658, July 1992. The order was revoked by Commerce in 2000.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed on May 3, 2005, by the Diamond Sawblade

Manufacturers’ Coalition (“DSMC”) and its individual members: Blackhawk Diamond, Inc., Fullerton,

CA;1

 Diamond B, Inc., Santa Fe Springs, CA; Diamond Products, Elyria, OH; Dixie Diamond, Lilburn,

GA; Hoffman Diamond, Punxsutawney, PA; Hyde Manufacturing, Southbridge, MA; Sanders Saws,

Honey Brook, PA; Terra Diamond, Salt Lake City, UT; and Western Saw, Inc., Oxnard, CA, alleging that

an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of lessthan-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China and Korea.2

Information relating to the background of these investigations is provided below.3

Date Action

May 3, 2005 . . . . . . . Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (70 FR 24612, May 10, 2005)

May 23, 2005 . . . . . . Commerce’s extension of initiation (70 FR 29478, May 23, 2005)

May 26, 2005 . . . . . . Commission’s notice of revised schedule (70 FR 30480, May 26, 2005)

June 13, 2005 . . . . . . Commerce’s initiation (70 FR 35625, June 21, 2005)

July 25, 2005 . . . . . . Commission’s preliminary determination (70 FR 43903, July 29, 2005)

December 29, 2005 . Commerce’s preliminary determinations on China (70 FR 77121) and Korea

(70 FR 77135); scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (71 FR

3324, January 20, 2006)

May 16, 2006 . . . . . . Commission’s hearing4

May 22, 2006 . . . . . . Commerce’s final determinations on China (71 FR 29303) and Korea (71 FR 

29310)

June 19, 2006 . . . . . . Commission’s vote

July 5, 2006 . . . . . . . Commission determination transmitted to Commerce

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission has not conducted previous antidumping or countervailing duty investigations

concerning diamond sawblades or parts. During 1992-93, the Commission conducted an investigation on

professional electric cutting and sanding/grinding tools from Japan. The Commission made an

affirmative determination with respect to subject cutting tools and a negative determination with respect

to subject sanding/grinding tools.5
 6

 Eighteen firms provided the Commission with responses for the final phase of these investigations. Data for

two additional firms, Blackhawk and ***, are based on questionnaire responses from the preliminary phase of these

investigations. As noted above, Blackhawk ceased operations and *** did not provide a completed questionnaire for

the final phase of the investigations.

 7

 Comparing questionnaire data and information provided in the petition, exh. I (as adjusted).

 8

 Based on questionnaire data and official Commerce statistics. Staff believes that coverage for all other sources

is high, given the number of companies that have indicated that they do not import diamond sawblades or parts

thereof under the subject HTS reporting numbers. Official Commerce statistics are believed to overestimate imports

of diamond sawblade products because they represent a basket category. Hearing transcript, p. 119 (Pickard). Also,

importer ***, reported that nonsubject merchandise such as core bits are often imported under the same HTS number

as sawblades. ***, April 26, 2006. According to official import statistics, the top two reported sources of imports in

2005 were China and Korea, followed by Japan and Canada. During the hearing, however, Commissioner Aranoff

inquired about diamond sawblades from other countries, and Japan and Canada were not cited as sources. Hearing

transcript, pp. 198-199 (Aranoff, Guthrie, Edmund, Schabacker, Garrison, and McCarthy).

 9

 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, coverage of imports from China was overestimated because of

incorrect reporting of the source of imports by ***. In the preliminary phase, *** reported imports of finished

diamond sawblades from Korea, China, and other sources (***), but in the final phase reported imports from ***

alone. In the final phase of these investigations, ***. ***, however, purchases imports of finished diamond

sawblades, but only from ***. In the preliminary phase, *** incorrectly identified imported product as being from

China, when in fact all imported product was from Korea. Staff interview with ***. In the final phase of these

investigations, ***, a Korean producer and respondent, reported *** as being one of its largest customers. ***

explained that *** places drop shipment orders with ***. *** directly contacts *** with an order, and the order is

delivered directly to ***, but the importer of record is actually a third party, ***. Staff interview with ***.

I-2

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Information on the subject merchandise, dumping margins, and the domestic like product is

presented in Part I. Information on conditions of competition and other economic factors is presented in

Part II. Information on the condition of the U.S. industries, including data on capacity, production,

shipments, inventories, and employment, is presented in Part III. Information on the volume of imports of

the subject merchandise, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares is presented in Part IV. Part V

presents data on prices in the U.S. market. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of

U.S. producers. Information on the subject country foreign producers and U.S. importers’ inventories is

presented in Part VII.

SUMMARY OF DATA PRESENTED IN THE REPORT

A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C. Except as noted,

U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of two firms that manufacture diamond sawblade

cores and 16 firms that produce segments and finished diamond sawblades.6

 The questionnaire responses

accounted for approximately 90 percent of U.S. production of finished diamond sawblades and virtually

all production of diamond sawblades cores.7

 U.S. imports are based on questionnaire data from firms

believed to account for 90 percent or more of the value of U.S. imports of merchandise from China and

Korea in 2004, as well as the large majority of nonsubject imports.8 9
 10 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, May

22, 2006 and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 29310, May 22, 2006.

 11 Including Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company as an exporter when merchandise was also produced

by Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company, and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. as an

exporter when merchandise was also produced by Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd.

 12 Blackhawk Diamond ceased operations in January 2006.

 13 Husqvarna was identified as Electrolux in the preliminary phase of these investigations. Electrolux changed its

name in October 2005 to Husqvarna. Details on the name change and *** of Husqvarna are presented in Part III

under U.S. Producers.

 14 Indeed, only six U.S. producers reported commercial shipments of segments. *** reported the largest

commercial shipments of segments.

I-3

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

On May 22, 2006, Commerce published the results of its final determinations concerning sales at

LTFV for China and Korea.10 For China, Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of

20.72 percent ad valorem for 26 specific producer-exporter combinations, a rate of 34.19 percent ad

valorem for Bosun Tools Group (“Bosun”), a rate of 48.50 percent ad valorem for Hebei Jikai Industrial

Group (“Hebei Jikai”), a rate of 2.50 percent ad valorem for Advanced Technology & Materials Co.,

Ltd.,11 and a China-wide rate of 164.09 percent ad valorem, applicable to all other producer-exporter

combinations. Commerce also made final affirmative critical circumstances findings for imports of

diamond sawblades from Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and China-wide producers. For Korea, Commerce

calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 12.76 percent ad valorem for Ehwa Diamond Ind. Co.,

Ltd. (“Ehwa”), 6.43 percent ad valorem for Hyosung D&P Co., Ltd. (“Hyosung”), 26.55 percent ad

valorem for Shinhan Diamond Ind. Co., Ltd. (“Shinhan”), and 16.39 percent ad valorem for all others. 

Commerce made affirmative critical circumstances findings for imports of subject merchandise from

Shinhan and Korean companies in the “all others” category, but not for Ehwa or Hyosung.

SUMMARY OF MARKET PARTICIPANTS

The domestic industry producing diamond sawblades and parts currently consists of three firms

that produce diamond sawblade cores and at least 15 companies that produce segments and/or finished

sawblades.12 The largest producer of cores is *** and the largest producers of finished sawblades are

***.13 Segments usually are consumed internally by U.S. producers.14 Fifteen U.S. firms reported

imports of diamond sawblades and/or parts from China, five of which, ***, currently produce diamond

sawblades domestically. The largest importers from China are ***. At least 17 U.S. firms are known to

import diamond sawblades and/or parts from Korea, three of which, ***, currently produce/assemble

diamond sawblades in the United States. The largest importers from Korea are ***.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce’s final determinations define the imported merchandise within the scope of these

investigations as follows:

The products covered by these investigations are all finished circular sawblades, whether

slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments,
 15 71 FR 29303, May 22, 2006 and 71 FR 29310, May 22, 2006. 

In its final determinations, Commerce further described products that are outside the scope of these

investigations:

Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which

thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the investigations. 

Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a

thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the investigations. Circular steel

plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from

the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of these

investigations. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded

from the scope of the petition. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that

predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from

the scope of the investigations. Ibid.

 16 As noted by Commerce in its final determinations, “The tariff classification is provided for convenience and

U.S. Customs and Border Protection purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this investigation is

dispositive.” Ibid.

I-4

and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded

below. Within the scope {of these investigations} are semifinished diamond sawblades,

including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade

cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. 

Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy

steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural

or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including,

but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a

solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).15

Tariff Treatment

Circular diamond sawblades, as well as parts of such diamond sawblades, are classifiable in

subheading 8202.39.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). When

packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to

8205 of the HTS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under HTS heading 8206.16 The

normal trade relations tariff rate on this product under subheading 8202.39.00 is free, and is applicable to

imports from China and Korea; if diamond sawblades enter under heading 8206, the highest duty rate

applicable to any tool in the set is applicable to the set as a whole.

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the

subject imported products is based on a number of factors including (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price. The scope in these

investigations, however, includes both finished and semifinished articles. In such circumstances, the

Commission may apply a semifinished product analysis. Under this analysis, the Commission examines

(1) whether the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has

independent uses; (2) whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and

downstream articles; (3) differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and
 17 Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Preliminary),

USITC Publication 3791, August 2005, p. 7.

 18 Petition, pp. 5-10.

 19 Postconference brief of Korean respondents, pp. 3-4, and Comments on Draft Questionnaires, Korean

respondents and General Tool, Western Diamond Tools, and SH Trading, February 1, 2006.

 20 Petition, pp. 7-8; Postconference brief of Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., and

Hyosung Diamond Industrial Co., p. A-3.

 21 While it is possible to use natural diamonds, the use of synthetic, or manufactured, diamonds is far more

common. Conference transcript, p. 107 (Palovochik, Garrison).

 22 Petition, p. 9; “This is How a Diamond Blade Works” Electrolux Construction Products North America, June

9, 2005, found at http://dimasusa.com.

 23 “Understanding Diamond Blades,” MK Company Diamond Products, June 16, 2005, found at

http://www.mk-diamond-blades.com/.

I-5

downstream articles; (4) differences in the costs or value of the vertically differentiated articles; and

(5) the significance and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream into the downstream

articles.

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission observed that there are

significant differences in costs and values between cores and segments as compared to finished diamond

sawblades, and the transformation process of turning the components into finished diamond sawblades is

significant. Components are, however, largely dedicated to the production of finished diamond

sawblades, and embody the essential characteristics of finished diamond sawblades, which led the

Commission to find that cores, segments, and finished diamond sawblades comprise one domestic like

product.17

Petitioners contend that finished diamond sawblades constitute a single domestic like product and

that steel cores and diamond segments are part of this like product definition.18 In the preliminary phase

of these investigations, respondents did not challenge this definition of domestic like product; nor have

they done so in the final phase of the investigations.19 

Diamond Sawblade Components

Diamond sawblades are circular cutting tools composed of two fundamental components: an

inner steel core and a diamond-impregnated outer ring segment that constitutes the cutting surface. The

metal core generally is made of very high quality, treated, hardened alloy steel plate or sheet. The alloy

steel plate or sheet is laser cut to the approximate diamond core diameter. The metal core contains an

arbor hole that is precisely bored in the center. The core is either slotted to produce a segmented blade or

not slotted to produce a continuous rim blade.20

The segment contains a mixture of synthetic diamonds21 and metal powder held together in a

“bond matrix.” During the manufacturing process, the metal powder-and-diamond mixture is compressed

at a very high temperature to obtain a solid metal alloy, which holds the diamonds. The segment, or rim,

is slightly wider than the core to permit the leading edge to penetrate the material without the core

rubbing against it and to discourage blade binding.22 The diamond segments are designed specifically to

wear at a rate appropriate to the material being cut. Large particles of soft, abrasive materials wear down

the matrix faster than the small particles removed from hard dense materials. Consequently, softer, more

abrasive materials require a “tough to wear” (hard) bond; less abrasive materials require an “easy wear”

(soft) bond.23 The cutting edge of the diamond segments is designed to expose additional diamond as the

blade is consumed.
 24 See, e.g., conference transcript, pp. 86-87 (Palovochik) and p. 188 (Corcoran).

 25 Hearing transcript, p. 355 (Nixon).

 26 Conference transcript, p. 142 (Lewis).

 27 In contrast, continuous rim blades are attached to a non-slotted metal core.

I-6

Finished Diamond Sawblades

Diamond sawblades typically range in size from 4 inches to 70 inches in diameter. Many

diamond sawblades in the 10-to-14 inch diameter category are considered “mid-range” blades.24 

Diamond sawblades greater than 20 inches are typically produced to order and in small quantities.25

Table I-1 presents U.S. commercial shipments of U.S.-produced and imported diamond sawblades by

diameter.

Finished sawblades may be categorized by (1) the physical attributes of the finished blade; (2) the

physical attributes of the diamond section; and (3) the method of joining the core to the diamond

segments. These attributes and characteristics in turn affect the application, the grade, and price of the

finished sawblades.26 The principal physical characteristics of the blade are whether the cutting surfaces

are “segmented rim” or “continuous rim” (figure 1). Segmented blades have slots cut into the core

between the segments on the rim, or cutting edge to allow the blade to flex under pressure, cool the blade

while cutting, and facilitate the removal of cut material from the blade. The slots can be either wide or

narrow.27

Figure I-1

Diamond sawblades: Typical cutting surfaces and segments

Continuous rim Segmented rim Segments

Source: Dimas, found at http://dimasusa.com and Shanghai Deda Industry and Trading Co., Ltd, found at

http://dedadiamond.en.alibaba.com/.
I-7

Table I-1

Diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments, by blade diameter, 2003-05

Item #7.0"

>7.0" but

#10.0"

>10.0" but

#12.0"

>12.0" but

#14.0"

>14.0" but

#20.0" >20.0" Total

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments:

2003 4,268 2,735 11,560 38,160 20,121 29,970 106,814

2004 4,123 2,595 11,047 36,295 21,206 29,779 105,045

2005 3,987 2,457 9,643 36,407 22,350 31,399 106,243

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China:

2003 5,293 1,883 1,446 4,337 695 195 13,848

2004 8,385 3,025 1,989 7,617 1,105 306 22,427

2005 11,347 3,708 2,369 10,996 1,790 537 30,748

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Korea:

2003 11,143 6,037 3,774 10,239 4,007 1,272 36,471

2004 14,312 7,671 4,754 14,224 5,038 1,468 47,466

2005 14,083 8,060 5,884 18,484 5,927 1,820 54,258

Subtotal, U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports:

2003 16,435 7,920 5,220 14,576 4,702 1,467 50,319

2004 22,697 10,697 6,742 21,841 6,143 1,774 69,893

2005 25,430 11,768 8,253 29,480 7,717 2,358 85,006

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from other countries:

2003 9,895 432 1,712 5,237 910 387 18,574

2004 10,776 423 1,946 5,762 730 94 19,730

2005 6,802 262 1,077 4,512 746 100 13,498

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from all sources:

2003 26,330 8,352 6,932 19,813 5,612 1,854 68,893

2004 33,472 11,119 8,688 27,602 6,873 1,868 89,623

2005 32,232 12,031 9,330 33,991 8,463 2,458 98,504

Total U.S. commercial shipments:

2003 30,598 11,086 18,492 57,973 25,733 31,824 175,707

2004 37,595 13,714 19,735 63,898 28,078 31,647 194,668

2005 36,219 14,487 18,973 70,399 30,813 33,857 204,748

Table continued on next page.
I-8

Table I-1--Continued

Diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by blade diameter, 2003-05

Item #7.0"

>7.0" but

#10.0"

>10.0" but

#12.0"

>12.0" but

#14.0"

>14.0" but

#20.0" >20.0" Total

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ commercial shipments:

2003 4.0 2.6 10.8 35.7 18.8 28.1 100.0

2004 3.9 2.5 10.5 34.6 20.2 28.3 100.0

2005 3.8 2.3 9.1 34.3 21.0 29.6 100.0

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China:

2003 38.2 13.6 10.4 31.3 5.0 1.4 100.0

2004 37.4 13.5 8.9 34.0 4.9 1.4 100.0

2005 36.9 12.1 7.7 35.8 5.8 1.7 100.0

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Korea:

2003 30.6 16.6 10.3 28.1 11.0 3.5 100.0

2004 30.2 16.2 10.0 30.0 10.6 3.1 100.0

2005 26.0 14.9 10.8 34.1 10.9 3.4 100.0

Subtotal, U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports:

2003 32.7 15.7 10.4 29.0 9.3 2.9 100.0

2004 32.5 15.3 9.6 31.2 8.8 2.5 100.0

2005 29.9 13.8 9.7 34.7 9.1 2.8 100.0

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from other countries:

2003 53.3 2.3 9.2 28.2 4.9 2.1 100.0

2004 54.6 2.1 9.9 29.2 3.7 0.5 100.0

2005 50.4 1.9 8.0 33.4 5.5 0.7 100.0

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from all sources:

2003 38.2 12.1 10.1 28.8 8.1 2.7 100.0

2004 37.3 12.4 9.7 30.8 7.7 2.1 100.0

2005 32.7 12.2 9.5 34.5 8.6 2.5 100.0

Total U.S. commercial shipments:

2003 17.4 6.3 10.5 33.0 14.6 18.1 100.0

2004 19.3 7.0 10.1 32.8 14.4 16.3 100.0

2005 17.7 7.1 9.3 34.4 15.0 16.5 100.0

Note.--Data do not include U.S. commercial shipments by U.S. producers Blackhawk and ***, and U.S. producer/importer ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 28 MK Diamond Products, Inc., “Understanding Diamond Blades,” found at

http://www.mkdiamond.com/home/tec_blade.html, retrieved April 21, 2006.

 29 Patrick O’Brien, “Diamonds Don’t Wear...Or Should They?,” Concrete Sawing and Drilling Association, found

at http://www.csda.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=218, retrieved April 21, 2006.

 30 Conference transcript, pp. 155-156 (Sallis).

 31 The information discussed above is compiled from responses to the producers’ questionnaire, question II-17.

 32 Conference transcript, p. 124 (Palovochik).

 33 The information discussed above is compiled from responses to the producers’ questionnaire, question II-15.

I-9

The principal characteristics of a diamond section are the strength of the bonding matrix and the

concentration of diamonds. The bonding matrix has several functions, including: (1) dispersing and

supporting the diamonds; (2) controlling wear while allowing diamonds to protrude; (3) keeping

diamonds in the bond matrix so there is no diamond “pull-out”; (4) acting as a heat sink; and

(5) distributing impact and load when the diamonds strike the cutting surface.28 Both the concentration,

quality, and size of diamonds in the sawblade segments and the composition of the bond matrix determine

the application, grade, and the price, because more diamonds in a stronger bond matrix translates into

better cutting qualities, and hence a higher grade rating, ability to cut harder materials, and higher price in

part because of higher material costs. 

The method of attachment of the diamond segments to the sawblade core is also a key

characteristic of finished diamond sawblades. Segments are either sintered, soldered/brazed, or laser

welded onto the core. For sintered blades, a mixture of diamonds and matrix bond of metal powders is

baked onto the sawblade core. Diamond sawblades with segments soldered/brazed to the core are blades

that must be used in a “wet” cutting process, with a fluid lubricating and cooling the blade during cutting. 

If the blade is used in a “dry” cutting process, heat generated by the cutting action will melt the solder

used to attach the segments to the core.29 Diamond sawblades that have segments laser welded to the core

are stronger, have few failure rates, and are more reliable than sintered sawblades.30 These distinctions in

finished diamond sawblades are discussed further in the following sections of the this part of the report

entitled “Applications,” “Interchangeability,” and “Manufacturing Processes.”

The Commission asked U.S. producers to describe any differences in the physical characteristics

and functions of the upstream and downstream articles. Responses to this question are tabulated below:31

* * * * * * *

Applications

Diamond Sawblade Components

Diamond sawblade components are used to produce finished diamond sawblades, with few

additional applications.32 The Commission asked U.S. producers “(w)ith respect to (diamond cores and

diamond sawblade segments), does your firm use the same components that it produces for use in finished

diamond sawblades for use in other finished articles as well?” Of the two companies that produce

diamond cores, neither reported using diamond sawblade cores for use in other finished products. In

addition, only three of the companies reported additional applications for their segment production: ***. 

Each of the other companies reported no additional applications.33
 34 The information discussed above is compiled from responses to the producers’ questionnaire, question II-16.

 35 The information discussed above is compiled from responses to the producers’ questionnaire, question II-16.

 36 Some users will also cut certain metals with diamond sawblades, however, this is not a typical application.

 37 MK Diamond Products, Inc., “Understanding Diamond Blades,” found at

http://www.mkdiamond.com/home/tec_blade.html, retrieved April 12, 2006.

 38 One industry official views market applications in two categories, conference transcript, p. 142 (Lewis);

another official identified three categories, conference transcript, p. 152 (Sallis). 

 39 The parties differ in their views on so-called “professional-use” sawblades and “general-use” sawblades.

Petitioners contend that “it is not possible to draw a clear dividing line...based on the physical characteristics of the

diamond sawblades end use, channels of distribution, or by price.” Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 1, no

page number provided. Respondents contend that the U.S. market is “highly segmented” and that diamond

sawblades in the United States can be segregated into two broad categories: (1) professional-use blades; and

(2) general-use blades.” Korean respondents’ postconference brief, p. 11. Petitioner *** contends that there is no

clear distinction between “professional-use” sawblades and “general-use” sawblades. However, *** stated that

Korean imports are moving into the professional market in the 30 inch to 36 inch range, pricing finished diamond

sawblades ***. “***.” 

 40 In these investigations, Commission questionnaires sent to interested parties defined “General purpose saw

manufacturers” as “Companies such as Black and Decker, Hilti, and Bosch, that manufacture general purpose

circular saws and resell diamond sawblades in limited size ranges and types as accessories, principally to national

big box retailers. General purpose saw manufacturers produce saws and other power tools that are intended to be

used with non-diamond sawblade related products in addition to diamond sawblades. General purpose saws typically

include hand-held circular saws, angle grinders, and chop saws.” Also defined was “Professional construction” as

“End users in professional construction market, including all customers that are members of the Concrete Sawing

and Drilling Association (“CSDA”).” General Information, Instructions, and Definitions for the Commission’s

questionnaires, p. 7.

I-10

The Commission also asked U.S. producers to describe the market for the diamond sawblade

cores and segments (the “upstream articles” in these investigations). Responses to this question are

presented in the following tabulation.34

* * * * * * *

Finished Diamond Sawblades

The Commission asked U.S. producers to describe the market for finished diamond sawblades

(the “downstream articles” in these investigations). Responses to this question are tabulated on the

previous page.35 Many responses stressed the dedication of diamond sawblade components to the

production of finished diamond sawblades, leading most producers to conclude that the markets for the

upstream and downstream articles were separate.

Diamond sawblades have numerous functions and applications for cutting concrete, asphalt,

masonry (brick, block, pavers, etc.), tile, refactory, stone (marble, granite, and other rock), ceramics, and

glass.36 Diamond sawblades also are used to groove road, highway, and airport runway surfaces to give

them antiskid characteristics. Different configurations of diamond sawblades will also be selected by end

users based upon the material being cut, as a blade for cutting soft, abrasive material must have a strong

bonding matrix to resist erosion of the blade for the diamonds to cut, while a blade for cutting hard

material must have a weaker bond matrix to expose more diamonds for cutting.37

Finished diamond sawblades are produced for broad categories of end uses, including

professional use and general use.38 However, within the finished diamond sawblade industry, there is no

consensus as to which finished diamond sawblades categorically serve a particular market.39 40 Within

each broad category, blades are engineered and sold by application, grade, and price. Diamond sawblades
 41 Hearing transcript, p. 355 (Nixon).

 42 Hearing transcript, p. 108 (Garrison).

 43 Hearing transcript, pp. 88-89 (Jedick).

 44 Saint-Gobain’s posthearing brief, pp. 7-8, and Exhibit 4.

 45 Korean respondents’ postconference brief, Exhibit 3.

 46 Conference transcript, p. 142 (Lewis)

 47 Conference transcript, p. 140 (Kim).

 48 Staff field trip report, ***.

 49 The core section of the finished diamond sawblade is literally struck with a hammer by a smith to work out

imperfections in the blade which otherwise would render the blade too dangerous to use. Staff witnessed the

hammering and testing for tolerances at *** and saw similar hammering operation stations at ***. The hammer

smiths are considered to be skilled employees. Staff field trip report, *** and ***; ***; and ***.

 50 Staff field trip report, ***; ***; and ***.

 51 *** reported that this ratio is high because of the expense of gas, lodging, trade shows, and time spent with

customers to determine the correct diamond sawblades for the given application. Staff field trip report, ***. ***

reported having sales staff throughout the country to support professional sawblade sales. Compared to the rest of

the industry, *** has a relatively low SG&A ratio. Because it does not produce its own segments, *** does not have

the same capacity for customization of diamond sawblades as producers with internal segment production, thereby

limiting the number of customers it can serve and the need for supporting a sales intensive staff. Staff field trip

report, ***.

 52 Segments are custom-produced and assembled to a core and finished in a matter of hours for a custom order. 

Staff witnessed such an operation where segments being measured and sintered would be delivered to a work site

(continued...)

I-11

over 20 inches in diameter are frequently produced on a custom-made basis,41 however, such large

diameter sawblades may also be listed in catalogs and price lists of various producers. These large

diamond sawblades will be produced in limited quantities42 with special characteristics, such as particular

segment configurations and composition of diamond concentration and bonding.43 Such blades are also

produced under quick turn-around schedules and may require customer service regarding the intended

application and subsequence performance in the field.44

Professional use blades are sold to end users performing cutting for road and commercial

construction. Most of these sawblades are specially designed for large, high horsepower, walk-behind or

self-propelled cutting equipment that includes water circulation systems for cooling the blade as it cuts.45

“Professional-use” diamond sawblades are generally run wet or dry, and are segmented blades with

diameters that are often greater than 14 inches.46 These types of goods are typically custom-engineered

for the task at hand.47

The professional use market that uses high horsepower equipment requires high tolerance for the

blades and tight controls.48 Unlike sawblades for the do-it-yourself (“DIY”) market, which run on one

quarter and one half horsepower equipment, blades for high horsepower (e.g., 65 horsepower) equipment

for professional use are subject to tolerance testing. After the segments are attached to the core, large

professional use blades are tested for tolerance, and hammered by a smith until the appropriate tolerance

is reached.49

In addition to custom segment production, supplying the professional use market requires a deep

understanding of the local market.50 Gaining knowledge and access to a local market requires having a

sales force in the local market that goes to job sites to provide the correct diamond sawblade

configuration specific to the job application. The cost of having an intensive workforce is reflected in the

product’s relatively high selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses ratio (see part VI).51

The professional custom market requires a quick turnaround from order to delivery. Segments

are custom-produced and attached to a core; the entire sawblade can be finished in a matter of hours for a

custom order52. *** reported that it needs to have a domestic operation to serve the professional market,
 52 (...continued)

later the same day when on a site visit to ***. Staff field trip report, ***, March 30, 2006.

 53 Staff field trip report, ***, March 29, 2006.

 54 Staff field trip report, ***, March 29, 2006.

 55 Continuous rim blades are utilized in tile-and-stone cutting applications because they reduce the amount of

chipping of material being cut. Conference transcript, p. 154 (Sallis).

 56 Conference transcript, p. 153 (Sallis).

 57 See diamond saw blades categories at Nalco Blades, “General Purpose Blades,” found at

http://www.reliableblades.com/category.cfm?id=1, retrieved April 20, 2006.

 58 See Nalco Blades, “General Purpose Blades,” found at http://www.reliableblades.com/category.cfm?id=1,

retrieved April 20, 2006.

 59 See Dimas, “Performance grades for diamond blades,” found at http://www.dimas.com/node2168.asp, retrieved

April 21, 2006.

 60 Diamond Products, Inc., Blade, Bit & Abrasives Catalog,

http://www.diamondproducts.com/PDF/Bits_Blades_0805b.pdf, retrieved April 20, 2006, p. 6.

 61 Compiled from responses to the purchasers’ questionnaire, question III-7; 25 purchasers reported no changes in

end uses, of which 2 purchasers reported that as a result of the costs of diamond saw blades decreasing, demand has

increased. One purchaser only noted that since 2003 prices have declined.

 62 Compiled from responses to the purchasers’ questionnaire, question III-8.

I-12

otherwise it can not produce and ship custom blades from overseas in time to serve the professional use

market.53 *** reported that it attempted to serve the professional market by maintaining an inventory of

large, professional use diamond sawblades imported from Korea, but these were not suitable for custom

applications and has since concentrated on producing the professional blades domestically.54

“General-use” sawblades are produced for contractors and DIY end users. These blades include

both segmented and continuous rim blades55 with diameters of 14 inches or less, but the range may extend

up to 20 inches. The end uses in this segment would be those performed by masons, concrete contractors,

hardscape contractors, plumbing contractors, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning)

contractors, roofing, and other types of contractors.56

In marketing blades, sellers may categorize blades as general purpose, and in addition may sell

blades for specific applications based on the material to be cut, or the process involved, such as for

cutting concrete, asphalt, masonry, tuck point, turbo, and tile, or for wet or dry cutting.57 Further, within

each blade category, sellers typically supply a grade, or may supply a product family that is stratified

further into grade or performance class. Vendors will use a variety of names for product grades. For

example, one company grades its general purpose blades as economy, economy plus, premium, elite, and

premium gold,58 and one producer has performance classes of normal, super, and economy.59 Another

producer for blades for wet-cured concrete has “Standard Gold,” “Heavy Duty Orange,” and “Premium

Black,” which have different diamond depths and other performance characteristics.60

In response to Commission questionnaires, U.S. purchasers indicated that there have been no

changes in the end uses of diamond sawblades since 2003.61 Further, the majority of responding U.S.

purchasers reported that they do not anticipate any changes in terms of end uses of finished diamond

sawblades in the future. Two U.S. purchasers reported that they did anticipate that uses of diamond

sawblades would increase, with one U.S. purchaser stating that if prices continue to decline, more users

will enter the market who had not previously purchased due to price.62
 63 Conference transcript, p. 124 (Palovochik).

 64 The information discussed above is compiled from responses to the producers’ questionnaire, question II-16.

 65 Compiled from responses to the purchaser’s questionnaire, question III-9.

 66 Staff telephone interview with ***, March 24, 2006.

 67 Petition, p. 6. 

 68 Conference transcript, pp. 190-192 (Nixon).

 69 Conference transcript, pp. 49-50 (Palovochik).

 70 Conference transcript, p. 70 (Garrison).

 71 ***. Staff field trip report, ***, March 31, 2006.

I-13

Interchangeability

Diamond Sawblade Components

Diamond segments and cores are used virtually entirely for the manufacture of diamond

sawblades.63 Neither U.S. core producer reported using diamond sawblade cores for use in other finished

products. Three U.S. producers reported using diamond sawblade segments for use in other finished

articles. ***. 

Finished Diamond Sawblades 

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether there are separate markets for the upstream and

downstream articles. As discussed in the section entitled “Applications,” U.S. producers largely view the

markets for the upstream and downstream articles as separate except in the sense that cores and segments

are components of the finished sawblades.64

In addition, U.S. producers and importers generally reported limited interchangeability between

diamond sawblades and any other product. While most U.S. purchasers noted there were no substitutes

for diamond sawblades, two purchasers noted that laser jets may substitute and one noted diamond chain

saws may be a substitute in some applications.65 Although abrasive blades may substitute for diamond

sawblades, abrasive blades do not have the life expectancy or cutting accuracy of diamond sawblades.66

In theory, some non-diamond sawblades could be used in certain cutting applications in which diamond

sawblades are utilized. Diamond sawblades, however, are produced to fit onto diamond saws

exclusively.67 

Additionally, there is limited direct interchangeability between continuous rim and segmented

products, at least in certain applications.68 Continuous rim sawblades are used in “brick, block, and tiletype applications” where avoiding chipping is a key objective.69 Segmented rim blades, in contrast, are

used in saws with more demanding requirements -- typically higher horsepower saws such as those used

in high-volume construction applications. Nonetheless, there is also a degree of overlap between

continuous and segmented blades in applications such as masonry.70

Manufacturing Processes

Diamond Sawblade Components

Diamond cores are cut from heat-treated alloy steel plate or sheet.71 As described in the petition,

the cut plate of approximate shape is quenched in a heat furnace, cooled in an oil bath, and is then

tempered in a gas furnace. The diamond cutting surface is affixed to the metal core through a soldering,

sintering, or laser-welding process. After the blade blank is quenched and tempered, a small hole (the

arbor) is then drilled or reamed into the center of the core which will serve as a mounting point for the
 72 Petition, pp. 7-8.

 73 Diamond Cores, Western Saw Products. See also, “Edge Exposed: The Diamond Core” at

www.edgediamond.co.uk/smx/edge_exposed/core, retrieved July 4, 2005.

 74 The metallic powders and diamond mixture which comprise a segment are distinct by producer, and considered

to be proprietary. *** reported that it has over *** powder mixtures for segment production. Custom diamond

sawblade orders require segment production to be tailored for the specific task, which involves additional manual

labor on a separate production line than that which is used for bulk segment production, which is produced and

assembled into finished diamond sawblades on a more automated production line. *** which is exclusively an

assembler and does not produce segments, ***. *** reported that it has no plans to produce segments. Staff field

trip report, ***.

 75 Petition, p. 9.

 76 “The Diamond Core,” The Edge Company, June 9, 2005, found at http://www.edgediamond.com.

 77 Petition, p. 9.

I-14

finished diamond core inside a cutting tool. Subsequently, the reamed core is surface-ground to the

diameter specified by the customer in the purchase order. The ground core is then tensioned in a rolltensioner, which imparts additional hardness to the diamond core. The flattened diamond core then goes

through both a grinding/turning process, in which the outer diameter is ground to the proper size required

by the customer specification, and a deburring process, in which the outer diameter is matched to the

internal diameter of the diamond core.72

In the case of slotted (segmented) blades, radial slots (also called “gullets”) are machined out of

the outer diameter to facilitate the attachment of the diamond segments through a bonding process. Slot

designs are available in a variety of forms, including straight, keyhole, wide, laser, V-slots, angled slots,

or customer specified. The different-shaped gullets improve water and air flow around the periphery of

the core and assist in dissipating heat and slurry.73

Diamond segments are produced through the insertion of crushed industrial diamond crystals into

a mixture of metallic powders.74 The diamond crystals are normally, if not always, synthetic rather than

natural diamonds because synthetic diamonds have a more reliable consistency for cutting applications.

The mixture is compressed at a very high temperature to obtain a solid metal alloy that holds the

diamonds. A portion of the semifinished segment is cleared of diamond powder to ensure that the

metallic portion of the segment can be mated to the diamond blade core. Each finished segment is

subsequently dressed and cleaned to ensure the finished segment is free of excess powder and burrs.75

Finished Diamond Sawblades 

The segments are joined to the core to complete the finished product. The diamond core itself

must be balanced both before and after the segment attachment.76 The entire sawblade is then qualityscreened, put through a slight grinding to ensure proper outer diameter dimension, and tension-checked to

ensure the blade performs at the revolution speed that was originally specified.77

There are three major methods of attaching the diamond cutting surfaces: laser-welding,

soldering (or brazing), and sintering. All three methods are employed in the United States, although the

large majority of U.S. production uses laser-welding, followed by soldering; sintering, in contrast, is

uncommon in the United States. Table I-2 presents the shares of U.S. commercial shipments by type of

blade and method of joining for U.S.-produced and imported diamond sawblades.
 78 “Diamond Saw Blades - Dry Type,” Jiangsu Shengli Electron & Tools Co., June 17, 2005, found at

http://s158.en.alibaba.com/product/0/50165923/Diamond_Saw_Blade/.

 79 Korean respondents’ postconference brief, p. A-4.

 80 According to respondents, some producers have produced segmented blades through the sintering process by

cutting slots into a continuous rim blade in order to make it appear segmented. Korean respondents’ postconference

brief, p. A-4, n. 7.

 81 Conference transcript, p. 54 (Palovochik).

 82 Conference transcript, pp. 187, 209 (Sallis).

I-15

Table I-2

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments, by type of blade

and method of attachment, 2005

Item

Share of commercial shipments value (in percent) 

Segmented Continuous

Laser-welding

segmented

Soldered/

braising

segmented

Sintered

segmented

Sintered

continuous Total

U.S. producers 84.6 14.8 *** *** 100.0

China 47.1 1.7 19.8 31.4 100.0

Korea 67.1 5.1 0.2 27.6 100.0

Subtotal, subject imports 62.6 4.4 4.7 28.3 100.0

All other sources 52.9 3.4 4.2 39.5 100.0

Subtotal 47.3 2.2 12.3 38.2 100.0

Total imports 59.3 3.9 6.4 30.4 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Laser-welded blades are produced by pressing the diamond crystal and metal powder mix and

then heat-treating it to form a finished segment. The finished segments are attached to the steel cores

through laser welding. This process is generally used to produce segmented blades for dry-cutting

applications. Laser welding is particularly suitable for making the type of blades used in hand-held saws

utilized by masonry and brick contractors. Advantages of laser-welded diamond sawblades include

substantial automation of the production process, strong welding adhesion between the segment and the

alloy steel core, and greater stability under high temperature.78

Soldered or brazed blades are produced in a similar manner as laser-welded blades, except that

the finished segments are attached to the metal core using solder instead of laser welding. In general,

soldered blades refer to professional-use wet blades because they have extremely limited uses in dry

applications as the heat generated from dry cutting will melt the solder, potentially destroying the blade

and creating a safety hazard.79

Sintered blades are produced by pressing the diamond/metal bonding mixture onto the core, and

then heat-treating the entire blade. Frequently, the term “sintered” blade is used to refer to continuous rim

blades because sintering is the most efficient means of producing continuous rim blades.80 However,

because the heat treatment process weakens the core, and the integrity of the product, larger sized

diamond sawblades typically are not produced using the sintering production method.81 Instead, sintered

blades are more commonly produced in smaller sizes for less specialized applications.82
 83 The information discussed above is compiled from responses to the producers’ questionnaire, question II-18.

I-16

The Commission asked U.S. producers to describe the process by which producers transform

diamond saw blade parts into finished diamond sawblades and the degree of value added by such

operations. Responses to this question appear in appendix D.83

Channels of Distribution

Table I-3 presents questionnaire data on channels of distribution for finished diamond sawblades. 

U.S. commercial shipments have been directed in the largest quantities to distributors and end users. 

Shipments of imports from LTFV sources are more heavily concentrated in shipments to distributors. 

Cores and segments are sold almost exclusively to U.S. sawblade producers.
I-17

Table I-3

Diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments, by channel of distribution,

2003-05

Item Distributors Retailers OEMs End users Total

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments:

2003 54,400 1,411 2,069 48,935 106,814

2004 53,059 1,707 1,620 48,659 105,045

2005 52,624 2,726 1,436 49,457 106,243

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China:

2003 9,381 751 1,705 2,011 13,848

2004 15,260 1,352 3,984 1,832 22,427

2005 19,849 2,310 6,410 2,179 30,748

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Korea:

2003 23,069 747 8,915 3,741 36,471

2004 28,434 799 13,467 4,765 47,466

2005 31,938 1,059 16,116 5,144 54,258

Subtotal, U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports:

2003 32,450 1,498 10,620 5,751 50,319

2004 43,694 2,152 17,451 6,597 69,893

2005 51,787 3,369 22,526 7,323 85,006

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from other countries:

2003 5,673 10,917 743 1,240 18,574

2004 6,365 12,141 162 1,062 19,730

2005 5,367 7,415 0 717 13,498

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from all sources:

2003 38,123 12,415 11,364 6,991 68,893

2004 50,059 14,293 17,613 7,659 89,623

2005 57,154 10,784 22,526 8,040 98,504

Total U.S. commercial shipments:

2003 92,523 13,826 13,432 55,926 175,707

2004 103,118 15,999 19,233 56,318 194,668

2005 109,778 13,510 23,962 57,498 204,748

Table continued on next page.
I-18

Table I-3--Continued

Diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments, by channel of distribution,

2003-05

Item Distributors Retailers OEMs End users Total

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ commercial shipments:

2003 50.9 1.3 1.9 45.8 100.0

2004 50.5 1.6 1.5 46.3 100.0

2005 49.5 2.6 1.4 46.6 100.0

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China:

2003 67.7 5.4 12.3 14.5 100.0

2004 68.0 6.0 17.8 8.2 100.0

2005 64.6 7.5 20.8 7.1 100.0

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Korea:

2003 63.3 2.0 24.4 10.3 100.0

2004 59.9 1.7 28.4 10.0 100.0

2005 58.9 2.0 29.7 9.5 100.0

Subtotal, U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports:

2003 64.5 3.0 21.1 11.4 100.0

2004 62.5 3.1 25.0 9.4 100.0

2005 60.9 4.0 26.5 8.6 100.0

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from other countries:

2003 55.3 18.0 16.5 10.1 100.0

2004 55.9 15.9 19.7 8.5 100.0

2005 57.1 11.2 23.4 8.3 100.0

U.S. commercial shipments of imports from all sources:

2003 55.3 18.0 16.5 10.1 100.0

2004 55.9 15.9 19.7 8.5 100.0

2005 58.0 10.9 22.9 8.2 100.0

Total U.S. commercial shipments:

2003 52.7 7.9 7.6 31.8 100.0

2004 53.0 8.2 9.9 28.9 100.0

2005 53.6 6.6 11.7 28.1 100.0

Note.--Data do not include U.S. commercial shipments by U.S. producers Blackhawk and *** and U.S. producer/importer ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 84 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 1.

I-19

Price

Diamond Sawblade Components

In 2005, the average unit value of U.S. shipments of cores was ***, while the average unit value

for segments was ***. The average unit value of U.S. shipments of imported cores were $*** from

China and $*** from Korea. The average unit values of U.S. shipments of imported segments were $***

from Korea and $*** from other sources.

Finished Diamond Sawblades

Finished diamond sawblades are sold in thousands of sizes, ranging in diameter from 4 inches to

more than 70 inches.84 In addition, suppliers offer a variety of quality designations. Accordingly, the

prices among different sawblade sizes can vary substantially. The average unit value of U.S. shipments

of finished diamond sawblades in 2005 was $207.46. The average unit value of U.S. shipments of

imported finished diamond sawblades were $11.10 from China, $24.06 from Korea, and $15.17 from

other sources. Pricing practices and prices reported for finished diamond sawblades in response to

Commission questionnaires are presented in Part V of this report.
 
 1

 Branded distributors sell primarily finished diamond sawblades with their own label, affixed by the supplier or

by the distributor. “Other” distributors sell primarily finished diamond sawblades with the label of their suppliers.

 2

 U.S. producers’ shipments of their finished diamond sawblades to other distributors and to professional

construction firms accounted for 80.2 percent, by value, of their U.S. commercial shipments of U.S.-produced

finished diamond sawblades during 2003-05.

 3

 U.S. importers’ shipments of the Chinese finished diamond sawblades to branded and “other” distributors

accounted for 64.4 percent, by value, of their U.S. commercial shipments of the imported Chinese finished diamond

sawblades during 2003-05.

 4

 U.S. importers’ shipments of the Korean finished diamond sawblades to branded distributors and to diamond

saw/diamond sawblade producers accounted for 65.7 percent, by value, of their U.S. commercial shipments of the

imported Korean finished diamond sawblades during 2003-05.

 5

 U.S. importers’ shipments of finished diamond sawblades from nonsubject countries to national big-box

retailers and to “other” distributors accounted for 91.0 percent, by value, of their U.S. commercial shipments of the

imported finished diamond sawblades from nonsubject countries during 2003-05.

 6

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 4.

 7

 *** are the only U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades that do not produce at least some of their

requirements for diamond sawblade segments. 

 8

 In addition, diamond sawblade segments are sold for repair of larger finished diamond sawblades (petitioner’s

postconference brief, p. 4).

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION AND MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

The majority of U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades was sold to distributors

during 2003-05. For U.S. importers of the finished diamond sawblades from China and Korea the larger

share of such sales were to branded distributors, whereas for U.S. producers the larger share of such sales

were to “other” distributors.1

 The second largest channel of distribution for U.S. producers of finished

diamond sawblades involved sales directly to endusers, particularly professional construction firms.2

 The

second largest channel of distribution for U.S. importers of the Chinese finished diamond sawblades

involved sales to “other” distributors.3

 The second largest channel of distribution for U.S. importers of

the Korean finished diamond sawblades involved sales to U.S. OEMs, especially to the category of

producers of diamond saws/diamond sawblades.4

 The majority of finished diamond sawblades imported

from nonsubject countries was sold to retailers (almost exclusively national big-box retailers) during

2003–05, followed by sales to distributors (almost exclusively to “other” distributors).5

 The data for U.S.

producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of finished diamond sawblades by blade diameter, by country

of origin, and by channel of distribution and type of customer are shown for 2003-05 combined in table

II-1. These data are presented on an annual basis in appendix E.

U.S. producers of diamond sawblade cores sold their products directly to U.S. producers of

finished diamond sawblades;6

 the U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades also imported diamond

sawblade cores directly. Most U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades produced diamond

sawblade segments,7

 and six U.S. producers also sold some of their diamond sawblade segments to other

U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades.8

 Some U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades

also imported directly diamond sawblade segments and/or purchased diamond sawblade segments from

U.S. importers.
II-2

Table II-1

Finished diamond sawblades: Shares of U.S. commercial shipment values of finished diamond sawblades by size of blade,

by country of origin, by channel of distribution, and by type of customer for 2003-05 combined

Source and channel of distribution 

Diameter size

#7.0"

>7.0" but

#10.0"

>10.0" but

#12.0"

>12.0" but

#14.0"

>14.0" but

#20.0" >20.0" Total

Share of value (percentage)

United States:

 Branded distributors 1.2 0.8 2.1 5.8 1.8 2.5 14.2

 Other distributors 1.4 1.2 4.7 16.3 5.9 6.6 36.1

 Total distributors 2.5 2.0 6.8 22.2 7.7 9.1 50.3

 National big-box retailers - - - 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.3

 Other retailers - - - 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5

 Total retailers - - - 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.8

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers - - 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.8

 General purpose saw producers - - - 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8

 Total OEMs - - 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.6

 Professional construction firms 1.3 0.4 3.0 11.2 10.8 17.4 44.1

 All other endusers 0.1 - 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.3 2.1

 Total endusers 1.4 0.4 3.1 11.5 11.2 18.7 46.2

 TOTAL 3.9 2.4 10.1 34.9 20.0 28.7 100.0

China:

 Branded distributors 16.2 6.1 4.5 17.2 3.1 0.8 47.9

 Other distributors 5.9 1.8 1.4 6.6 0.8 - 16.6

 Total distributors 22.2 7.9 5.9 23.7 3.9 0.8 64.4

 National big-box retailers 2.7 1.8 0.5 1.8 0.4 - 7.1

 Other retailers 1.0 - - 0.4 - - 1.4

 Total retailers 3.7 1.8 0.5 2.2 0.4 - 8.5

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers 3.8 2.6 0.7 2.9 0.1 - 10.1

 General purpose saw producers 6.7 0.5 - 0.8 - - 8.0

 Total OEMs 10.5 3.1 0.7 3.7 0.1 - 18.1

 Professional construction firms 1.0 - 1.5 4.7 1.0 0.8 9.0

 All other endusers - - - - - - -

 Total endusers 1.0 - 1.5 4.7 1.0 0.8 9.0

 TOTAL 37.3 12.9 8.7 34.2 5.4 1.5 100.0

Table continued on the next page.
II-3

Table II-1--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: Shares of U.S. commercial shipment values of finished diamond sawblades by size of blade,

by country of origin, by channel of distribution, and by type of customer for 2003-05 combined

Source and channel of distribution 

Diameter size

#7.0"

>7.0" but

#10.0"

>10.0" but

#12.0"

>12.0" but

#14.0"

>14.0" but

#20.0" >20.0" Total

Share of value (percentage)

Korea:

 Branded distributors 11.9 5.9 5.1 14.5 6.1 1.3 44.8

 Other distributors 5.4 2.6 1.0 4.0 1.7 0.8 15.5

 Total distributors 17.3 8.5 6.1 18.4 7.8 2.2 60.4

 National big-box retailers 0.3 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.6

 Other retailers 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 - 1.3

 Total retailers 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.4 - 1.9

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers 5.0 6.2 2.7 6.1 0.8 0.1 20.9

 General purpose saw producers 5.2 0.7 0.2 0.8 - - 7.0

 Total OEMs 10.2 6.9 2.9 6.9 0.8 0.1 27.9

 Professional construction firms 0.2 0.1 1.1 4.7 1.7 0.9 8.7

 All other endusers 0.3 - 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.2

 Total endusers 0.5 0.1 1.3 5.1 1.8 1.1 9.9

TOTAL 28.6 15.8 10.4 31.1 10.8 3.3 100.0

All other sources:

 Branded distributors - - 0.4 0.2 0.1 - 0.7

 Other distributors 0.2 0.5 5.2 22.7 3.7 0.7 32.9

 Total distributors 0.2 0.5 5.7 22.8 3.8 0.7 33.6

 National big-box retailers 51.1 1.6 1.5 3.5 0.3 - 58.1

 Other retailers 0.6 - 0.1 0.1 - - 0.8

 Total retailers 51.8 1.6 1.5 3.6 0.3 - 58.8

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers - - - - - - -

 General purpose saw producers 1.1 0.1 0.6 - - - 1.7

 Total OEMs 1.1 0.1 0.6 - - - 1.7

 Professional construction firms - - 1.4 3.3 0.4 0.4 5.5

 All other endusers - - - 0.2 0.1 - 0.3

 Total endusers - - 1.4 3.5 0.5 0.4 5.8

 TOTAL 53.0 2.2 9.1 29.9 4.6 1.1 100.0

Note.– Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 9

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 4.

 10 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 18.

 11 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, pp. 24 and 30. 

 12 Respondents’ (Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung) postconference brief, p. 11.

 13 Ibid.; respondents’ (Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung) prehearing brief, p. 19.

 14 Staff telephone interview with ***. Lowes and Sears, big-box retailers, reported that they *** (U.S. purchaser

questionnaire responses, section V-3). On the supply side, it appears that big-box retailers are supplied by branded

distributors and general-purpose saw producers, the latter acting as distributors for the diamond sawblades they have

produced for them with their brand names (hearing transcript, p. 241 (Delahaut), p. 263 (Nixon), and pp. 270-71

(Kim)).

 15 For its rental saws (wet cut), Home Depot reported that ***. Staff telephone interview with ***.

 16 Soldering and brazing are processes by which metals are joined by heating the metals and a non-ferrous filler

metal alloy. When the heated filler metal is liquid it interacts with a thin layer of the heated metals to be bonded,

cooling to form a strong sealed joint due to grain structure interaction. Unlike welding, soldering and brazing

methods do not melt the metals to be joined. Soldering uses non-ferrous filler metals with melting temperatures

below 800 degrees Fahrenheit and brazing uses non-ferrous filler metals with melting temperatures above 800

degrees Fahrenheit.

II-4

Petitioners reported that finished diamond sawblades are sold to distributors that generally cater

to the construction trade, to rental houses that own diamond saws and rent them to endusers, to outlets

such as Home Depot, and to endusers.9

 Petitioners also asserted that importers and resellers of imported

product are selling direct to endusers and bypassing the traditional channels of distribution,10 such that

distributors and endusers have ready access to price information.11 Respondents asserted that the U.S.

market for finished diamond sawblades is highly segmented with thousands of product variations sold

through multiple and distinct channels of distribution.12 According to respondents, within this segmented

market, substantial differences exist between U.S. producers and importers regarding the types of

products sold, as well as the channels of distribution and customer categories to which they sell

products.13

There appears to be at least some competition among the various suppliers. *** reported that “it

competes with other big-box retailers, smaller hardware stores, and internet sales for the DIY and light

contractor markets.14 It also competes somewhat with industrial suppliers, such as ***. These latter

suppliers sell mainly to larger contractors than does ***, although *** would also like to attract these

customers as well. The industrial suppliers also tend to carry somewhat higher grades/more powerful

(more demanding of the operator) supplies/tools than retailers. In the wet-cut market (mostly rentals),15

*** competes with other big-box retailers, tile retailers, and rental outlets.”

As seen in table II-I, U.S. producers’ largest relative shares of their domestic sales, by value, of

U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades during 2003-05 were in the three largest-size categories, over

12" in diameter. U.S. importers’ largest relative shares of U.S. sales, by value, of their finished diamond

sawblades imported from China, Korea, and all other countries were in the over 12"-to-14" diameter

category and the 7"-and-under diameter category.

As seen in table I-2, U.S. producers reported that *** percent of their total domestic sales of U.S.-

produced finished diamond sawblades, by value, during 2005 were segmented blades (*** percent laser

welded and most of the remainder, *** percent, soldered/brazed).16 U.S. importers reported that 68.6

percent of their total U.S. sales of the imported Chinese finished diamond sawblades were segmented

blades and 31.4 percent were continuous-rim blades during 2005. For the Chinese segmented diamond

sawblades, 68.7 percent were laser welded and a majority of the remainder, 28.9 percent, were sintered. 

U.S. importers reported that 72.4 percent of their total U.S. sales of the imported Korean finished

diamond sawblades were segmented blades and 27.6 percent were continuous-rim blades during
 17 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections II-12 and II-8, respectively.

 18 Depending on the use, finished diamond sawblades are either used in dry cutting or wet cutting, where water is

used to cool the sawblade so it does not overheat during use. Typically, larger diameter diamond sawblades are used

for wet cutting applications, whereas the smaller diameter diamond sawblades are used for dry cutting. Diamond

sawblades can be used in hand-held angle grinders, handheld skillsaws, walk-behind saws, table-tile saws, among

other types of saws and cutting tools. 

 19 A contractor with skilled operators may want to purchase a higher grade diamond sawblade, compared to a

contractor with poorly skilled operators who would cut incorrectly or too fast and damage or get less use from a

diamond sawblade than specified by its design.

 20 Some endusers want a fast-cutting diamond sawblade and are less concerned with the blade life, whereas other

endusers want a blade that will last a long time and are less concerned with the cutting speed of the blade.

 21 Different diamond sawblades are designed for power tools with different ranges of revolutions per minute

and/or different horsepower.

 22 Two of the 13 branded distributors also identified themselves as other distributors and another two of the 13

branded distributors also identified themselves as other retailers; the latter are retailers other than big-box retailers,

such as Ace Hardware and Tru-Value Hardware, which have fewer store locations and/or smaller square-footage per

store than big-box retailers, such as Home Depot and Lowes.

 23 One of the nine other distributors also identified itself as an “other” retailer.

 24 Four of the seven diamond sawblade producers also produced general-purpose saws and two of these four firms

also produced diamond saws. Four of the diamond sawblade producers also identified themselves as branded

distributors and one of these four firms also considered itself an “other” distributor. Six of the seven diamond

sawblade producers filling out purchaser questionnaires are petitioners and the remaining producer supports the

petition.

 25 One of the general-purpose saw producers also identified itself as an “other” retailer.

II-5

2005. For the imported Korean segmented finished diamond sawblades, 92.7 percent were laser welded

and most of the remainder, 7.0 percent, were soldered/brazed.

In the size category where the domestic and imported finished diamond sawblades showed the

most overlap, more than 12" to 14" in diameter, laser welding was the predominant method of attaching

the cutting pieces to the cores for both the U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades and those imported

from China, Korea, and all other countries.17

Finished diamond sawblades are used to cut various media: concrete, asphalt, masonry, tile, brick,

block, stone, ductile iron, marble, and granite.18 The preferred type (segmented, continuous rim, notched,

laser-welded, sintered, soldered, and proprietary versus nonproprietary specifications), size, and grade of

finished diamond sawblade is influenced not only by the material to be cut but also by the composition of

a particular medium, by the skill of the operator,19 the nature of the cutting job,20 and by the capability of

the power tool being used.21 Because of the number of factors considered in choosing a finished diamond

sawblade, U.S. producers and importers each offer thousands of different diamond sawblades, some of

which are proprietary designs of the producer or enduser.

U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses are frequently cited in the remainder of Part II and less

frequently in Part V. The Commission received 52 useable questionnaire responses representing a wide

variety of diamond sawblade purchasers; 13 responding purchasers were primarily branded distributors,22

9 purchasers were primarily other distributors,23 9 purchasers were “other” retailers, 8 purchasers were

endusers, 7 purchasers were primarily diamond sawblade producers,24 3 purchasers were national big-box

retailers, 2 purchasers were primarily producers of general-purpose power saws,25 and 1 responding

purchaser was an equipment rental firm.
 26 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-A-1 and III-A-1.

 27 Supply, demand, and substitution responses in this section refer to changes that could occur within 12 months,

unless otherwise indicated.

 28 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-7.

 29 Staff telephone interview with ***.

 30 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-7.

 31 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-7.

II-6

Professional Construction Firms

U.S. producers and importers specified in their questionnaire responses how they defined

professional construction endusers of diamond sawblades.26 Comments of the responding firms are

shown in the following tabulation.

Definitions of professional construction endusers

Firm Comments

* * * * * * *

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS27

U.S. Supply

U.S. Production

Based on available information for finished diamond sawblades, U.S. producers had the ability to

respond to changes in U.S. demand with changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced finished

diamond sawblades to the U.S. market during January 2003-December 2005. The principal factors

contributing to this responsiveness are substantial excess capacity, inventories that are available for sale,

and a rapid production process with short lead times; order lead times average about 2 days from

inventory and 5 days from U.S. production.28

Based on available information for diamond sawblade cores, U.S. producers had some ability to

respond to changes in U.S. demand with changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced diamond

sawblade cores to the U.S. market during January 2003-December 2005. The principal factors

contributing to this responsiveness is excess capacity, although this excess capacity reportedly *** during

the peak-demand season of May through November. The *** during the peak-demand season.29 U.S.

producers of diamond sawblade cores produced to order, such that no inventories are available for sale;

order lead times average about 25 days from U.S. production.30

Based on available information for diamond sawblade segments, U.S. producers had the ability to

respond to changes in U.S. demand with changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced diamond

sawblade segments to the U.S. market during January 2003-December 2005. The principal factors

contributing to this responsiveness are substantial excess capacity, inventories that are available for sale,

and a rapid production process with short lead times; order lead times average about 2 days from

inventory and 5 days from U.S. production.31

U.S. producers reported that the majority of their finished diamond sawblades were segmented

blades, with the majority of these sawblades 12 inches or more in diameter and laser welding was the

predominant method used to attach the cutting segments to the core for these size blades during 2003-05. 

The segmented sawblades less than 12 inches in diameter were also most frequently laser welded.
 32 *** reported that, as a big-box retailer, it requires a large annual volume of diamond sawblades and it does not

believe that U.S. producers are capable of supplying this volume; the firm indicated that it has not been contacted by

the U.S. diamond sawblade producers listed in the petition (staff telephone interview with ***).

 33 Hearing transcript, pp. 163-169 (Jedick, Garrison, Baron, O’Day, and Rizner). 

 34 Hearing transcript, pp. 166-167 (Jedick and O’Day).

 35 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 10.

 36 Ibid.

 37 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 10.

 38 Ibid.

 39 Ibid.

II-7

In addition to producing finished diamond sawblades, U.S. producers also purchase and/or import

finished diamond sawblades, cores, and segments, which include the products from subject and

nonsubject countries. Petitioning U.S. producers reported that they have been forced to import at least

some finished diamond sawblades because of low prices of the imports from China and Korea; while

other U.S. producers reported importing finished diamond sawblades to complement their U.S.

production. U.S. diamond sawblade producers reported importing and/or purchasing diamond sawblade

cores and segments primarily because of price.

Industry capacity

Finished diamond sawblades.–U.S. producers’ total reported capacity utilization in the

production of finished diamond sawblades fell continuously during January 2003-December 2005, from

62.5 percent in 2003 to 58.7 percent during 2005; total production capacity increased each year during the

period. It appears that excess capacity would allow U.S. producers in the short run to increase production

in response to an increase in U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades. Given current staffing levels

and product mix, however, this excess capacity would not be sufficient to replace the imported diamond

sawblades from both China and Korea.32 During 2005, excess U.S. production capacity for finished

diamond sawblades was 415,615 units, whereas U.S. shipments of diamond sawblades imported from

China and Korea approached 5.1 million units in 2005, representing an increase of almost 1.0 million

units from the previous year.

However, U.S. producers indicated that they could increase capacity quickly by adding additional

shifts.33 In addition, U.S. producers indicated that producing a greater proportion of smaller diamond

sawblades would by itself increase capacity with the current facilities and labor.34 *** reported that if it

dedicated its current unused diamond sawblade capacity (*** units annually based on its current

composition of products) to small diameter manufacturing, it could produce “tomorrow” *** more

diamond sawblades annually than it is producing currently.35 *** also reported that within *** it could

add a third shift, which would increase its annual production of small-diameter diamond sawblades by an

additional *** units.36 In addition, *** reported that within *** it could again double its production

capacity for small-diameter diamond sawblades, for a total annual capacity for small-diameter diamond

sawblades of *** units.37 *** asserted that many of its domestic competitors would also increase their

production capacity if U.S. demand for small-diameter diamond sawblades increased as a result of

imposition of tariffs.38 All of *** proposed efforts to increase production capacity were based on

“skyrocketing” U.S. demand for small-diameter diamond sawblades due to imposed tariffs.39 It appears

that increased production capacity would allow U.S. producers in the short run to increase production in
 40 Mr. Baron indicated that prices would have to be at a level that U.S. producers are used to getting (hearing

transcript, p. 166 (Baron)).

 41 *** reported that *** (staff telephone interview with ***).

 42 To utilize excess capacity during December-April, *** reported that ***. These *** sales are discussed in

more detail in Part V. 

 43 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 10. ***.

 44 Ibid.

 45 Ibid.

 46 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 10.

 47 Ibid.

 48 Ibid.

II-8

response to an increase in U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades, although the price increase

necessary to encourage this increased production capacity was not specified.40

Diamond sawblade cores.–U.S. producers’ total reported capacity utilization in the production of

diamond sawblade cores fell continuously during January 2003-December 2005, from *** percent in

2003 to *** percent during 2005; total production capacity increased each year during the period.41 As

noted earlier, *** reported that ***.42 It appears that excess capacity would allow U.S. producers in the

short run to increase production in response to an increase in U.S. demand for diamond sawblade cores,

but likely primarily in the off-peak demand months.

*** reported that if prices were high enough, it could increase capacity in 30 days from the

current *** cores per day to *** cores per day, an increase of *** percent, by moving to 3 full shifts and

eight hours of overtime per man per week.43 In 120 days, *** reported that it could buy additional

equipment and with three full shifts could produce about *** diamond sawblade cores per year, or ***

percent above its 2005 annual capacity of *** diamond sawblade cores.44 In addition, *** asserted that

five other potential U.S. producers could easily produce another *** diamond sawblade cores annually if

they did not have to compete with low prices of the imported Chinese and Korean diamond sawblade

cores, although no time period was specified to achieve this extra production.45 It appears that increases

in production capacity within a 12-month period would allow U.S. producers in the short run to increase

production in response to an increase in U.S. demand for diamond sawblade cores, if prices were high

enough.

Diamond sawblade segments.–U.S. producers’ total reported capacity utilization in the

production of diamond sawblade segments, including that for internal consumption and for sale, increased

somewhat during January 2003-December 2005, from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent during 2005;

total production capacity remained relatively stable during January 2003-December 2005. It appears that

excess capacity would allow U.S. producers in the short run to increase production in response to an

increase in U.S. demand for diamond sawblade segments.

*** reported that if it dedicated its current unused diamond sawblade segment capacity (about

*** units annually based on its current composition of products) to production of segments for smalldiameter diamond sawblades (small-diameter segments), it could produce tomorrow *** more smalldiameter segments annually than what it is currently producing.46 *** also reported that within *** it

could add a third shift, which would increase its annual production of small-diameter segments by an

additional *** units.47 In addition, *** reported that within *** it could again double its production

capacity for small-diameter segments, for a total annual capacity for small-diameter segments of almost

*** units.48 All of *** proposed efforts to increase production capacity were based on “skyrocketing”
 49 Ibid.

 50 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-21.

 51 *** reported that its inventories of U.S.-produced diamond sawblade segments were available for resale in the

U.S. market. The firm explained that *** (U.S. producer questionnaire response, section IV-B-21).

 52 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-21.

 53 If export supply agreements are one year or greater in duration or the export products were unacceptable in the

U.S. market, the ability to shift would be reduced.

II-9

U.S. demand for small-diameter diamond sawblades due to imposed tariffs.49 It appears that increased

production capacity would allow U.S. producers in the short run to increase production in response to an

increase in U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades and, in turn, small-diameter segments, although

the price increase for finished diamond sawblades necessary to encourage this increased production

capacity for small-diameter segments was not specified.

Inventory levels

Finished diamond sawblades.--U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories of finished diamond

sawblades increased during January 2003-December 2005, to 164,632 sawblades by 2005, and averaged

26.3 percent as a share of total shipments of such products during January 2003-December 2005. U.S.

producers reported that 73.4 percent of their 2005 inventories of finished diamond sawblades was

available for sale in the U.S. market, while the remaining 26.6 percent was already committed to

customers or otherwise not available for sale in the U.S. market.50 The data indicate that U.S. producers

had an ability to use inventories to increase shipments of their finished diamond sawblades to the U.S.

market during January 2003-December 2005.

Diamond sawblade cores.–There were no reported inventories of U.S.-produced diamond

sawblade cores; these products are made to order.

Diamond sawblade segments.–U.S. producers’ U.S. end-of-period inventories of diamond

sawblade segments that are designated for sale fell during January 2003-December 2005, to *** diamond

sawblade segments by 2005, and averaged *** percent as a share of total shipments of such products

during January 2003-December 2005. U.S. producers reported that only *** percent of their 2005

inventories of diamond sawblade segments was available for sale in the U.S. market,51 while the

remaining *** percent was already committed to customers or for use internally.52 The data indicate that

U.S. producers had a limited ability to use inventories to increase shipments of their diamond sawblade

segments to the U.S. market during January 2003-December 2005.

Export markets 53

Finished diamond sawblades.--U.S. producers’ total quantity of reported exports of their U.S.-

produced finished diamond sawblades increased during January 2003-December 2005, while the value of

such exports decreased during this period. U.S. producers’ total value of exports of their U.S.-produced

finished diamond sawblades averaged 3.5 percent of their total shipments of such products during January

2003-December 2005. The data indicate that U.S. producers may have had some ability to increase

shipments of their finished diamond sawblades to the U.S. market during this period by diverting their

exports to the U.S. market.
 54 No separate response regarding alternative product production was reported by U.S. producers regarding their

production of diamond sawblade segments.

 55 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section II-3.

 56 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section II-3.

II-10

Diamond sawblade cores.--U.S. producers’ total value of reported exports of their U.S.-produced

diamond sawblade cores fluctuated but increased during January 2003-December 2005. U.S. producers’

total value of exports of their U.S.-produced diamond sawblade cores averaged *** percent of their total

shipments of such products during January 2003-December 2005. The data indicate that U.S. producers

may have had some ability to increase shipments of their finished diamond sawblades to the U.S. market

during this period by diverting their exports to the U.S. market.

Diamond sawblade segments.--U.S. producers’ total value of reported exports of their U.S.-

produced diamond sawblade segments fluctuated but increased during January 2003-December 2005. 

U.S. producers’ total value of exports of their U.S.-produced diamond sawblade segments averaged ***

percent of their total shipments of such products for sale during January 2003-December 2005. The data

indicate that U.S. producers may have had an ability to increase shipments of their diamond sawblade

segments to the U.S. market during this period by diverting their exports to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives54

Finished diamond sawblades.--Six U.S. producers reported producing other products on the

same equipment and with the same labor that they used to produce finished diamond sawblades.55 The

other products included diamond drill bits and blades, diamond core bits and core-bit parts, and grinding

and shaping tools. One or more of these other products accounted for a low of *** percent of total

production using shared equipment or labor for *** to a high of *** percent for ***. The information

suggests that some U.S. producers would be able to shift their U.S. production of finished diamond

sawblades to or from any other products; any ability to switch production among alternative products

would enhance the domestic producers’ supply responses to a change in price.

Diamond sawblade cores.–Both U.S. producers reported producing other products on the same

equipment or labor used to produce diamond sawblade cores.56 The other products included ***. These

other products accounted for *** percent of total production using shared equipment or labor for *** and

*** percent for ***. The information suggests that U.S. producers would be able to shift a limited

amount of their U.S. production of diamond sawblade cores to or from any other products; any ability to

switch production among alternative products would enhance the domestic producers’ supply responses

to a change in price.

China

Based on available information, the responding producers of finished diamond sawblades and

diamond sawblade cores in China may have the ability to respond to changes in the prices of the finished

diamond sawblades and the diamond sawblade cores with changes in the quantity of shipments of the

Chinese products to the U.S. market due principally to the existence of sizeable home and third-country

markets. The responding producers of diamond sawblade segments in China may have the ability to alter

the quantity of shipments of these Chinese products to the U.S. market based primarily on limited excess

capacity. Most of the diamond sawblade segments produced in China are used for internal consumption. 

Thirteen Chinese producers reported producing finished diamond sawblades; 3 of the 12 reported

producing only the finished diamond sawblades, while 7 of these 12 producers also reported producing
 57 There was very limited Chinese production of finished diamond sawblades greater than 20 inches in diameter

during 2003-05.

II-11

segments, 2 also reported producing cores, and one also reported producing cores and segments. In

addition, two other Chinese producers reported producing only diamond sawblade cores.

Chinese producers reported that the majority of their finished diamond sawblades were

segmented blades, with the majority of these blades 12 inches or less in diameter and sintering was the

predominant method used to attach the cutting segments to the core for these size blades during 2003-05. 

The segmented sawblades greater than 12 inches but equal to or less than 14 inches in diameter were most

frequently laser welded, while the segmented sawblades greater than 14 inches but equal to or less than 20

inches in diameter were most frequently soldered/brazed.57

Industry capacity

Finished diamond sawblades.--Available data for the responding Chinese producers indicated

that total capacity utilization rates to produce finished diamond sawblades decreased during January

2003-December 2005, to a period low of *** percent during 2005, but is projected to increase to ***

percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. Total annual capacity to produce finished diamond sawblades

in China increased throughout 2003-05 and is projected to continue to increase during 2006-07. The

reported data indicate that there was excess capacity for the Chinese producers to expand production of

finished diamond sawblades for sale in the U.S. market during 2003-05, and this ability to increase

production is projected to continue in 2006 and 2007.

Diamond sawblade cores.--Available data for the responding Chinese producers indicated that

total capacity utilization rates to produce diamond sawblade cores fluctuated but increased during January

2003-December 2005, to 87.7 percent during 2005, and is projected to decrease somewhat to 85.6 percent

in 2006 and 85.4 percent in 2007. Total annual capacity to produce diamond sawblade cores in China

increased throughout 2003-05 and is projected to continue to increase during 2006-07. The reported data

indicate that there was capacity for the Chinese producers to expand production of diamond sawblade

cores for sale in the U.S. market during 2003-05, and this ability to increase production is projected to

continue in 2006 and 2007.

Diamond sawblade segments.--Available data for the responding Chinese producers indicated

that total capacity utilization rates to produce diamond sawblade segments increased during January

2003-December 2005, to a period high of *** percent during 2005, and is projected to decrease to ***

percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. Total annual capacity to produce diamond sawblade segments

in China increased throughout 2003-05 and is projected to continue to increase during 2006-07. The

reported data indicate that there was some capacity for the Chinese producers to expand production of

diamond sawblade segments for sale in the U.S. market during 2003-05, and this ability to increase

production is projected to decrease somewhat in 2006 and 2007.

Inventory levels

Finished diamond sawblades.–The responding Chinese producers’ total quantity of reported

Chinese end-of-period inventories of finished diamond sawblades increased during 2003-05 (more than

doubling during this period), and are projected to decrease somewhat in 2006 but increase in 2007. Such

inventories averaged *** percent as a share of the quantity of total reported shipments of Chinese finished

diamond sawblades during 2003-05 and are projected to average *** percent of total shipments during

2006-07. These data indicate that the responding Chinese producers may have had an ability to use their 
 58 The production of diamond sawblade cores in China may be made to specifications of the finished diamond

sawblades, similar to diamond sawblade core production in the United States, and therefore, all of the inventories of

various Chinese diamond sawblade cores may not be useable/available to the U.S. market.

 59 The Chinese producers of finished diamond sawblades and/or diamond sawblade cores and segments exported

their products to third-country markets in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

 60 This flexibility may be restrained to the extent that the responding Chinese producers have sales agreements

longer than 12 months with customers in their home market and third-country markets, or that the products produced

for home and/or third-country markets are not useable/acceptable in the U.S. market.

 61 Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-11.

II-12

inventory of Chinese finished diamond sawblades to increase shipments of these products to the U.S.

market during 2003-05, and this ability is projected to continue during 2006-07.

Diamond sawblade cores.--The responding Chinese producers’ total quantity of reported Chinese

end-of-period inventories of diamond sawblade cores fluctuated but increased during 2003-05, and are

projected to increase in 2006 and in 2007. Such inventories averaged 4.7 percent as a share of the total

quantity of reported shipments of Chinese diamond sawblade cores during 2003-05 and are projected to

average 4.2 percent of total shipments during 2006-07. These data indicate that the responding Chinese

producers may have had an ability to use their Chinese inventory of diamond sawblade cores to increase

shipments of these products to the U.S. market during 2003-05, and this ability is projected to continue

during 2006-07.58

Diamond sawblade segments.--The responding Chinese producers’ total quantity of reported

Chinese end-of-period inventories of diamond sawblade segments increased during 2003-05, and are

projected to decrease somewhat in 2006 and in 2007 from the level in 2005. Such inventories averaged

*** percent as a share of the total quantity of reported shipments of Chinese diamond sawblade segments

during 2003-05 and are projected to average *** percent of total shipments during 2006-07. These data

indicate that the responding Chinese producers may have had an ability to use their inventory of Chinese

diamond sawblade segments to increase shipments of these products to the U.S. market during 2003-05,

and this ability is projected to continue during 2006-07.

Alternate markets59

Finished diamond sawblades.–The responding Chinese producers shipped their finished

diamond sawblades principally to third-country markets, secondarily to their home market, thirdly to the

U.S. market, and the remaining finished diamond sawblades were shipped for internal consumption

during 2003-05; this pattern of sales/shipments are projected to continue during 2006-07. During 2003-

05, the responding Chinese producers’ total value of their third-country market shipments averaged ***

percent of their total shipments; home market shipments averaged *** percent of the total; shipments to

the U.S. market averaged *** percent of the total; and internal consumption averaged *** percent of the

total. Total reported exports of Chinese finished diamond sawblades as a share of the total value of

reported shipments of such products increased steadily during 2003-05, from *** percent during 2003 to

*** percent during 2005. The data indicate that the responding Chinese producers may have had the

flexibility to shift shipments of finished diamond sawblades among third-country, home, and U.S.

markets in response to price changes in the United States during 2003-05, but this may be restricted by

differences in Chinese finished diamond sawblades produced for different markets.60

Three responding Chinese producers commented on differences in Chinese finished diamond

sawblades sold in the Chinese market and those sold in the U.S. market.61 *** reported that the Chinese

finished diamond sawblades it produces and sells in the Chinese market are for stone business, whereas
 62 Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-11.

 63 Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-10.

 64 According to ***, the arbor of the finished diamond sawblade sold to the Chinese market is generally 20mm in

diameter, of which *** holds the patent, but the arbors of the finished diamond sawblades for export are much more

diversified, and include 5/8 inch, 1 inch, 60mm, etc. *** asserted that the cutting surface of the Chinese finished

diamond sawblades sold to the Chinese market have only 3 basic types, i.e. segmented, continuous, and turbo, but

the cutting surfaces of the finished diamond sawblades for export are more numerous in order to meet the different

overseas customers’ requirements in different areas. According to ***, it does not sell laser-welded finished

diamond sawblades to the Chinese market, but the laser-welded products account for 60 percent by value of the total

finished diamond sawblades that it exports.

 65 Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-10.

II-13

the Chinese finished diamond sawblades it produces and sells in other countries is for construction use. 

*** reported that the finished diamond sawblades it produces in China for its home market and those for

the U.S. and third-country markets are not interchangeable mainly because the quality level of products

for the Chinese market are less than those for export.62 In addition, *** reported that its Chineseproduced finished diamond sawblades for the Chinese market are produced to emphasize blade life,

whereas its finished diamond sawblades for export are produced to emphasize cutting speed.63 ***

reported that because of the significant differences in the finished diamond sawblade arbor, in the teeth

type, in the way of attaching the segments to the steel core, as well as that in marketing the products sold

to the domestic market, the finished diamond sawblades are not very interchangeable in a commercial

sense between the U.S. and Chinese markets.64

With respect to the marketing, *** also noted its Chinese finished diamond sawblades sold to the

Chinese market are all shipped with *** brand (with Chinese characters), some products sold to the

Southeast Asian market are shipped with the *** brand (with English characters), but the Chinese

finished diamond sawblades sold to the United States, the European Union, and other foreign markets are

all to OEMs. *** also asserted that it uses different technicians for product design and different sales

staff to promote the different finished diamond sawblade products to the different markets.

Seven of nine responding Chinese producers did not expect any changes in the product range,

product mix, or marketing of finished diamond sawblades in China, the United States, or third-country

markets, whereas the remaining two responding Chinese producers reported some expected changes.65

*** reported that it expected to sell construction quality finished diamond sawblades in the Chinese

market beginning in 2006. *** reported that it stopped selling finished diamond sawblades to the U.S.

market due to the antidumping procedure.

Diamond sawblade cores.--The responding Chinese producers shipped their diamond sawblade

cores principally to their home market, secondarily exported to third-country markets, thirdly used for

internal consumption, and fourthly exported to the U.S. market during 2003-05; this pattern of shipments

is projected to continue during 2006-07. During 2003-05, the responding Chinese producers’ total value

of their home market shipments averaged 52.3 percent of their total shipments; shipments to third-country

markets averaged 26.7 percent of the total; use for internal consumption averaged 19.8 percent; and

shipments to the U.S. market averaged 1.2 percent of the total. Total reported exports of Chinese

diamond sawblade cores (as a share of the total value of reported shipments of such products) increased

steadily during 2003-05, from 19.6 percent during 2003 to 35.1 percent during 2005. These data indicate

that the responding Chinese producers may have had the flexibility to shift shipments of diamond

sawblade cores among home, third-country, and U.S. markets in response to price changes in the United
 66 This flexibility may be restrained to the extent that the responding Chinese producers have sales agreements

longer than 12 months with customers in their home market and third-country markets, or that the products produced

for home and/or third-country markets are not useable/acceptable in the U.S. market.

 67 This flexibility may be restrained to the extent that the responding Chinese producers have sales agreements

longer than 12 months with customers in their home market and third-country markets, or that the products produced

for home and/or third-country markets are not useable/acceptable in the U.S. market.

 68 Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-3.

II-14

States during 2003-05, but this may be restricted somewhat by differences in Chinese diamond sawblade

cores produced to specifications for different markets.66

Diamond sawblade segments.--The responding Chinese producers used their diamond sawblade

segments mostly for internal consumption, secondarily shipped their segments to third-country markets,

thirdly shipped their segments to their home market, and fourthly shipped the limited remaining amount

to the U.S. market during 2003-05; this pattern of shipments generally is projected to continue during

2006-07, with the exception that no shipments of segments to the U.S. market is projected for this latter

period. During 2003-05, the responding Chinese producers’ total value of their shipments for internal

consumption averaged *** percent of their total shipments; shipments to third-country markets averaged

*** percent of the total; shipments to the home market averaged *** percent of the total; and shipments to

the U.S. market averaged *** percent of the total. Total reported exports of Chinese diamond sawblade

segments (as a share of the total value of reported shipments of such products) increased steadily during

2003-05, from *** percent during 2003 to *** percent during 2005, despite no shipments to the U.S.

market during 2005. These data indicate that the responding Chinese producers may have had the

flexibility to shift shipments of diamond sawblade segments among third-country and U.S. markets in

response to price changes in the United States during 2003-05, but this may be restricted by differences in

Chinese diamond sawblade segments produced to different specifications for different markets.67

Production alternatives

Diamond sawblade products.–Ten of 14 responding Chinese producers of diamond sawblade

products reported that, since 2003, they have not produced other products on the same equipment and

machinery or with the same labor used to produce finished diamond sawblades and/or diamond sawblade

segments or cores, whereas the remaining 4 Chinese producers reported producing other products such as

carbide sawblades, diamond core bits and parts, diamond cup wheels and parts, and polishing and

grinding tools.68 One or more of these products accounted for a low of *** percent of total production for

*** using the equipment or labor that it used to produce Chinese diamond sawblade products to a high of

*** percent for ***. Based on these responses, four of the responding Chinese producers have an ability

to shift their domestic production of diamond sawblade products to or from other products, but the

majority of responding Chinese producers reported no other production alternatives; any ability to switch

production among alternative products would enhance the Chinese producers’ supply response to a

change in price.

Korea

Based on available information, the three responding producers of finished diamond sawblades in

Korea may have the ability to respond to changes in the prices of these products with changes in the

quantity of shipments of the Korean finished diamond sawblades to the U.S. market due principally to the

existence of sizeable home and third-country markets. On the other hand, Korean producers may have

some ability to increase shipments of their diamond sawblade cores and segments to the U.S. market
II-15

based primarily on limited excess capacity, and for diamond sawblade segments due to some thirdcountry market shipments. Most of the Korean-produced diamond sawblade parts are used for internal

consumption. One Korean producer reported producing finished diamond sawblades, cores, and

segments; another Korean producer reported producing both finished diamond sawblades and segments;

and the third responding Korean producer reported producing only finished diamond sawblades.

Korean producers reported that the majority of their finished diamond sawblades were segmented

blades during 2003-05, with somewhat more of these blades 12 inches or less in diameter and the

remainder larger than 12 inches in diameter. Sintering was the method most frequently used to attach the

cutting segments to the core for the segmented sawblades 12 inches or less in diameter, whereas laser

welding was most frequently used to attach the cutting segments for the segmented blades greater than 12

inches or equal-to-or-less-than 20 inches in diameter, and soldering/brazing was used most frequently to

attach the cutting segments for the segmented sawblades greater than 20 inches in diameter.

Industry capacity

Finished diamond sawblades.–Available data for the three responding Korean producers

indicated that total capacity utilization rates to produce finished diamond sawblades fluctuated but

increased during January 2003-December 2005, to a period high of *** percent during 2005, but is

projected to decrease somewhat to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. Total annual capacity to

produce finish diamond sawblades in Korea fluctuated but increased during 2003-05 and is projected to

continue to increase during 2006-07. The reported data indicate that there was some excess capacity for

the Korean producers to expand production of finished diamond sawblades for sale in the U.S. market

during 2003-05, particularly in 2004, and this ability to increase production is projected to continue in

2006 and 2007.

Diamond sawblade cores.--Available data reported by the single responding Korean producer

indicated that total capacity utilization rates to produce diamond sawblade cores fluctuated but increased

during January 2003-December 2005, to *** percent during 2005, and is projected to increase to ***

percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. Total reported annual capacity to produce diamond sawblade

cores in Korea increased throughout 2003-05 and is projected to remain at the 2005 level during 2006-07. 

The reported data indicate that there was some excess capacity for the Korean producers to expand

production of diamond sawblade segments for sale in the U.S. market during 2003-05, but particularly in

2003, and this ability to increase production is projected to decrease in 2006 and 2007.

Diamond sawblade segments.--Available data for the responding Korean producers indicated that

total capacity utilization rates to produce diamond sawblade segments fluctuated but increased during

January 2003-December 2005, to a period high of *** percent during 2005, and is projected to remain

around this level in 2006 and in 2007. Total annual capacity to produce diamond sawblade segments in

Korea increased throughout 2003-05 and is projected to increase somewhat during 2006-07. The reported

data indicate that there was some excess capacity for the Korean producers to expand production of

diamond sawblade segments for sale in the U.S. market during 2003-05, and this ability to increase

production is projected to continue in 2006 and 2007.

Inventory levels

Finished diamond sawblades.–The responding Korean producers’ total quantity of reported

Korean end-of-period inventories of finished diamond sawblades increased steadily during 2003-05, and

is projected to continue to increase in 2006 and in 2007. Such inventories averaged *** percent as a

share of the quantity of total reported shipments of Korean finished diamond sawblades during 2003-05

and are projected to average *** percent of total shipments during 2006-07. These data indicate that the
 69 A single firm, ***, reported information on its Korean cores. Its inventory and shipment figures for cores,

however, involve its purchases of cores, as well as its Korean production of cores. As a result, the reported

inventory and shipment figures for cores are not consistent with the reported capacity and production figures for

cores. 

 70 The Korean producers of finished diamond sawblades and/or diamond sawblade and/or segments exported their

products to third-country markets in Asia and Europe.

 71 This flexibility may be restrained to the extent that the responding Korean producers have sales agreements

longer than 12 months with customers in their home market and third-country markets, or that the products produced

(continued...)

II-16

responding Korean producers may have had an ability to use their Korean inventory of finished diamond

sawblades to increase shipments of these products to the U.S. market during 2003-05, and this ability is

projected to continue during 2006-07.

Diamond sawblade cores.--69 The single responding Korean producer’s total quantity of reported

Korean end-of-period inventories of diamond sawblade cores increased steadily, more than doubling,

during 2003-05, and is projected to increase somewhat in 2006 and 2007. Such inventories averaged ***

percent as a share of the total quantity of reported shipments of Korean diamond sawblade segments

during 2003-05 and are projected to average *** percent of total shipments during 2006-07. These data

indicate that the responding Korean producers may have had an ability to use their Korean inventory of

diamond sawblade cores to ship these products to the U.S. market during 2003-05, and this ability is

projected to continue during 2006-07.

Diamond sawblade segments.--The responding Korean producers’ total quantity of reported

Korean end-of-period inventories of diamond sawblade segments increased steadily, but is projected to

decrease somewhat in 2006 and then increase in 2007. Such inventories averaged *** percent as a share

of the total quantity of reported shipments of Korean diamond sawblade segments during 2003-05 and are

projected to average *** percent of total shipments during 2006-07. These data indicate that the

responding Korean producers may have had some ability to use their Korean inventory of diamond

sawblade segments to ship these products to the U.S. market during 2003-05, and this ability is projected

to continue during 2006-07.

Alternate markets70

Finished diamond sawblades.–The three responding Korean producers shipped their finished

diamond sawblades principally to third-country markets, secondarily to the U.S. market and to their home

market, and the remaining finished diamond sawblades were shipped for internal consumption during

2003-05. Projections for 2006-07 show no internal consumption of the Korean finished diamond

sawblades, while shipments to the United States exceed those to the home market. Third-country

markets, however, are projected to remain the leading destination for shipments of finished diamond

sawblades. During 2003-05, the responding Korean producers’ total value of their third-country market

shipments averaged *** percent of their total shipments; shipments to the U.S. market averaged ***

percent of the total; home market shipments averaged *** percent of the total; and internal consumption

averaged *** percent of the total. Total reported exports of Korean finished diamond sawblades as a

share of the total value of reported shipments of such products increased throughout 2003-05, from ***

percent during 2003 to *** percent during 2005. The data indicate that the responding Korean producers

may have had the flexibility to shift shipments of finished diamond sawblades among third-country,

home, and U.S. markets in response to price changes in the United States during 2003-05, but this may be

restricted by differences in Korean finished diamond sawblades produced for different markets.71
 71 (...continued)

for home and/or third-country markets are not useable/acceptable in the U.S. market.

 72 Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-11.

 73 By contrast, according to ***, the U.S. market has a very large DIY component. Also, the use of stone in

building is not nearly as common in the United States as in Korea. Thus, *** considers the product mix of diamond

sawblades in the two markets to be very different. 

 74 Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-10. 

 75 A single firm, ***, reported information on its Korean cores. Its inventory and shipment figures for cores,

however, involve its purchases of cores, as well as its Korean production of cores. As a result, the reported

inventory and shipment figures for cores are not consistent with the reported capacity and production figures for

cores. 

 76 Although the Korean producer may have been able to shift shipments of cores between internal consumption

and the U.S. market, this flexibility may be restrained to the extent that the responding Korean producer’s cores

produced for internal consumption are not useable/acceptable in the U.S. market. In addition, any such shifting of

Korean cores could involve less Korean production of finished diamond sawblades.

II-17

Three responding Korean producers commented on differences in Korean finished diamond

sawblades sold in the Korean market and those sold in the U.S. market.72 *** reported that while there is

some degree of overlap, there is no DIY market in Korea, only a professional market. Also, in Korea,

stone is a much more common building material, requiring special types of diamond sawblades. ***

reported that the Korean market for diamond sawblades is dominated by professional users, particularly

for stone cutting. Accordingly, custom-made, low volume, large diameter, and high quality blades

predominate.73 *** reported that generally, the Korean market is more focused on the professional side,

particularly for stone. The U.S. market, on the other hand, is more oriented towards the DIY market.

The three responding Korean producers reported that no changes in product range, product mix,

or marketing of finished diamond sawblades occurred in Korean, U.S., or third-country markets during

2003-05, and they did not expect any future changes in these countries.74

Diamond sawblade cores.--75 The single responding Korean producer for cores used its diamond

sawblade cores principally for internal consumption, and secondarily exported to the U.S. market during

2003-05; this pattern of shipments is projected to continue during 2006-07. During 2003-05, the

responding Korean producer’s total value of its internal consumption averaged *** percent of their total

shipments, and shipments to the United States averaged *** percent of the total. Total reported exports of

Korean diamond sawblade cores as a share of the total value of reported shipments of such products

fluctuated but increased during 2003-05, from *** percent during 2003 to *** percent during 2005. 

These data indicate that the responding Korean producers did not have the flexibility to shift shipments of

diamond sawblade cores among home, third-country, and U.S. markets in response to price changes in the

United States during 2003-05.76

Diamond sawblade segments.--The responding Korean producers used their diamond sawblade

segments principally for internal consumption, secondarily exported to third-country markets, thirdly

exported to the U.S. market, and fourthly for shipment to their home market during 2003-05; this pattern

of shipments is projected to continue during 2006-07. During 2003-05, the responding Korean producers’

total value of their internal consumption shipments averaged almost *** percent of their total shipments;

exports to third-country markets averaged *** percent; exports to the U.S. market averaged *** percent;

and home market shipments averaged *** percent of the total. Total reported exports of Korean diamond

sawblade segments increased as a share of the total value of reported shipments of such products from

*** percent during 2003 to *** percent during 2005. These data indicate that the responding Korean

producers may have had some flexibility to shift shipments of diamond sawblade segments among third-
 77 This flexibility may be restrained to the extent that the responding Korean producers have sales agreements

longer than 12 months with customers in their home market and third-country markets, or that the products produced

for home and/or third-country markets are not useable/acceptable in the U.S. market.

 78 Foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-3.

 79 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-22 and IV-B-23.

 80 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, sections III-B-22 and III-B-23.

 81 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-2 and IV-6.

 82 Petition, pp. 16-17.

 83 Respondents’ (Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung) postconference brief, pp. 27-28.

II-18

country and U.S. markets in response to price changes in the United States during 2003-05, but this may

be restricted by differences in Korean diamond sawblade segments produced to different specifications

for different markets.77

Production alternatives

Diamond sawblade products.–The two responding Korean producers, ***, reported that they did

not produce other products on the same equipment and machinery or with the same labor used to produce

finished diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade segments for *** and just finished diamond

sawblades for ***.78 Based on these responses, the two responding Korean producers do not have an

ability to shift their domestic production of diamond sawblade products to or from other products; any

ability to switch production among alternative products would enhance the Korean producers’ supply

response to a change in price.

Nonsubject Countries

U.S. producers,79 importers,80 and purchasers81 identified several nonsubject countries as sources

of finished diamond sawblades to the U.S. market during 2003-05, when reporting on comparisons

between domestic and imported finished diamond sawblades. U.S. producers and importers also

identified several nonsubject countries as sources of diamond sawblade cores and segments to the U.S.

market during this period. For finished diamond sawblades, Japan was mentioned most frequently by

U.S. producers and importers, whereas India was mentioned most frequently by purchasers. Other

countries identified as suppliers of finished diamond sawblades to the U.S. market were the following, in

alphabetical order: Brazil, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine.

Fewer countries were identified as suppliers of diamond sawblade cores and segments to the U.S.

market during 2003-05. U.S. producers and importers identified diamond sawblade cores imported from

France, Germany, India, Italy, Taiwan, and Thailand, and diamond sawblade segments imported from

India, Taiwan, and Thailand.

U.S. Demand

U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades reportedly is derived from demand for U.S.

construction activity,82 particularly the two construction segments of (1) home improvement and (2)

transportation, road, and office construction (table II-2).83 U.S. demand for diamond sawblade cores is

derived exclusively from demand by U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades, and U.S. demand for

diamond sawblade segments is derived largely from demand by U.S. producers of finished diamond
 84 Demand for diamond sawblade parts by U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades, in turn, is related to

downstream demand for their domestically produced finished diamond sawblades.

 85 Based on responses of nine U.S. purchasers (purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-14).

 86 *** reported that the peak season for finished diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts is May through

November (staff telephone interview with ***).

II-19

sawblades and to a lesser extent by demand of other users of the diamond sawblade segments.84 U.S.

demand for diamond sawblade products is seasonal in some areas of the United States, especially in the

northern tier states,85 because road construction generally occurs in fair weather conditions and some

states prohibit road construction during the winter months, allowing only emergency repairs during this

period.86

Table II-2

Value of U.S. construction put in place and number of U.S. big-box hardware stores

Item 2003 2004 2005

U.S. construction value (millions of dollars):1

 Total residential2 $482,397 $569,983 $633,395

 Improvements 130,250 147,326 156,810

 Total nonresidential 442,672 457,755 487,253

 (1) Office 41,757 45,082 46,420

 (2) Transportation 25,795 26,863 27,224

 (3) Highway and street 59,140 60,145 66,694

 Subtotal (Professional) 126,692 132,090 140,338

 (4) All other 315,980 325,665 346,915

U.S. big-box hardware stores:

 Home Depot retail stores 1,638 1,824 2,007

 Lowes retail stores 952 1,087 1,246

 Total stores 2,590 2,911 3,253

 1 Includes private and public spending (current dollars–not adjusted for inflation).

 2

 U.S. housing starts were 1.85 million units in 2003, 1.96 million units in 2004, and 2.07 million units in 2005;

housing starts are expected to be 1.93 million units in 2006 and 1.80 million units in 2007 (Blue Chip Economic

Indicators, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Vol. 31, No. 5, May 10, 2006, pp. 2-3).

Note.--U.S. real GDP increased by 2.7 percent in 2003, 4.2 percent in 2004, and 3.5 percent in 2005; real GDP is

forecast to increase by 3.4 percent in 2006 and 3.0 percent in 2007 (Blue Chip Economic Indicators, Aspen

Publishers, Inc., Vol. 31, No. 5, May 10, 2006, pp. 2-3).

Source: Construction–U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/const/C30,

retrieved April 20, 2006; and big-box hardware stores–e-mail from ***.

U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades, as measured by annual apparent U.S. consumption

value, increased steadily from $184.7 million in 2003 to $214.9 million in 2005, or by a total of 16.4
 87 Apparent U.S. consumption of diamond sawblade segments included only U.S. commercial shipments of the

domestic and imported products; it did not include U.S. producers’ internal consumption of the diamond sawblade

segments.

 88 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 18.

 89 Respondents’ (Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung) prehearing brief, pp. 19-20 and postconference brief, p. 11.

 90 The professional-use blades are reportedly sold directly to the professional endusers.

 91 The general-use diamond sawblades are reportedly sold to endusers through downstream distribution channels

such as big-box retailers, hardware stores, local general contractor distributors, and equipment rental companies

(Respondents’ (Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung) prehearing brief, p. 22).

 92 Respondents’ (Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung) prehearing brief, pp. 22-23 and postconference brief, p. 15.

 93 Respondents’ (Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung) prehearing brief, pp. 39-40, and postconference brief, p. 19. The

federal highway bill is the principle source of highway funding for public-sector construction projects. The past

federal highway bill expired on September 30, 2003, and the federal highway program operated under continuing

resolutions until the new highway bill was signed into law in August 2005. The new highway bill provides for $228

billion for highway programs, $52 billion for transit programs, and $6 billion for highway safety programs over a 6-

year period, retroactive to October 1, 2003 (http://www.martinmarietta.com/Investors/fedhwyfund.asp, accessed on

May 9, 2006).

 94 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses of these firms, section V-3.

II-20

percent. U.S. demand for diamond sawblade cores, based on annual apparent U.S. consumption value,

increased from almost $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2005, or by a total of *** percent. U.S. commercial

market demand for diamond sawblade segments, as measured by annual apparent U.S. consumption

value, increased steadily from almost $*** in 2003 to approximately $*** in 2005, or by a total of ***

percent.87

Petitioners asserted during the preliminary phase of these investigations that domestic and

foreign-sourced finished diamond sawblades are generally homogenous in quality and physical

characteristics, and distributors and endusers purchase both foreign and U.S.-produced finished diamond

sawblades.88

Respondents asserted during the preliminary and final phases of these investigations that the U.S.

market for finished diamond sawblades is segregated into two broad categories (1) professional-use

blades and (2) general-use blades.89 According to respondents, U.S. producers reportedly possess

significant production and sales advantages over the Chinese or Korean producers for the professional-use

blades, because these blades require quick turnaround and detailed knowledge of the location and

hardness of material being cut.90 On the other hand, almost all of the diamond sawblades from China and

Korea reportedly consist of general-use blades, which are ultimately sold to contractors and DIY users.91

The general-use category of diamond sawblades is reportedly the fastest growing market segment in the

U.S. industry,92 while the professional-use category of diamond sawblades reportedly experienced

sluggish demand in the highway and large infrastructure markets during much of the period, 2003-05.93

As seen in table II-2, the value of total U.S. construction increased by an average of 10.1 percent

annually during 2003–05. The sum of office, transportation, and highway/street construction increased

from almost $126.7 billion in 2003 to $140.3 billion in 2005, or 5.2 percent annually during this period,

while the value of residential improvements increased from $130.3 billion in 2003 to $156.8 billion in

2005, or 9.7 percent annually during this period. The number of Home Depot and Lowes retail stores in

the United States, which sell predominantly to ***,94 increased from 2,590 stores in 2003 to 3,253 stores

in 2005, or by a total of 25.6 percent during this period.

Thirteen responding U.S. producers, 30 responding U.S. importers, and 45 responding U.S.

purchasers provided at least some useable information regarding U.S. demand for finished diamond 
 95 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-15, III-B-15, and III-12,

respectively. Although these firms were also requested to respond for diamond sawblade cores and segments, the

responses were considerably fewer, but were generally the same as those for finished diamond sawblades. As a

result, responses only for the finished diamond sawblades are discussed.

 96 *** indicated that U.S. demand for notched continuous-rim diamond sawblades appears to be static at about

2,400 to 2,600 diamond sawblades annually since 2003. *** indicated that it did not see any strong movement in

demand. *** indicated that the overall demand for diamond sawblades has not decreased in the U.S. market. 

According to ***, demand for its diamond sawblades has decreased due to lower unit selling prices, lack of

availability of federal, state and local monies for infrastructure repair and growth, influx of Chinese and Korean

diamond sawblades, and sales of the Korean products shifting from U.S. companies to Korean owned/subsidized

distribution companies in the United States.

 97 *** cited price and quality; *** indicated that price/imports are a lot less expensive; and *** indicated that

lower infrastructure monies were being released by the Federal, State, and local governments.

 98 Two U.S. firms specified the future increases in U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades; *** indicated

annual increases ranging from 3-5 percent, while *** indicated annual increases of 15 percent.

 99 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections, IV-B-16, III-B-16, and III-13. 

Although these firms were also requested to respond for diamond sawblade cores and segments, the responses were

considerably fewer, but were generally the same as those for finished diamond sawblades. Accordingly, responses

only for the finished diamond sawblades are discussed.

 100 The two U.S. producers that expected decreases in future U.S. demand for diamond sawblades provided the

following discussion; *** indicated that future increases in interest rates could negatively affect construction

spending; and *** asserted that interest rates, inflation, and government deficits can and will reduce demand of

finished diamond sawblades in both government and private sector markets. The two U.S. purchasers that expected

decreases in future U.S. demand for diamond sawblades provided the following discussion; *** indicated it expected

less demand due to imports at cheap prices; and *** asserted that increased cost will eliminate different types and

segments of the U.S. market for diamond sawblades in the future, and as the price increases, the increased use of

(continued...)

II-21

sawblades during 2003-05.95 Eight of the 13 responding U.S. producers, 23 of the 30 responding U.S.

importers, and 30 of the 45 responding U.S. purchasers reported that U.S. demand for finished diamond

sawblades increased during 2003-05, whereas the remaining five U.S. producers, six U.S. importers, and

12 U.S. purchasers reported that U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades remained unchanged

during this period; the single remaining U.S. importer and the three remaining U.S. purchasers reported

that U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades decreased during this period. Three of the firms that

cited unchanged U.S. demand, all U.S. producers, provided comments,96 and three of the firms that cited

decreased demand, all purchasers, provided comments.97 Of the firms that cited increased U.S. 

demand, 6 U.S. producers, 23 U.S. importers, and 27 U.S. purchasers provided useable comments; these

comments are shown in the following tabulation.

Firms citing increased U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades during 2003-05

Firm Comments

* * * * * * *

Three of 12 responding U.S. producers, 12 of 26 responding U.S. importers, and 14 of 44

responding U.S. purchasers reported that they expected U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades to

increase in the future,98 whereas 7 other U.S. producers, 14 of the remaining U.S. importers, and 26 other

U.S. purchasers reported that they do not expect U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades to change

in the future.99 The two remaining U.S. producers and two other U.S. purchasers reported that they

expect U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades to decrease,100 and the remaining two purchasers did 
 100 (...continued)

diamond sawblades will slow down.

 101 The U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaires requesting information on substitute products

specified the following as the nature of substitution to be considered: Substitute products are products that can,

based on market price considerations and residential consumer/industrial user preferences/technical requirements,

reasonably be expected to substitute for each other when the price of one product changes vis-a-vis the price of the

other product–some consumers/industrial users may require greater price changes than others before they switch

among the alternative products. As seen by comments of the responding firms shown in this section of the report,

certain questionnaire respondents tended to focus only on physical substitution among different products.

 102 One of the 21 responding purchasers indicating that no substitutes for diamond sawblades existed, ***, also

reported that it purchases diamond sawblades for sale in diameters that correspond to the same diameters of the

abrasive blades that it sells. *** sees no substitution between these two types of blades and *** asserts that demand

for both types is growing. Diamond wet saw blades have been standard in the tile industry for 25 years. Abrasive

blades that *** sells are for masonry and metal. Diamond sawblades are for cutting multiple materials. There are a

number of factors that can influence customer choice between abrasive and diamond saw blades. These include the

size of the job, customer comfort with the type of blade, familiarity with the product, the tools that they have, the

amount of money they have available, and the accuracy of the cut that is desired. (Staff telephone interview with

***).

 103 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-11, III-B-11, and III-9,

respectively. Although the firms were also requested to respond for diamond sawblade cores and segments, the

responses were considerably fewer and generally mirrored those for finished diamond sawblades. Accordingly,

responses involving only finished diamond sawblades are discussed.

II-22

not indicate how they expected U.S. demand to change. The firms reporting that they did not expect

future changes in U.S. demand for finished diamond sawblades did not report any further information. 

The firms that expect increases in future U.S. demand for diamond sawblades reported that they expect

increases in several downstream activities that require diamond sawblades, including (1) more federal

funds for highways and bridges, (2) increase in demand for ceramic, porcelain, pavers, block, stone, and

granite, which require diamond sawblades for cutting, and (3) increase in new commercial and residential

construction, renovations, and repairs. In addition, a few firms indicated that improved/increased

marketing of diamond sawblades will increase awareness of the product with DIY users and contractors.

Substitute Products101

Substitutes for finished diamond sawblades

Six of 12 responding U.S. producers, 21 of 29 responding U.S. importers,102 and 39 of 49

responding U.S. purchasers reported that no substitutes exist for finished diamond sawblades, whereas the

six remaining U.S. producers, 8 remaining U.S. importers, and 10 remaining U.S. purchasers identified

substitutes for diamond sawblades.103 The following tabulation shows the number of firms identifying

each type of substitute.
 104 *** reported that conventional abrasive blades are old technology that offered an economical alternative to

diamond sawblades, which is no longer the case with the decrease in diamond cost.

 105 According to ***, it would require 100-150 or more abrasive blades to cut the same amount of material as a

single diamond sawblade (staff telephone conference with ***). According to ***, abrasive blades generally cost

40-60 percent less than diamond sawblades, and are usually purchased by DIY homeowners for simple renovation

and repairs on their homes.

 106 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-11, III-B-11, and III-9,

respectively.

 107 Hearing transcript, p. 235 (Nixon).

 108 Ibid.

II-23

Type of responding firm Abrasive blades Diamond chain Diamond wire Laser

U.S. producers 6 2 2 -

U.S. importers 8 2 1 -

U.S. purchasers 9 1 - 1

 Total number of firms 23 5 3 1

Note.–Some firms responded for more than one substitute product.

Note.--All 41 responding U.S. purchasers reported that there have been no changes in substitutes for finished

diamond sawblades since 2003 (U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-10); only U.S. purchasers

were asked this question.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The responding firms reported that abrasive blades can cut concrete, asphalt, masonry, and stone,

although, according to ***, at a lower level of efficiency than diamond sawblades,104 and, according to

***, only for small amounts of these materials.105 Diamond chain is designed for concrete wall saws or

ring saws intended to cut square openings in concrete or masonry walls (for windows, doors, etc.). 

Diamond wire is designed to cut large, thick stone and concrete material in place of very large diameter

blades. According to ***, a laser is designed to cut ceramic and acts as a limited substitution for diamond

sawblades. All six of the responding U.S. producers identifying substitutes, six of the eight responding

U.S. importers, and nine of the 10 responding U.S. importers reported that relative price changes between

diamond sawblades and the substitutes have not affected sales prices or quantity of diamond sawblades.106

One U.S. importer, ***, reported that as costs of diamond sawblades continue to decline, the endusers of

these products expand in the DIY market. The remaining U.S. importer and U.S. purchaser did not

respond to this question.

Saint-Gobain asserted that imported sintered diamond sawblades from China and Korea compete

directly with commodity-grade abrasive products, not with U.S.-produced diamond sawblades.107 SaintGobain further stated that in the retail market where most of the imports are competing, prices are 

determined by the retailers who know that customers will choose non-diamond alternatives such as

abrasive cutoff wheels if prices get too high.108

Substitution among finished diamond sawblades

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were requested to indicate to what extent different

types of finished diamond sawblades substituted for each other; specific comparisons were requested for
 109 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-12, III-B-12, and III-11,

respectively.

 110 Some of these firms reported no substitution in one or more categories, but also reported at least some

substitution in other categories.

 111 In addition to the firms cited here, an additional 10 U.S. importers and 24 U.S. purchasers reported that no

substitution occurred in any of the diamond sawblade comparison categories.

 112 The single responding importer, ***, that indicated no substitution explained that the segmented and

continuous-rim diamond sawblades are designed to perform in different materials, e.g., continuous-rim is best for

cutting tile. Of the three responding purchasers that indicated no substitution, two provided comments. ***,

indicated that segmented diamond sawblades are normally used for cutting concrete and masonry products, whereas

continuous-rim diamond sawblades are used to give a smooth cut on marble and granite. *** indicated that

continuous-rim are used mostly wet and segmented are the most popular.

 113 In addition to the firms cited here, an additional 10 U.S. importers and 24 U.S. purchasers reported that no

substitution occurred in any of the diamond sawblade comparison categories.

II-24

(1) segmented versus continuous-rim diamond sawblades, (2) laser-welded, soldered/brazed, or sintered

diamond sawblades, (3) different diameters of diamond sawblades, (4) different grades of diamond

sawblades, and (5) other forms of diamond sawblade comparisons.109 Overall, 10 responding U.S.

importers and 24 responding U.S. purchasers indicated that there was no substitution among diamond

sawblades in any of the comparison categories. All the responding U.S. producers reported at least some

substitution among diamond sawblades in at least some of the categories, as did the remaining responding

U.S. importers and purchasers.110 Of the five categories of comparisons, responses involving diamond

sawblades of different diameters contained the most responses from U.S. producers, importers, and

purchasers that indicated no substitution was possible. In addition, for all five categories of responses, a

majority of responses indicating substitution occurred included qualifications or limitations to the

substitution.

Segmented versus continuous-rim finished diamond sawblades.–111 All 13 responding U.S.

producers, 19 of 20 responding U.S. importers, and 18 of 21 responding U.S. purchasers reported at least

some substitution between segmented and continuous-rim diamond sawblades; whereas the single

remaining U.S. importer and the three remaining U.S. purchasers reported that no such substitution occurs

in this category.112 The comments of the responding firms reporting at least some substitution are shown

in the tabulation below.

Segmented versus continuous-rim finished diamond sawblades

Firm Comments

* * * * * * *

Laser welded, soldered/brazed, or sintered finished diamond sawblades.–113 All 12 responding

U.S. producers, 18 of 19 responding U.S. importers, and 19 of 20 responding U.S. purchasers reported at

least some substitution among one or more of the segmented, soldered/brazed, or sintered diamond

sawblades; whereas the single remaining U.S. importer and U.S. purchaser reported that no such
 114 The single responding importer, ***, that indicated no substitution further commented that laser-welded

diamond sawblades are used for both dry high-speed saw applications and wet high-horsepower heavy cutting,

whereas soldered diamond sawblades are used for cutting asphalt, since the firm uses a special bond on these

soldered blades. The single responding purchaser, ***, that indicated no substitution further commented that laserwelded blades are a quality product for heavy reinforcement, whereas sintered blades are sold to customers who

want an inexpensive blade.

 115 In addition to the firms cited here, an additional 10 U.S. importers and 24 U.S. purchasers reported that no

substitution occurred in any of the diamond sawblade comparison categories.

 116 In addition to the firms cited here, an additional 10 U.S. importers and 23 U.S. purchasers reported that no

substitution occurred in any of the diamond sawblade comparison categories. U.S. producers and importers also

reported whether they produced/imported and then sold finished diamond sawblades of different grades (U.S.

producers and importers questionnaire responses, sections IV-A-2 and III-A-2, respectively. Thirteen of 14

responding U.S. producers and 21 of 28 responding importers reported producing/importing and selling different

grades of finished diamond sawblades.

 117 Of the two responding purchasers that reported no substitution, *** indicated that the entire industry for its

served markets uses generic-grade diamond sawblades and *** indicated that the customer pays for a specific

quality, but the firm would substitute a higher grade (if out of stock of lower grade) and take a loss only for a large

customer in an emergency situation.

II-25

substitution occurs in this category.114 The comments of the responding firms reporting at least some

substitution are shown in the tabulation below.

Laser-welded, soldered/brazed, or sintered diamond sawblades

Firm Comments

* * * * * * *

Different diameters of finished diamond sawblades.–115 Ten of 14 responding U.S. producers, 10

of 20 responding U.S. importers, and five of 21 responding U.S. purchasers reported at least some

substitution among different diameters of diamond sawblades; whereas the four remaining U.S.

producers, 10 remaining U.S. importers, and 16 remaining U.S. purchasers reported that no such

substitution occurs. The comments of the responding firms reporting at least some substitution and those

reporting no substitution are shown in the tabulation below.

Different diameters of diamond sawblades

Firm Comments

* * * * * * *

Different grades of finished diamond sawblades.–116 All 13 responding U.S. producers, all 21

responding U.S. importers, and 20 of 22 responding U.S. purchasers reported at least some substitution

among different diameters of diamond sawblades; whereas the two remaining U.S. purchasers reported

that no such substitution occurs.117 The comments of the responding firms reporting at least some

substitution are shown in the tabulation below.
 118 In addition to the firms cited here, an additional 10 U.S. importers and 24 U.S. purchasers reported that no

substitution occurred in any of the diamond sawblade comparison categories.

 119 The remaining two responding U.S. producers, ***, indicated that there were no other forms of substitution

among finished diamond sawblades.

 120 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-10, III-B-10, and III-4,

respectively.

 121 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections, IV-B-15, III-B-15, and III-12. 

Although these firms were also requested to respond for diamond sawblade cores and segments, the responses were

considerably fewer but were generally the same as those for finished diamond sawblades. As a result, responses

only for the finished diamond sawblades are discussed.

II-26

Different grades of diamond sawblades

Firm Comments

* * * * * * *

Other forms of finished diamond sawblade substitution.–118 Two of four responding U.S.

producers,119 all three responding U.S. importers, and the three responding U.S. purchasers reported at

least some substitution among diamond sawblades of different styles, designed for wet versus dry cutting,

and designed to cut different materials. The comments of the responding firms identifying other forms of

substitution are shown in the tabulation below.

Other forms of diamond sawblade substitution

Firm Comments

* * * * * * *

Cost Share

U.S. producers, importers, and enduser or OEM purchasers were requested to report the cost

share of finished diamond sawblades contained in cutting materials and the cost share of the finished

diamond sawblades for the entire project in which the materials were cut.120 Five U.S. producers, six U.S.

importers, and four U.S. purchasers provided useable responses. For cutting materials, responses ranged

from 4 percent for cutting masonry to 25 percent for cutting and shaping stone. For the cost share of the

entire project, responses generally ranged from less than 1 percent to 2 percent, for road construction or

repair, non-residential construction, and airport runway repairs. 

Foreign Demand

Five responding U.S. producers, 11 responding U.S. importers, and 10 responding U.S.

purchasers provided at least some useable information regarding demand for finished diamond sawblades

outside of the United States during 2003-05.121 All five responding U.S. producers, 9 of 11 responding

U.S. importers, and 9 of 10 responding U.S. purchasers reported that demand for finished diamond

sawblades outside of the United States increased during 2003-05, whereas the remaining two U.S.

importers and the single remaining U.S. purchaser reported that demand for finished diamond sawblades

outside of the United States has remained unchanged during this period. Some of the responding firms

that reported increased demand also identified, as requested, the foreign countries, which included
 122 Only Venezuela was identified by one of the firms that indicated no changes in demand for finished diamond

sawblades occurred outside of the United States during 2003-05, but no comments were provided.

 123 One of these purchasers, ***, identified Canada, Mexico, Central and South America as markets where

demand for diamond sawblades is not expected to change.

 124 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections, IV-B-16, III-B-16, and III-13. 

Although these firms were also requested to respond for diamond sawblade cores and segments, the responses were

generally the same as those for finished diamond sawblades. As a result, responses only for the finished diamond

sawblades are discussed.

 125 Only Canada was identified by one of the firms that indicated no future changes in demand for finished

diamond sawblades outside of the United States during 2003-05, but no comments were provided.

II-27

Canada, China, India, Korea, Mexico, Central and South America, and Europe, and seven of these firms

provided comments.122 Seven firms, all indicating increased demand, provided additional comments,

which are shown in the following tabulation.

Firms Comments

* * * * * * *

Five of six responding U.S. producers, seven of nine responding U.S. importers, and five of seven

responding U.S. purchasers reported that demand for finished diamond sawblades outside of the United

States is expected to increase in the future, whereas the single remaining U.S. producer, the two

remaining U.S. importers, and the two remaining U.S. purchasers123 reported that they do not expect

demand for finished diamond sawblades outside of the United States to change in the future.124 Six of the

responding firms reporting that they expected increased future demand also identified, as requested, the

foreign countries, which included Canada, China, India, Mexico, Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America,

and the Middle East, and some of these firms provided comments.125 Comments of these six firms are

shown in the following tabulation.

Firms Comments

* * * * * * *

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution in demand between finished diamond sawblades and diamond

sawblade parts produced in the United States and those imported from China and Korea depends upon

such factors as relative prices, types of customers, conditions of sales, technical support/service, and

product differentiation. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the range of product types,

styles, and grades, the quality, availability, reliability of supply, and the market perception of these latter

three factors. Performance characteristics of finished diamond sawblades and the diamond sawblade

cores and segments reportedly can play a significant role in demand and are related to one or more of the

aforementioned factors. Based on the reported information in these investigations, there appears to be

substitutability in demand between the finished diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade cores

produced domestically and those imported from China and Korea, although not necessarily for every type

(segmented, continuous rim, notched, laser-welded, sintered, soldered, and proprietary versus

nonproprietary specifications), size, or grade of product, application, and type of customer, and between

diamond sawblade segments produced domestically and imported from Korea.
 126 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-26.

II-28

Factors Affecting Purchases

Finished Diamond Sawblades

U.S. purchasers of finished diamond sawblades were requested to rank 15 specified purchase

factors as very important, somewhat important, or not important.126 Fifty-one purchasers responded, but

not necessarily for every factor listed; their responses are summarized in table II-3 for each purchase

factor. Product consistency was listed as very important most frequently (48 firms), followed by reliable

supply (47 firms), availability (46 firms), then delivery time and product quality equals standard

(40 firms), and then by price (37 firms).

Table II-3

Finished diamond sawblades: Importance of purchase factors1

Purchase factors

Number of purchasers reporting--

Very important

Somewhat

important Not important

Availability 46 3 1

Delivery terms 25 20 5

Delivery time 40 7 3

Discounts offered 20 22 8

Extension of credit 16 21 12

Price 37 12 2

Minimum quantity requirements 15 22 11

Packaging 18 13 17

Product consistency 48 1 -

Product quality equals standard 40 2 5

Product quality exceeds standard 28 13 7

Product range 20 27 2

Reliable supply 47 2 1

Technical support 24 14 10

U.S. transportation costs 16 21 11

 1 Based on responses of 51 purchasers.

Note.--The responding purchasers did not necessarily report for every factor listed.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 127 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-27.

 128 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-28.

II-29

U.S. purchasers were also requested to list the top three purchase factors that they consider when

deciding from whom to purchase finished diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts.127 Fifty

purchasers responded, but sometimes firms identified more than a single factor in their first, second, or

third top factors and some firms responded for only one or two of the top three factors. The responding

firms identified a variety of descriptions of purchase factors, which made it difficult to group the

responses by specific factors. Taking into consideration the range of responses, the factors considered the

most important, second in importance, and third in importance and the number of firms responding for

each factor are shown in the following tabulation; additional purchaser comments are also shown in the

tabulation.

Purchase factors

Most

important

Second in

importance

Third in

importance

Total

responses

Quality 25 19 6 50

Price 11 12 15 38

Availability 5 11 10 26

Service/technical support 3 1 3 7

Approved supplier 4 - 1 5

Brand name 2 - - 2

Delivery time - 1 6 7

Credit extension - 1 1 2

Logistics - - 1 1

Payment terms - 1 - 1

Supplier reliability - 1 - 1

Safety - - 1 1

Order quantities - - 1 1

Product range - - 1 1

Originality of supplier - - 1 1

Additional purchaser comments:

Firm name Comments

* * * * * * *

Forty-four purchasers also reported the characteristics that they consider when determining the

quality of finished diamond sawblades.128 Quality characteristics cited were generally performance based

and included, in descending order of frequency reported, the following: cutting speed, blade life,

consistent performance, appearance, brand-name reputation, quality of raw materials used, and then

equally cited were product warranty, contractor acceptance, reliability of product, and quality of the cut.
 129 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-26.

II-30

Diamond Sawblade Parts

U.S. purchasers of diamond sawblade parts were requested to rank 15 specified purchase factors

as very important, somewhat important, or not important.129 Four purchasers responded for diamond

sawblade cores and three purchasers responded for diamond sawblade segments, but not necessarily for

every factor listed; their responses are summarized in table II-4 for each purchase factor. For diamond

sawblade cores, price, product consistency, and reliable supply were listed as very important most

frequently (4 firms each), followed equally by availability, product quality equals standard, and product

range (3 firms each), and then by delivery time (2 firms). For diamond sawblade segments, price, product

consistency, and reliable supply were equally listed as very important most frequently (3 firms each).

Table II-4

Diamond sawblade parts: Importance of purchase factors1

Purchase factors

Number of purchasers reporting--

Cores Segments

Very

important

Somewhat

important

Not

important

Very

important

Somewhat

important

Not

important

Availability 3 1 - 2 1 -

Delivery terms 1 2 1 - 1 1

Delivery time 2 2 - 2 1 -

Discounts offered - 2 2 2 - 1

Extension of credit 1 2 1 1 1 1

Price 4 - - 3 - -

Min. quantity requirements 1 3 - 1 2 -

Packaging - 1 3 1 1 1

Product consistency 4 - - 3 - -

Product quality equals standard 3 - 1 2 1 -

Product quality exceeds standard - 2221 -

Product range 3 - 1111

Reliable supply 4 - - 3 - -

Technical support 12112 -

U.S. transportation costs 1 2 1 2 - 1

 1

 Based on responses of four purchasers for diamond sawblade cores and three purchasers for diamond sawblade segments.

Note.--The responding purchasers did not necessarily report for every factor listed.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 130 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-27.

 131 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-28.

II-31

U.S. purchasers were also requested to list the top three purchase factors that they consider when

deciding from whom to purchase diamond sawblades parts.130 Eight purchasers responded for diamond

sawblade cores and three purchasers responded for diamond sawblade segments. The factors considered

the most important, second in importance, and third in importance and the number of firms responding for

each factor are shown by type of diamond sawblade part in the following tabulation.

Purchase factors

Most

important

Second in

importance

Third in

importance

Total

responses

Cores

Price 3 2 3 8

Quality 3 2 - 5

Availability 2 3 1 6

Service/technical support 1 - 1 2

Inventory program 1 - - 1

Proven performance 1 - - 1

Delivery time - 1 - 1

Ease of ordering - - 1 1

Minimum order quantities 1 - - 1

Product range 1 - - 1

Segments

Price 1 3 - 4

Quality 1 - 1 2

Availability 1 - - 1

Minimum order quantities - - 1 1

Product consistency 1 - - 1

Seven purchasers responding for diamond sawblade cores and three purchasers responding for

diamond sawblade segments also reported the characteristics that they consider when determining the

quality of these diamond sawblade parts.131 Quality characteristics reported for diamond sawblade cores

included, in descending order of frequency reported, the following: conformance to specifications,

dimensional tolerances, steel alloy used, proven performance, consistency, and appearance. Quality

characteristics reported for diamond sawblade segments included conformance to specifications,

consistency of product, and holds up for general purpose use.
 132 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-22, III-B-22, and IV-2,

respectively. Interchangeability referred to products from different sources that could physically be used in the same

applications.

 133 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-23 and III-B-23, respectively. Nonprice

factors referred to in the questionnaire request included quality, availability, transportation network, product range,

and technical support, but were not necessarily restricted to only these factors.

 134 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-22.

 135 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-22.

 136 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-2.

 137 The only exceptions were reported by a single U.S. producer, ***, that indicated that U.S. imports of finished

diamond sawblades from Japan and Ukraine were sometimes interchangeable with the products produced in the

United States.

 138 The only exceptions were reported by a single U.S. importer, ***, that indicated that U.S. imports of finished

diamond sawblades from India and Russia were sometimes interchangeable with the products produced in the United

States.

 139 The only exceptions were reported by a single U.S. purchaser, ***, that indicated that U.S. imports of finished

diamond sawblades from India and Russia were sometimes interchangeable with the products produced in the United

States.

II-32

Comparisons of the U.S.-Produced and Imported Finished Diamond Sawblades and Parts

The U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers of finished diamond sawblades and parts were

requested in their questionnaires to report on the degree of interchangeability of these products produced

domestically, imported from China and Korea, and imported from third-countries.132 U.S. producers and

importers were also asked to report on the degree to which any differences other than price would affect

sales in the U.S. market among the various country sources of finished diamond sawblades and parts.133

Finished Diamond Sawblades

Responses of the U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding the degree of

interchangeability between domestic and imported finished diamond sawblades are summarized in table

II-5 for comparisons involving the U.S.-produced and imported products. Generally, only single firm

responses were made involving nonsubject countries, which will be summarized in the text but not shown

in tables. The U.S. producer and importer responses regarding differences other than price affecting

competition between U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades are summarized in table

II-6; the responses involving nonsubject countries will be summarized in the text but not shown in tables.

For responses regarding the degree of interchangeability among U.S.-produced and imported

finished diamond sawblades, 14 U.S. producers,134 33 U.S. importers,135 and 32 U.S. purchasers

responded,136 but not necessarily for every country comparison (table II-5). The majority of responses of

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers indicated that the U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades

and those imported from China and Korea were always or frequently interchangeable with each other. 

U.S. producers also reported that finished diamond sawblades imported from Germany, India, Italy, 

Japan, Luxembourg, Taiwan, and Thailand generally were always or frequently interchangeable with the

products produced in the United States.137 U.S. importers also reported that finished diamond sawblades

imported from Greece, India, Italy, Israel, Japan, Spain, and Taiwan generally were always or frequently

interchangeable with the products produced in the United States.138 U.S. purchasers also reported that

finished diamond sawblades imported from Brazil, Greece, India, and Japan generally were always or

frequently interchangeable with the products produced in the United States.139
II-33

Table II-5

Finished diamond sawblades: Perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the

United States and imported from China and Korea and sold in the U.S. market

Country pair

Number of U.S.

producers’

responses1

Number of U.S.

importers’ responses2

Number of U.S.

purchasers’ responses3

A FS N A F S N A F S N

United States vs.--

 China 8 2 4 - 11 7 10 3 12 6 7 3

 Korea 8 3 3 - 13 6 5 3 16 7 5 3

China vs.--

 Korea 7 2 4 - 10 5 8 3 13 7 3 3

 1 Based on responses of 14 U.S. producers.

 2

 Based on responses of 33 U.S. importers.

 3

 Based on responses of 32 U.S. purchasers.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Note.--Responding firms did not necessarily report for every country pair.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-6

Finished diamond sawblades: Perceived importance of differences in factors other than price

between products produced in the United States and those imported from China and Korea and

sold in the U.S. market

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers’

responses1

Number of U.S. importers’

responses2

A F S N AF S N

United States vs.--

 China - 4 3 5 4 7 7 5

 Korea - 4 4 5 4 8 6 7

China vs.--

 Korea - 2 1 3 1 6 6 5

 1 Based on responses of 13 U.S. producers.

 2

 Based on responses of 28 U.S. importers.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Note.--Responding firms did not necessarily report for every country pair.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 140 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-23.

 141 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-23.

 142 ***, however, indicated that nonprice factors involving U.S. imports of finished diamond sawblades from

India and Taiwan were frequently significant in competition with the products produced in the United States.

 143 The only exceptions were reported by two U.S. importers. ***, indicated that nonprice factors involving U.S.

imports of finished diamond sawblades from India were frequently significant in competition with the products

produced in the United States. *** indicated that nonprice factors involving U.S. imports of finished diamond

sawblades from Japan were frequently significant in competition with the products produced in the United States.

 144 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-22, III-B-22, and IV-2,

respectively.

 145 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-23 and III-B-23, respectively.

II-34

For responses regarding the importance of differences in factors other than price affecting

competition among U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades, 13 U.S. producers140 and 28

U.S. importers141 replied, but not necessarily for every country comparison (table II-6). Most U.S.

producers indicated that differences in nonprice factors among the U.S.-produced and imported finished

diamond sawblades from China and Korea were sometimes or never significant among sales of such

products, whereas U.S. importers were fairly evenly divided with a slight majority indicating that

nonprice factors were sometimes or never significant. U.S. producers also reported that nonprice factors

involving finished diamond sawblades imported from Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, and Thailand

generally were sometimes or never significant in competition with the products produced in the United

States.142 U.S. importers also reported that nonprice factors involving finished diamond sawblades

imported from Greece, India, Italy, Israel, Japan, Russia, and Thailand were generally sometimes or never

significant in competition with the products produced in the United States.143

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were requested to provide comments where

comparisons of domestic and imported finished diamond sawblades were sometimes or never

interchangeable,144 and U.S. producers and importers were requested to provide comments where

nonprice factors were always or frequently significant between the domestic and imported finished

diamond sawblades.145 Four of six U.S. producers, eight of 19 U.S. importers, and five of 10 U.S.

purchasers provided useable comments regarding interchangeability and nonprice factors, but because

some firms responded to more than one type of questionnaire, a total of 14 firms provided useable

responses. All 14 firms provided comments for competition between the finished diamond sawblades

produced domestically and imported from China, and nine firms provided comments for competition

between the finished diamond sawblades produced domestically and imported from Korea.

Differences between U.S.-produced and imported Chinese finished diamond sawblades

The comments of the 14 firms are shown in the following tabulation.

Firm Comment

* * * * * * *
 146 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-22.

 147 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-22.

 148 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-2.

 149 The single responding U.S. importer, ***, reported that diamond sawblade cores produced domestically and

imported from China and Korea were sometimes interchangeable.

 150 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-22.

 151 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-22.

 152 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-2.

 153 The single responding U.S. importer, ***, reported that diamond sawblade segments produced domestically

and imported from Korea were sometimes interchangeable.

II-35

Differences between U.S.-produced and imported Korean finished diamond sawblades

The comments of the nine firms are shown in the following tabulation.

Firm Comment

* * * * * * *

Diamond Sawblade Parts

Responses of the U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding the degree of

interchangeability between domestic and imported diamond sawblade cores and segments are summarized

in table II-7 for comparisons involving the U.S.-produced and imported products. Generally, only single

firm responses were made involving nonsubject countries, which will be summarized in the text but not

shown in tables. The U.S. producer and importer responses regarding differences other than price

affecting competition between U.S.-produced and imported diamond sawblade cores and segments, as

well as the responses involving nonsubject countries, will be summarized in the text but not shown in

tables, because of the few number of responses.

For responses regarding the degree of interchangeability among U.S.-produced and imported

diamond sawblade cores, four U.S. producers,146 one U.S. importer,147 and one U.S. purchaser 

responded,148 although not necessarily for every country comparison (table II-7). The majority of 

responses of U.S. producers and the single responding purchaser indicated that the U.S.-produced

diamond sawblade cores and those imported from China and Korea were always interchangeable with

each other.149 U.S. producers also reported that diamond sawblade cores imported from India, Taiwan,

and Thailand were always interchangeable with the products produced in the United States. U.S.

importers reported that diamond sawblade cores imported from France, Germany, and Italy were always 

interchangeable with the products produced in the United States.

For responses regarding the degree of interchangeability among U.S.-produced and imported

diamond sawblade segments, four U.S. producers,150 one U.S. importer,151 and one U.S. purchaser 

responded,152 but not necessarily for every country comparison (table II-7). The majority of responses of

U.S. producers and the single responding purchaser indicated that the U.S.-produced diamond sawblade

segments and those imported from Korea were always interchangeable with each other.153 U.S. producers

also reported that diamond sawblade segments imported from India, Taiwan, and Thailand were always

interchangeable with the products produced in the United States. U.S. importers also reported that

diamond sawblade segments imported from Thailand were always interchangeable with the products

produced in the United States. 
 154 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-22.

 155 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-22.

 156 For diamond sawblade cores, the single responding U.S. producer, ***, reported that nonprice factors were

frequently significant between the products produced domestically and those imported from India and Taiwan, while

the single responding U.S. importer, ***, reported that nonprice factors were never significant between the products

produced domestically and those imported from France, Germany, and Italy. 

II-36

Table II-7

Diamond sawblade parts: Perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the

United States and imported from China and Korea and sold in the U.S. market

Country pair

Number of U.S.

producers’

responses1

Number of U.S.

importers’ responses2

Number of U.S.

purchasers’ responses3

A FS N A F S N A F S N

Cores:

United States vs.--

 China 3 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - -

 Korea 3 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - -

China vs.--

 Korea 2 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - -

Segments:

United States vs.--

 Korea 3 - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - -

 1 Based on responses of four U.S. producers for diamond sawblade cores and segments.

 2

 Based on responses of one U.S. importer for diamond sawblade cores and segments.

 3

 Based on responses of one U.S. purchaser for diamond sawblade cores and segments..

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Note.--Responding firms did not necessarily report for every country pair.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

For responses regarding the importance of differences in factors other than price affecting

competition among U.S.-produced and imported diamond sawblade cores and among U.S.-produced and

imported diamond sawblade segments, two U.S. producers154 and one U.S. importer155 responded, but not

necessarily for every country. For diamond sawblade cores, one of the two responding U.S. producers

reported that nonprice factors were frequently significant for the products produced domestically and

imported from China and Korea, while the single remaining responding U.S. producer reported that

nonprice factors were never significant. The single responding U.S. importer reported that nonprice

factors were sometimes important for diamond sawblade cores produced domestically and imported from

China and Korea.156 For diamond sawblade segments, one of the two responding U.S. producers reported

that nonprice factors were frequently significant for the products produced domestically and imported
 157 For diamond sawblade segments, the single responding U.S. producer, ***, reported that nonprice factors were

frequently significant between the products produced domestically and those imported from India and Taiwan, while

the single responding U.S. importer, ***, reported that nonprice factors were never significant between the products

produced domestically and those imported from Thailand. 

 158 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-6.

 159 No comparisons were reported between the imported Chinese and Korean diamond sawblade cores. There

were no reported imports of diamond sawblade segments from China.

II-37

from Korea, while the single remaining responding U.S. producer and the single responding U.S. importer

reported that nonprice factors were never significant.157

Finished Diamond Sawblades and Diamond Sawblade Parts

 U.S. purchasers were also requested to make country-of-origin comparisons among the U.S.-

produced and imported finished diamond sawblades and parts in terms of the 15 specified purchase

factors discussed earlier and indicate for each factor whether product from one country was superior,

comparable, or inferior to product from another country.158 The purchaser responses are shown in table

II-8 for comparisons among the U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades, whereas the

comparisons between the U.S.-produced and imported diamond sawblade parts are discussed in the text

but not shown in a table due to the few number of responses.

For purchaser responses regarding comparisons of purchase factors for the U.S.-produced and

imported finished diamond sawblades, a total of 22 U.S. purchasers responded for comparisons between

the domestic and imported Chinese products, a total of 19 U.S. purchasers responded for comparisons

between the domestic and imported Korean products, and a total of 12 purchasers responded for

comparisons between the imported Chinese and Korean products, but not necessarily for every country

comparison or every purchase factor (table II-8). The responding purchasers asserted that the U.S.-

produced and imported finished diamond sawblades were generally comparable with each other. One

notable exception with comparisons between the domestic and imported Chinese finished diamond

sawblades involved the purchase factor, price, where the U.S.-produced products were generally

considered inferior (i.e., higher priced). In addition, there was one exception with comparisons between

the imported Chinese and Korean finished diamond sawblades involving the purchase factor, price, where

the imported Chinese products were generally considered superior (i.e., lower priced).

For purchaser responses regarding comparisons of purchase factors for the U.S.-produced and

imported diamond sawblade parts, a single U.S. purchaser responded for comparisons between the

domestic and imported Chinese and Korean diamond sawblade cores, and a single U.S. purchaser

responded for comparisons between the domestic and imported Korean diamond sawblade segments.159

The responding purchaser asserted that U.S.-produced diamond sawblade cores were generally superior or

comparable with those imported from China and Korea. One notable exception involved the purchase

factor, price, where the U.S.-produced products were generally considered inferior (i.e., higher priced) to

those imported from China and Korea. For diamond sawblade segments, the single responding purchaser

asserted that U.S.-produced products were generally inferior to those imported from Korea. Exceptions

involved the purchase factors, minimum quantity requirements, packaging, product consistency, product

quality equals the standard, and product quality exceeds the standard, where the U.S.-produced diamond

sawblade segments were generally considered comparable to those imported from Korea.
II-38

Table II-8

Finished diamond sawblades: Comparisons of purchase factors for U.S.-produced and imported

finished diamond sawblades

Purchase factors

Number of purchasers’ responses

comparing the United States with--

Number of

purchasers’

responses

comparing China 

with--

China1 Korea2 Korea3

SC I S C I S C I

Availability 8 11 3 6 8 4 - 10 2

Delivery terms 6 15 1 6 11 2 - 11 1

Delivery time 10 10 2 8 9 2 - 11 1

Discounts offered 1 9 10 1 11 6 3 9 -

Extension of credit 4 15 3 3 13 3 1 11 -

Price - 3 19 2 2 15 9 2 1

Minimum quantity requirements 4 13 2 4 12 1 1 10 1

Packaging 9 12 1 6 11 2 1 8 3

Product consistency 7 13 2 3 11 4 1 7 4

Product quality equals standard 4 14 1 3 13 2 - 11 1

Product quality exceeds standard 6 12 1 4 12 2 1 7 4

Product range 7 11 4 2 10 7 1 9 2

Reliable supply 7 13 2 3 8 8 - 10 2

Technical support 11 10 1 7 10 2 1 9 2

U.S. transportation costs 5 12 3 5 10 3 1 10 1

 1 Based on responses of 22 purchasers.

 2

 Based on responses of 19 purchasers.

 3

 Based on responses of 12 purchasers.

Note.--S=superior, C=comparable, and I=inferior.

Note.--Responding purchasers did not necessarily report for every country pair or every purchase factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 160 The suggested ranges for the various elasticities were presented below in the prehearing report for purposes of

discussion in the prehearing briefs, hearing testimony, and/or posthearing briefs; the petitioners provided comments

on the demand elasticity and petitioners and respondents provided discussions of the elasticity of substitution. The

elasticity responses in this section refer to changes that could occur within 12 months, unless otherwise indicated.

 161 Domestic supply response is generally assumed to be symmetrical for both an increase and a decrease in

demand for the domestic product. Exceptions to this assumption occur when the supply response is restricted when

demand increases (e.g., the domestic firm(s) operate near or at full capacity and any likely expansion in capacity

would take more than 12 months to complete), or, more rarely, when demand decreases (e.g., the domestic firm(s)

must operate at or near full capacity due to very high fixed costs). 

 162 The price elasticity of demand for finished diamond sawblades may be more inelastic for professional

construction uses than for do-it-yourself (DIY) projects, because there are fewer substitutes for the professional

market than for the DIY market. 

 163 Although there do not appear to be any substitutes for diamond sawblade cores and segments in the production

of finished diamond sawblades, the substantial share of the total cost to produce finished diamond sawblades

accounted for by the cores and segments suggests that the existence of some substitutes for finished diamond

sawblades would also affect demand for the cores and segments.

II-39

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES160

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for finished diamond sawblades and parts measures the sensitivity

of the quantity supplied by the U.S. producers to a change in the U.S. market price of these products. The

elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the U.S. producers’ level of excess

capacity, the ease with which the U.S. producers can alter their productive capacity, the existence of

inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades and

parts.161 Analysis of these factors indicates that, overall, the U.S. producers had flexibility in the short run

to alter their supply of finished diamond sawblades and parts to the U.S. market in response to relative

changes in the demand for their products. The domestic elasticity of supply for finished diamond

sawblades is estimated to be in the range of 5-10. The domestic elasticity of supply for diamond

sawblade cores is estimated to be in the range of 2-6, and the domestic supply elasticity of supply for

diamond sawblade segments is estimated to be in the range of 5-10. Staff adjusted upwards the upper end

of its supply elasticity for diamond sawblade cores based on further discussion of capacity expansion

discussed at the hearing and in petitioners’ posthearing brief. The higher end of the ranges for supply

elasticity for finished diamond sawblades, cores, and segments, however, depends critically on the

required increase in prices necessary for capacity expansion; the higher the price increase required the

lower the supply elasticity.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. price elasticity of demand for finished diamond sawblades and parts measures the

sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded for these products to changes in the U.S. market price of

these products. The price elasticity of demand depends on the substitutability of other products for the

finished diamond sawblades and parts and, because finished diamond sawblades are a durable product,

their replacement can be postponed for the larger finished diamond sawblades by repairing/refurbishing

the current finished diamond sawblades. Based on available information, the demand elasticity for

finished diamond sawblades is estimated to be in the range of -0.5 to -1.5,162 while the demand elasticity

for diamond sawblade cores and segments is estimated to be in the range of -0.1 to -0.3.163

The petitioners assert that there is little or no substitution between any of the suggested

alternative products and diamond sawblades and suggest a demand elasticity that ranges from -0.2 to
 164 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, pp. 50-51.

 165 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the imports

and the U.S. domestic like product to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the imported product (or vice versa) when prices change.

 166 Hearing transcript, p. 120, (Kaplan), and petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 51.

 167 Korean respondent Ehwa/Shinhan/Hyosung’s posthearing brief, p. A-52.

 168 Ibid.

II-40

-0.5.164 The staff also considered, however, that hearing testimony indicated that diamond sawblades

displaced abrasive blades, particularly in the DIY market, due to reduced relative prices of the diamond

sawblades, such that competition with abrasive blades may limit price increases for diamond sawblades

before endusers, particularly DIY endusers, would shift back to the abrasive blades.

Substitution Elasticity165

The elasticity of substitution largely depends upon the degree to which there is an overlap of

competition between U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades and parts, and the extent

of product differentiation. Product differentiation, in turn, depends on such factors as physical

characteristics (e.g., grades and quality) and conditions of sale (e.g., delivery lead times, reliability of

supply, technical support/service, etc.). Based on available information discussed earlier, the elasticity of

substitution between domestic finished diamond sawblades and those imported from China and Korea is

estimated to be in the range of 1-5. The elasticity of substitution between domestic diamond sawblade

cores and those imported from China and Korea is estimated to be in the range of 1-5, as is the elasticity

of substitution between domestic diamond sawblade segments and those imported from Korea.

Petitioners indicated that elasticity of substitution between the domestic and subject imported

diamond sawblades was at the high end of the range suggested by staff.166

Korean respondents agreed with the staff’s elasticity range and indicated that diamond sawblades

are highly differentiated products, with thousands of product variations.167 But the broad range allows the

choice of a low or high substitution elasticity, depending how much weight is given to the diverse 

information, some of which suggests minimal and others which suggest greater competition between the

domestic and subject imported products. The broad range itself does not suggest, as indicated by the

respondents, limited substitutability.168
 1

 Blackhawk, a U.S. producer, was closed in January 2006. E-mail from ***.

 2 Responding U.S. producers and additional information are presented in table III-1. Data for two firms,

Blackhawk and ***, are based on questionnaire responses from the preliminary phase of these investigations. 

Blackhawk ceased operations and *** did not provide a questionnaire for this phase of the investigations. ***

supplied the Commission with a response, but no usable data.

 3

 Petition, exh. 1.

 4 In evaluating a company’s production-related activities in the United States, the Commission generally

considers the following five factors:

• Capital investment (discussed in Part VI of this report, in the sections entitled “Capital Expenditures and

Research & Development Expenses”).

• Technical expertise (discussed in Part I of this report, in the section entitled “Manufacturing Processes” and

in appendix D).

• Value added (discussed in Part VI, in the section entitled “Value Added on Diamond Sawblades” and in

appendix D).

• Employment (discussed below, in the sections entitled “U.S. Employment, Wages, and Productivity of

Diamond Sawblades and U.S. Employment, Wages, and Productivity of Parts”).

• Materials sourced in the United States (discussed in Part IV, in the section entitled “U.S. Producers’

Imports and Purchases of Imports of Parts”). 

 5

 Precision Disc, a core producer, closed on December 30, 2003. E-mail ***. Korean respondents’ posthearing

brief (p. 3) states that Saw Core opened up near Precision Disc’s facility, with the same general manager, plant

manager, and many of the employees. *** from Saw Core stated that the firm is owned by ***. Saw Core opened

in ***, produces ***. Staff requested estimates of Saw Core’s diamond sawblades production and capacity, but did

not receive a response. Staff phone interview ***.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the margins of dumping was presented earlier in this report

and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV

and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI.

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 21 firms.1

 Eighteen firms provided responses to

the Commission’s producer questionnaire2

 and are believed to have accounted for approximately

90 percent of U.S. production of finished diamond sawblades and parts in 2004.3 4

Presented in table III-1 is a list of the domestic firms that produce finished diamond sawblades

and diamond sawblade parts that responded to the Commission’s producer questionnaire. Also presented

is information concerning each company’s position on the petition, production location(s), and its share of

reported 2005 domestic production of diamond sawblades and parts. Commercial sales in the domestic

diamond sawblade industry are concentrated in finished diamond sawblades. Domestic commercial

shipments of finished diamond sawblades represented 91.6 percent of the value of all diamond sawblade

product shipments. Domestic commercial shipments of cores represented *** percent of the value of all

diamond sawblade product shipments. Three U.S. firms, Hyde, Saw Core, and Western, produce cores.5

Core producers sell cores to diamond sawblade producers, which in turn produces finished diamond

sawblades. Most U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades produce segments for internal use,

therefore there is not a major merchant market for segments, as illustrated in table III-11. Domestic

commercial shipments of segments were reported from *** and represent *** percent of all diamond

sawblade shipments.
III-2

Table III-1

Diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related

companies, products produced, and shares of reported quantity of 2005 production

Firm Position

Production

location(s)

Related domestic

company(ies)

Shares of reported 2005 production

(percent)

Finished Cores Segments

Barranca *** CA MK Diamond, CA *** *** *** ***

Blackhawk Petitioner CA (1

) *** *** ***

Concut Support WA (1

) *** *** ***

Diamond B Petitioner CA (1

) *** *** ***

Diamond Products Petitioner OH *** *** *** ***

Dixie Petitioner GA (1

) *** *** ***

General Tool Oppose CA (1

) *** *** ***

GranQuartz3 *** GA *** *** *** ***

Hoffman Petitioner PA (1

) *** *** ***

Hoosier Diamond4 *** TX *** *** *** ***

Husqvarna *** SC, CA, KA (1

) *** *** ***

Hyde Petitioner MA

Hyde Manufacturing,

MA *** *** *** ***

K2

Support for China,

Take no position

for Korea CA (1

) *** *** ***

N-E-D Support MA (1

) *** *** ***

Saint-Gobain Oppose CA (1

) *** *** ***

Sanders Petitioner PA *** *** *** ***

Saw Core *** TN *** *** *** ***

SH *** CA (1

) *** *** ***

Terra Petitioner UT (1

) *** *** ***

Texas *** TX (1

) *** *** ***

Western Petitioner CA (1

) *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1

 Not applicable.

 2

 ***.

 3

 ***.

 4

 ***.

 5

 ***.

 5

 Confirmed production but did not provide the Commission with a meaningful response.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table III-2 presents U.S. producers of diamond sawblades and their relationships with foreign

diamond sawblade producers and diamond sawblade importers. Two U.S. firms are related to Korean

firms. ***. ***.
III-3

Table III-2

Diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. producers and related companies

Company Direct importer

Related

importer Import source

Related foreign

producer Country

Barranca1 No MK Diamond *** (2

) (2)

Blackhawk No (2

) *** (2) (2)

Concut Yes (2

) *** (2) (2)

Diamond B No (2

) *** (2) (2)

Diamond Products Yes (2

) ***

Tyrolit, Austrian HQ

with Thailand

operations Thailand

Dixie No (2

) *** (2) (2)

General Tool Yes (2

) *** GT Korea, China

GranQuartz (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Hoffman No (2

) *** (2) (2)

Hoosier Diamond No (2

) (2) (2) (2)

Husqvarna Yes (2

) ***

Electrolux Construction

Products (Xiamen) Co. 

Ltd. China

Hyde No (2

) *** (2) (2)

K23 No (2

) *** (2) (2)

N-E-D No (2

) *** (2) (2)

Saint-Gobain Yes (2

) ***

Saint-Gobain,

Luxembourg;

SaintGobain, China

Luxembourg,

China, UK

Sanders4 No

Diamond Back,

Diamond Blade

dealer division *** (2) (2)

Saw Core (5

) (5) (5) (5) (5)

SH Yes (2

) *** Shinhan Korea 100% Korea

Terra Yes (2

) *** (2) (2)

Texas Yes (2

) *** (2) (2)

Western No (2

) *** (2) (2)

 1 ***.

 2

 Not applicable.

 3 ***.

 4 ***.

 5

 Confirmed production but did not provide the Commission with a meaningful response.

Note.–Data for the diamond sawblade operations of Electrolux Construction (China), Saint-Gobain (China), and Shinhan (Korea) appear

in Part VII. ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and May 31, 2006, submission by petitioners
 6

 ***.

 7

 *** are an indirect subsidiary of ***. *** is slated to become a subsidiary of ***, which is planning ***. ***

will then have shareholders, directors, officers, and management separate from ***.

 8

 *** is related to ***, a sister company based in ***. *** is engaged in the production of diamond sawblades

overseas. *** was created to provide products to *** at prices competitive with China and Korea. *** is in a joint

ownership relationship for *** but it does not control the company. *** coordinates its efforts with *** with

technical support and manufacturing expertise. *** acts as a vendor to ***.

III-4

Both of these firms also imported finished diamond sawblades and parts and assembled imported

diamond sawblade parts into finished diamond sawblades at their U.S. operations. As noted in Part I,

***.6

Husqvarna has a sister company in China (Electolux Construction) and is also engaged in

importing diamond sawblade products into the United States from ***. It is also related to companies

engaged in the production of diamond sawblade products in the following countries outside the scope of

these investigations: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey.7

In addition to the above U.S. producers that are related to foreign producers from LTFV sources

and import from LTFV sources, several U.S. producers are related to importers. *** is a wholly owned

subsidiary of *** which imports diamond sawblades from Korea8

. *** is related to ***, an importer of

diamond sawblades from its diamond blade dealer division.

Table III-3 presents U.S. producers’ production of other products on equipment and machinery

used in the production of diamond sawblades and parts, shares of diamond sawblades and parts

production on the same equipment, production of other products using the same production and related

workers employed to produce diamond sawblades and parts, and shares of diamond sawblades and parts

production using the same workers.

Table III-3

Diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. producers, production of other products on equipment and machinery

used in the production of diamond sawblades and parts, shares of diamond sawblades and parts production

on the same equipment, production of other products using the same production and related workers

employed to produce diamond sawblades, and shares of diamond sawblades and parts production using the

same workers, 2005

Firm

Other products

produced on the same

equipment

Diamond

sawblades and

parts as a share of

total production of

all products using

same equipment

(percent)

Other products produced

using the same

production and related

workers

Diamond

sawblades and

parts as a share of

total production of

all products using

same workers

(percent)

Barranca none *** none ***

Blackhawk none *** none ***

Concut core bits *** none ***

Diamond B

diamond core bits,

grind discs *** diamond core bits, repairs ***

Diamond Products none *** none ***

Dixie none *** none ***

General Tool none *** none ***

GranQuartz (1

) (1) (1) (1)

Hoffman core bits/other *** core bits/other ***

Table continued on next page.
 9

 *** reported no changes to the character of their operations or organization.

 10 Korean respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 3.

 11 *** purchases of automated equipment reduced the cost of manufacturing. ***.

III-5

Table III-3--Continued

Diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. producers, production of other products on equipment and machinery

used in the production of diamond sawblades and parts, shares of diamond sawblades and parts

production on the same equipment, production of other products using the same production and related

workers employed to produce diamond sawblades, and shares of diamond sawblades and parts

production using the same workers, 2005

Firm

Other products

produced on the same

equipment

Diamond

sawblades and

parts as a share of

total production of

all products using

same equipment

(percent)

Other products produced

using the same

production and related

workers

Diamond

sawblades and

parts as a share of

total production of

all products using

same workers

(percent)

Hooser Diamond none *** none ***

Husqvarna

diamond core drills,

grinding plates ***

diamond core drills,

grinding plates ***

Hyde industrial blades *** industrial blades ***

K2 core bits *** core bits ***

N-E-D diamond bits *** diamond bits ***

Saint-Gobain none *** none ***

Sanders none *** none ***

Saw Core (1

) (1) (1) (1)

SH none *** none ***

Terra

core bits, grinders and

shaping tools, core bit

parts ***

core bits, grinders and

shaping tools, core bit parts ***

Texas

core bits and grinding

tools *** core bits and grinding tools ***

Western carbide plate *** carbide plate ***

 1

 Confirmed production but did not provide the Commission with a meaningful response.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Several producers reported changes to their operations relating to the production of diamond

sawblades since 2003.9

 As noted earlier, Blackhawk ceased operations in January 2006. In addition,

Precision Disc, a core producer, closed in December 2003, and Saw Core opened up nearby Precision’s

facilities in February 2004, allegedly with the same plant manager, sales manager, and many of the same

employees from Precision Disc.10

The most common reported changes were purchases of equipment and an increased automation of

operations. *** purchased a laser welder in *** which allowed the company to expand its product line. 

***11. *** increased capacity from 2003 to 2004 and was making capital improvements in 2004, in spite

of a surge in subject imports, due to prior plans and commitments. It stopped reinvesting in new capacity

for U.S. operations due to low prices and declining profit margins that it attributed to subject imports. 

*** made equipment purchases during 2003-05 and plans to continue to do so. It reported that it needs

the latest technology and most productive machinery to compete with Chinese and Korean manufacturers.
 12 *** reported that ***, which sells directly to ***, also attempts to sell to *** clients, using shell companies

such as ***.

III-6

Several producers reported changes in employment. ***. *** reported that lower sales results in

lower production, layoffs, and reduced hours. ***.

Several other changes in operations were reported, which were distinct by firm. *** was

purchased by *** on ***. *** consolidated purchases of offshore diamond sawblades to maximize

discounts. *** reported that it has experienced increased competition with the resale of its imported

blades.12

Production constraints varied from producer to producer, with most noting limitations because of

a lack of orders and production equipment constraints. Producers that reported decreased demand or

pressure from subject imports include ***. Producers that reported production-equipment related

constraints, ranging from an out-of-order soldering unit to machine capability include ***.

The Commission requested historical information from U.S. producers, prior to the period for

which data were collected in these investigations, on production of diamond sawblades by type of

attachment/blade. All but one producer reported no history of shipping diamond sawblades other than

those that it currently produces. *** is the only producer that reported producing diamond sawblades

other than the type reported for the period of these investigations. These were shipments of ***.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION OF

DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Data regarding U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization for finished diamond sawblades

are presented in table III-4. U.S. production capacity for finished diamond sawblades increased from

2003 to 2005 by 5.9 percent yet production decreased by 1.6 percent. This resulted in a decline in

capacity utilization, which decreased from 62.5 percent in 2003 to 58.7 percent in 2005. The increase in

capacity can be attributed to an increase in automation. As discussed above in changes to operations,

several producers reported increased investment in new and more automated equipment. These producers

include ***, which collectively added *** units, equivalent to nearly *** percent of capacity in 2005.

Table III-4

Finished diamond sawblades: Reported U.S. production capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2003-

05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Capacity (units) 949,241 968,584 1,005,141

Production (units) 593,461 598,197 589,526

Capacity utilization (percent) 62.5 61.8 58.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS OF 

DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of finished diamond sawblades are presented in table

III-5. The number of units of U.S. commercial finished diamond sawblade shipments varied from 2003 to

2005, with an increase in 2004 over 2003, but with 2005 representing the fewest number of units shipped. 

The unit value of units shipped in 2005 was higher than that in 2004, but less than in 2003. U.S.
 13 *** sells diamond sawblades to a related firm, its parent company ***, at ***. *** transfers a small amount to

*** at manufactured cost plus 15 percent handling cost. *** transfers to its *** at standard costs. *** segments and

blades are exported to other sister companies, based on an intercompany formula. *** bears the responsibility for

market pricing, selling, and distribution costs. *** makes transfers to ***, at non-market cost. All marketing rights

reside with ***. *** is solely supplied by ***. *** is a wholly owned subsidiary of ***, and sources products from

*** at market price. All marketing rights reside with *** once the transfer is made. *** is also wholly owned by

***, which sources products from *** at market price. All marketing rights reside with *** once the transfer is

made. *** sources all diamond tools from *** but also sources unrelated products through other vendors.

III-7

commercial shipments account for the bulk of diamond sawblade shipments by U.S. producers,

representing 95 percent of overall value in 2005. Internal consumption and transfers to related firms

collectively accounted for 1.6 percent.13 Exports accounted for 3.3 percent of the value of total diamond

sawblade shipments in 2005.

Table III-5

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Quantity (units)

Commercial shipments 541,687 546,440 529,827

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 546,623 552,964 537,474

Export shipments 25,117 25,888 26,426

 Total 571,740 578,852 563,900

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 113,091 109,926 109,673

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 114,373 111,733 111,505

Export shipments 4,374 4,042 3,860

 Total 118,747 115,775 115,365

Unit value (per unit)

Commercial shipments $208.78 $201.17 $207.00

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 209.24 202.06 207.46

Export shipments 174.16 156.13 146.07

 Total 207.69 200.01 204.58

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-8

Table III-6 presents data on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of blades by size and joining method. 

U.S. producers predominantly ship larger (greater than 12 inches) laser-welded blades, accounting for

84.8 percent of the total value of U.S. shipments.

Table III-6

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ commercial U.S. shipments, by type of attachment and size of

blade, 2005

Type of

attachment/blade #7.0"

>7.0" but

#10.0"

>10.0" but

#12.0"

>12.0" but

#14.0"

>14.0" but

#20.0" >20.0" Total

Value of total shipments (in $1,000) 

Laser-welding

segmented 3,452 1,618 9,289 34,124 20,728 23,160 92,371

Soldered/braising

segmented 94.0 106.0 404.0 2,810.0 3,501.0 9,223.0 16,138.0

Sintered segmented *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sintered continuous *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 3,707 2,203 9,711 36,939 24,243 32,397 109,202

Value of total shipments (in percent) 

Laser-welding

segmented 3.2 1.5 8.5 31.2 19.0 21.2 84.6

Soldered/braising

segmented 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.6 3.2 8.4 14.8

Sintered segmented *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sintered continuous *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 3.4 2.0 8.9 33.8 22.2 29.7 100.0

Note.--Data do not include U.S. commercial shipments by U.S. producers Blackhawk and ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS

OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Table III-7 presents U.S. producers’ direct imports and purchases of diamond sawblades (data on

U.S. producers’ value of direct imports and purchases of diamond sawblades are presented in

appendix F). Fifteen U.S. producers reported that they imported or purchased imports of finished

diamond sawblades. Price and product range were the primary reasons reported by these companies for

their decisions to import diamond sawblades directly and/or purchase imported diamond sawblades. ***

purchases imports since it can not produce blades at a cost that will allow it to compete with imported

products. *** reported that imports have been sold in the United States at a price with which it can not

compete. *** buys imported finished diamond sawblades for less than it can buy the raw materials to

manufacture them. *** imports because it cannot manufacture and sell at a profitable level blades that

compete with imports. To remain competitive, *** purchases imports for its customers. *** produces

blades in the United States *** and imports to round out its product range. *** reported that sintered

products are not manufactured in the United States. ***. ***. *** reported imports of diamond

sawblades because ***. ***. *** imports low-priced blades from *** to round out its product line and

reported that it can not produce low-quality blades at a profitable manufacturing cost.
 14 For 2005, ***.

III-9

Table III-7

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Data on end-of-period inventories of finished diamond sawblades are presented in table III-8. 

From 2003 to 2005, inventory levels of finished diamond sawblades increased by 18.0 percent. Ratios of

inventories to production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments were all at their lowest levels in 2005.

Table III-8

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Inventories (units) 139,573 146,389 164,632

Ratio to production (percent) 23.5 24.5 27.9

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 25.5 26.5 30.6

Ratio to total shipments (percent) 24.4 25.3 29.2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of finished diamond sawblades, the total hours worked by such workers, and

wages paid to such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these investigations are

presented in table III-9.14 Wages paid and unit labor costs declined from 2003 to 2005. The decline in

unit labor costs is also shown in an increase in productivity, rising by 11.3 percent from 2003 to 2005.

***. *** was the only producer to report layoffs. Nonetheless, overall employment decreased during the

period for which data were collected.
 15 These producers include ***.

 16 These producers include ***.

 17 ***.

 18 As noted under “U.S. Producers”, Precision Disc produced cores during the period for which data were

collected, but closed in December 2003. Neither Precision Disc nor Saw Core’s data are included in core producers’

data.

 19 Staff field trip report, ***, March 30, 2006.

III-10

Table III-9

Finished diamond sawblades: Average number of production and related workers producing diamond

sawblades, hours worked, wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor

costs, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

PRWs (number) 482 477 480

Hours worked (1,000) 980 954 926

Wages paid ($1,000) 14,607 14,505 15,112

Hourly wages $14.90 $15.20 $16.32

Productivity (units per hour) 552.5 574.4 595.7

Unit labor costs (per unit) $26.98 $26.46 $27.40

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The Commission requested information on the level of skill and expertise needed to produce

diamond sawblades at the various stages of production. Producers reported the need for semi-skilled to

highly skilled workers to produce segments, transform diamond sawblade parts into blades by the

attachment of segments to blades, and operate equipment.15 Several producers reported the need for a

trained workforce and experience, ranging from several months of training16 to having a workforce of

***.17

*** offered detailed responses explaining the various skill sets needed to produce diamond

sawblades. ***. It requires industry specific product and manufacturing knowledge, field experience,

metallurgical and geological knowledge, production equipment knowledge, end-use knowledge, skilled

and semi-skilled factory PRWs. *** concentrates most of its skilled labor in the manufacturing of

segments since this fabrication is the most value-added part of the process for producing finished

diamond sawblades. It requires metallurgical engineers, process engineers, and lab technicians. Blending

powders is a delicate process that needs to be performed by staff that is tenured, trusted, and skilled.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION OF PARTS

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization for diamond sawblade

parts (cores and segments) are presented in table III-10. Core capacity increased from 2003 to 2005 by

*** units, or *** percent.18 Core production, however, declined by *** percent during this same period. 

Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005. 

The increase in capacity is primarily because of ***. ***.

Most U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades produce segments for internal use. Segment

production and capacity are presented for commercial sales and total production. According to ***,

segment production capacity is a useful measurement for overall finished diamond sawblade capacity.19
 20 ***.

III-11

Overall segment production capacity increased by 2.0 percent from 2003 to 2005. Segment production

increased by 6.2 percent, leading to a rise in capacity utilization from 55.9 percent to 58.2 percent.

Table III-10

Diamond sawblade parts: Reported U.S. production capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Cores

 Capacity (units) *** *** ***

 Production (units) *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** ***

Segments (for commercial sales)

 Capacity (units) *** *** ***

 Production (units) *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** ***

Segments (total capacity and production)

 Capacity (units) 24,163,081 24,153,529 24,650,150

 Production (units) 13,517,525 13,618,486 14,335,772

 Capacity utilization (percent) 55.9 56.4 58.2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS OF PARTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of diamond sawblade parts are presented in table III-11.

U.S. commercial shipments account for the bulk of core shipments. In 2005, measured by value, for

cores, U.S. commercial shipments accounted for *** percent of total core shipments. The Commission

collected data on commercial shipments of segments, but not internal consumption (already included in

data for finished diamond sawblades). Segment data represent segments produced for the merchant

market and not those used internally for finished diamond sawblades. The segment merchant market

accounted for *** percent of the value of all U.S.-produced diamond sawblade product shipments in

2005.

Table III-11

Diamond sawblade parts: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS OF PARTS

Table III-12 presents U.S. producers’ direct imports and purchases of diamond sawblade cores. 

Seven U.S. producers reported that they imported or purchased imports of diamond sawblade cores. Price

was the primary reason reported by these companies for their decisions to import diamond sawblade cores

directly and/or purchase imported diamond sawblade cores.20 Because of the substantial volume of U.S.-

produced segments that are internally consumed, and thus have no reliable commercial sales value, this

table is based on quantity measures, including total U.S. production of segments. U.S. producers’ imports
III-12

and purchases of parts and finished diamond sawblades combined, relative to U.S. shipments are

presented are presented in appendix F. The combined data in appendix F, unlike the part-specific data

below, are based on commercial shipment values to minimize double-counting.

Table III-12

Diamond sawblade cores: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

Table III-13 presents U.S. producers’ direct imports and purchases of diamond sawblade

segments, relative to U.S. producers’ total segment production. Six U.S. producers reported that they

imported or purchased imports of diamond sawblade segments.

Table III-13

Diamond sawblade segments: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES OF PARTS

There were no reported inventories of diamond sawblade cores. Data on end-of-period

inventories of diamond sawblade segments for commercial sales are presented in table III-14. Segment

inventory is predominantly held by ***. Reported inventory levels were stable between 2003 and 2004

before decreasing by more than *** units in 2005. Segment inventories are relatively limited because

segments themselves are generally considered parts of finished diamond sawblades or work in progress

rather than re-sale items. As noted earlier in Part III, these data represent segments not used internally for

finished diamond sawblades.

Table III-14

Diamond sawblade parts: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY OF PARTS

Table III-15 presents U.S. producers’ employment-related data for parts production. ***. ***. 

Core PRWs decreased by *** employees from *** in 2003 to *** in 2005. Hours worked declined from

*** in 2003 to *** in 2004, and remained at that level in 2005. However, wages paid increased by ***

percent from 2003 to 2005. In turn, unit labor costs increased by *** percent from 2003 to 2005, as

productivity declined by *** percent during this period. As noted above, ***. ***.
III-13

Table III-15

Diamond sawblade parts: Average number of production and related workers producing diamond sawblade

parts, hours worked, wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs,

2003-05

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS 

OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES AND PARTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of diamond sawblades and parts (combined) are

presented in table III-16. Because the quantities of finished diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade

parts are measured in distinct units, the combined shipment data presented are based exclusively on the

value of finished diamond sawblades and parts of diamond sawblades.

Table III-16

Diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 122,650 120,097 119,834

Internal consumption 37 26 23

Transfers to related firms 1,245 1,780 1,809

 U.S. shipments 123,932 121,904 121,666

Export shipments 5,957 5,518 5,555

 Total 129,889 127,422 127,220

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, as well as firms identified by ***

as possible importers. 

 2

 The Commission received responses from firms believed to account for 90 percent or more of the value of U.S.

imports of merchandise from China and Korea in 2004, and as discussed in Part I, significant coverage from all other

sources. The Commission also received 25 responses from firms indicating that they imported no diamond

sawblades.

 3

 Based on questionnaire data and official Commerce statistics. Official statistics do not distinguish between

finished diamond sawblades and parts. Questionnaire data for other sources maybe understated.

 4

 There were no reported imports of cores from other sources.

 5

 There were no reported imports of segments from China.

 6

 Confidential views of the Commission, pp. 18-20. Chairman Koplan, and Commissioners Hillman and Lane

excluded these producers. Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Miller and Pearson did not exclude these three

producers but noted their intent to explore the issue further in the final phase of these investigations. Data excluding

these companies from the domestic industry producing finished diamond sawblades appear in appendix C.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 105 firms believed to be importers of diamond

sawblades and/or diamond sawblade parts, as well as to all U.S. producers.1

 Usable questionnaire

responses were received from 43 firms that are believed to account for a substantial majority of subject

imports from China, Korea, and all other sources.2

 3

Twenty-five firms reported imports of finished diamond sawblades from China and 19 firms

reported imports from Korea. Measured by value, the two largest importers of finished diamond

sawblades from China are *** and ***; other top importers are *** and ***. The largest importer from

Korea is ***; other top importers are ***. The largest importer from other sources is ***. Five U.S.

importers reported imports of diamond sawblade cores from China, and two from Korea. The largest

importer of diamond sawblade cores from China was *** and the largest from Korea was ***.4

 Two U.S.

importers reported imports of diamond sawblade segments from Korea, ***, and three from other sources,

***.5

As discussed in Part III, nine U.S. producers directly imported or were related to firms that import

subject merchandise. In addition, four U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of subject

merchandise. Three of these firms (***) were excluded from the domestic industry by certain

Commissioners during the preliminary phase of these investigations, because their primary interests lie in

importation rather than production.6

*** imported finished diamond sawblades, cores (in 2003 only), and segments from ***, a

related firm in Korea, and diamond sawblades and cores from ***, a related firm in China. *** imports

of diamond sawblades from Korea represent *** percent of the value of all diamond sawblade imports

from Korea in 2005, an increase in share from *** percent in 2003. There was also an increase in value

of imported finished diamond sawblades during this period by *** percent. The company’s imports of

segments from Korea represent *** percent of imports from Korea in 2005, a decrease in share from ***

percent in 2003. ***’s imports of segments from Korea decreased in value from *** in 2003 to *** in

2005. ***’s imports of finished diamond sawblades from China grew from *** in 2003 to *** in 2005,

an increase in share of imports from China from *** percent to *** percent. In 2003, *** accounted for
 7

 The value of core imports from China in 2005 was more than *** the value of core imports from China in 2003,

with four additional firms (***) reporting substantial imports of cores in 2005 (***).

 8

 Imports are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Imports of diamond

sawblades enter the United States under the HTS statistical reporting number 8202.39.0000, a basket category. In

the preliminary phase of these investigations, after examining U.S. importer and foreign producer questionnaires for

consistency and contacting additional major importers regarding their entries under this HTS statistical reporting

number, staff concluded that the data from Commission questionnaires would be more reliable. Staff contacted ***. 

All three firms reported that they do not import subject product, even though they represented a large amount of

imports under the HTS statistical reporting number 8202.39.0000.

IV-2

virtually all core imports from China (*** percent)7

. *** of the value of core imports from China

declined to *** percent, the value of its imports from China declined by *** percent and the quantity

decreased by *** percent.

*** reported imports of finished diamond sawblades, cores, and segments from ***. ***’s

imports of finished diamond sawblades increased in value from *** in 2003 to *** in 2005, and its share

remained relatively steady throughout the period, representing ***. ***. Imports of cores from Korea

grew from *** in 2003 to *** in 2005, but its share of Korean core imports decreased from *** percent to

*** percent.

*** reported imports of finished diamond sawblades and cores from foreign related producer ***. 

*** increased its imports of finished diamond sawblades from China from *** in 2003 to *** in 2005. 

The company’s share of the value of subject imports of finished diamond sawblades rose from ***

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005. *** reported no imports of cores in 2003, but imported cores

valued at *** in 2005, a *** share of all imports of cores from China.

U.S. IMPORTS OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES

U.S. imports of finished diamond sawblades are presented in table IV-1.8

 From 2003 to 2005,

measured by value, imports of finished diamond sawblades from subject sources increased by 71.6

percent. Subject imports’ share of total import value was 74.8 percent in 2003 and increased to 84.0

percent in 2005. Imports from China accounted for 56.9 percent of the increase in subject import value

and imports from Korea accounted for the remaining 43.1 percent. Korea was the largest foreign supplier

of diamond sawblades to the United States, and China was the second largest supplier, accounting for

51.1 percent and 32.9 percent (based on value), respectively, of total imports in 2005. Measured by

quantity, from 2003 to 2005, imports from China increased by 164.1 percent and from Korea by 43.5

percent. The increase in actual value for imports from China was over $15.2 million and for Korea over

$11.5 million. By quantity imports from China increased by nearly 2.2 million units from 2003 to 2005

while imports from Korea increased by slightly more than 770,000 units.

Imports of diamond sawblades from China as a share of value of all diamond sawblade imports

increased from 2003 to 2005, representing 32.9 percent of the value of diamond sawblades in 2005

compared to 19.8 percent in 2003. Korean imports’ share of value declined from 55.0 percent to 51.1

percent during the same period. Imports from all other sources declined from a share of 25.2 percent in

2003 to a share of 16.0 percent in 2005.

Finally, information concerning the ratio of subject imports to U.S. diamond sawblade production

and total shipments is presented in table IV-1. The volume of imports exceeds that of U.S. production

(measured by quantity) but not total shipments (measured by value).
IV-3

Table IV-1

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-05

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Quantity (units)

China 1,311,052 2,210,776 3,462,838

Korea 1,768,247 2,328,322 2,538,268

Subtotal 3,079,299 4,539,098 6,001,106

All other sources 1,165,822 1,523,479 1,045,163

Total 4,245,121 6,062,577 7,046,269

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 9,886 16,138 25,123

Korea 27,509 33,236 39,045

Subtotal 37,395 49,374 64,168

All other sources 12,624 16,184 12,200

Total 50,020 65,558 76,368

Unit value (per unit)

1

China $7.54 $7.45 $6.70

Korea 15.56 14.27 15.38

Subtotal 12.14 10.88 10.69

All other sources 10.83 10.62 11.67

Total 11.78 10.81 10.84

Share of quantity (percent)

China 30.9 36.5 49.1

Korea 41.7 38.4 36.0

Subtotal 72.5 74.9 85.2

All other sources 27.5 25.1 14.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 19.8 24.6 32.9

Korea 55.0 50.7 51.1

Subtotal 74.8 75.3 84.0

All other sources 25.2 24.7 16.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page.
IV-4

Table IV-1--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-05

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Ratio of imports to U.S. production quantity (percent)

China 220.9 369.6 587.4

Korea 298.0 389.2 430.6

Subtotal 518.9 758.8 1,018.0

All other sources 196.4 254.7 177.3

Total 715.3 1,013.5 1,195.2

Ratio of U.S. imports to total shipment value (percent)

China 8.3 13.9 21.8

Korea 23.2 28.7 33.8

Subtotal 31.5 42.6 55.6

All other sources 10.6 14.0 10.6

All countries 42.1 56.6 66.2

 1

 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of diamond sawblades are presented in table IV-2. Apparent

U.S. consumption, by value, increased by 16.4 percent from 2003 to 2005.

U.S. MARKET SHARES OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Market shares for diamond sawblades are presented in table IV-3. Overall consumption,

measured by quantity, increased by 51.3 percent from 2003 to 2005. The share of U.S. producers’

shipments, by quantity, declined from 12.2 percent to 8.0 percent between 2003 and 2005. U.S.

producers’ market share, measured by value, also declined. In 2003, U.S. producers’ shipments

represented 61.9 percent of total value, while in 2005 such shipments accounted for 51.9 percent. Imports

from China experienced the greatest growth measured in quantity (an increase in share of shipments from

23.7 percent in 2003 to 41.1 percent in 2005) and value (7.5 percent in 2003 and 14.3 percent in 2005). 

Korean market share, measured by quantity, declined from 37.5 percent to 34.0 percent, but by value

increased from 20.3 percent to 25.7 percent.
IV-5

Table IV-2

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, by sources, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Quantity (units)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 546,623 552,964 537,474

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China 1,057,496 1,960,114 2,772,961

Korea 1,673,469 2,139,437 2,298,931

Subtotal 2,730,966 4,099,551 5,071,892

All other sources 1,186,710 1,412,611 1,144,473

All imports 3,917,676 5,512,162 6,216,365

Apparent U.S. consumption 4,464,298 6,065,126 6,753,839

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 114,373 111,733 111,505

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China 13,850 22,565 30,769

Korea 37,406 48,821 55,308

Subtotal 51,257 71,386 86,077

All other sources 19,090 22,473 17,356

All imports 70,346 93,859 103,433

Apparent U.S. consumption 184,719 205,592 214,939

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-6

Table IV-3

Finished diamond sawblades: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Quantity (units)

Apparent U.S. consumption 4,464,298 6,065,126 6,753,839

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 184,719 205,592 214,939

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 12.2 9.1 8.0

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China 23.7 32.3 41.1

Korea 37.5 35.3 34.0

Subtotal 61.2 67.6 75.1

All other sources 26.6 23.3 16.9

All imports 87.8 90.9 92.0

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 61.9 54.3 51.9

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China 7.5 11.0 14.3

Korea 20.3 23.7 25.7

Subtotal 27.7 34.7 40.0

All other sources 10.3 10.9 8.1

All imports 38.1 45.7 48.1

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Information on U.S. producers’ and importers’ commercial shipments of finished diamond

sawblades, by size, is presented in table IV-4. Overall shares of value by size did not vary much from

2003 to 2005. Shipments of diamond sawblades that are greater than 12 inches but less than 14 inches

had the largest shares of shipments in each year from 2003 to 2005, with no less of a share than 32.8

percent. The most pronounced shifts in shares of value was an increase in the greater than 12 inches but

less than 14 inches range, from 33.0 percent in 2003 to 34.4 percent in 2005, and a decrease in the greater

than 20 inch range, from 18.1 percent in 2003 to 16.7 percent in 2005.
IV-7

Table IV-4

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments, by size and by

source, 2003-05

Value of U.S. commercial shipments (in $1,000)

2003

Item #7.0" >7.0" but

#10.0"

>10.0" but

#12.0"

>12.0" but

#14.0"

>14.0" but

#20.0" >20.0" Total

U.S. producers 4,268 2,735 11,560 38,160 20,121 29,970 106,814

China 5,293 1,883 1,446 4,337 695 195 13,848

Korea 11,143 6,037 3,774 10,239 4,007 1,272 36,471

Subtotal 16,435 7,920 5,220 14,576 4,702 1,467 50,319

All other sources 9,895 432 1,712 5,237 910 387 18,574

Total imports 26,330 8,352 6,932 19,813 5,612 1,854 68,893

Total 30,598 11,086 18,492 57,973 25,733 31,824 175,707

2004

U.S. producers 4,123 2,595 11,047 36,295 21,206 29,779 105,045

China 8,385 3,025 1,989 7,617 1,105 306 22,427

Korea 14,312 7,671 4,754 14,224 5,038 1,468 47,466

Subtotal 22,697 10,697 6,742 21,841 6,143 1,774 69,893

All other sources 10,776 423 1,946 5,762 730 94 19,730

Total imports 33,472 11,119 8,688 27,602 6,873 1,868 89,623

Total 37,595 13,714 19,735 63,898 28,078 31,647 194,668

2005

U.S. producers 3,987 2,457 9,643 36,407 22,350 31,399 106,243

China 11,347 3,708 2,369 10,996 1,790 537 30,748

Korea 14,083 8,060 5,884 18,484 5,927 1,820 54,258

Subtotal 25,430 11,768 8,253 29,480 7,717 2,358 85,006

All other sources 6,802 262 1,077 4,512 746 100 13,498

Total imports 32,232 12,031 9,330 33,991 8,463 2,458 98,504

Total U.S. shipments 36,219 14,487 18,973 70,399 30,813 33,857 204,748

Table continued on next page.
IV-8

Table IV-4--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments, by size and by

source, 2003-05

Share of the value of U.S. commercial shipments (in percent)

2003

Item #7.0" >7.0" but

#10.0"

>10.0" but

#12.0"

>12.0" but

#14.0"

>14.0" but

#20.0" >20.0" Total

U.S. producers 2.4 1.6 6.6 21.7 11.5 17.1 60.8

China 3.0 1.1 0.8 2.5 0.4 0.1 7.9

Korea 6.3 3.4 2.1 5.8 2.3 0.7 20.8

Subtotal 9.4 4.5 3.0 8.3 2.7 0.8 28.6

All other sources 5.6 0.2 1.0 3.0 0.5 0.2 10.6

Total imports 15.0 4.8 3.9 11.3 3.2 1.1 39.2

Total 17.4 6.3 10.5 33.0 14.6 18.1 100.0

2004

U.S. producers 2.1 1.3 5.7 18.6 10.9 15.3 54.0

China 4.3 1.6 1.0 3.9 0.6 0.2 11.5

Korea 7.4 3.9 2.4 7.3 2.6 0.8 24.4

Subtotal 11.7 5.5 3.5 11.2 3.2 0.9 35.9

All other sources 5.5 0.2 1.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 10.1

Total imports 17.2 5.7 4.5 14.2 3.5 1.0 46.0

Total 19.3 7.0 10.1 32.8 14.4 16.3 100.0

2005

U.S. producers 2.0 1.2 4.8 18.0 11.0 15.5 52.4

China 5.2 1.6 1.1 5.1 0.9 0.3 14.2

Korea 6.9 4.0 2.9 9.1 2.9 0.9 26.8

Subtotal 12.2 5.5 4.0 14.2 3.8 1.2 40.9

All other sources 3.4 0.1 0.5 2.2 0.4 0.0 6.7

Total imports 15.5 5.7 4.6 16.5 4.2 1.2 47.6

Total 17.5 6.9 9.3 34.4 15.2 16.7 100.0

Note.--Data do not include U.S. commercial shipments by U.S. producers Blackhawk and ***, and U.S. producer/importer ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 9

 Imports of diamond sawblade parts are based on Commission questionnaires.

 10 Data for cores and segments are presented separately. Such data are consolidated with finished diamond

sawblades in appendix C.

IV-9

U.S. IMPORTS OF PARTS

U.S. imports of diamond sawblade parts are presented in table IV-5.9 10 Parts are imported from

both China and Korea, however imports from Korea are both segments and cores whereas imports from

China are cores alone.

Table IV-5

Diamond sawblade parts: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-05

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Quantity (units)

Cores

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 144,120 193,280 208,623

Segments

China 0 0 0

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 1,334,710 1,045,832 1,078,120

Value (1,000 dollars)

Cores

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 1,527 1,715 2,282

Segments

China 0 0 0

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 3,112 3,478 3,778

Table continued on next page.
IV-10

Table IV-5--Continued

Diamond sawblade parts: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-05

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Unit value (per unit)

Cores

China $*** $*** $***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Average 10.60 8.87 10.94

Segments

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Average 2.33 3.33 3.50

Share of quantity (percent)

Cores

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Segments

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page.
IV-11

Table IV-5--Continued

Diamond sawblade parts: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-05

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Share of value (percent)

Cores

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Segments

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent quantity)

Cores

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 33.4 45.6 50.1

Segments

China *** *** ***

Korea *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** ***

Total 464.4 401.9 314.9

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION OF PARTS

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of diamond sawblade parts are presented in table IV-6. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of cores increased by *** percent by quantity and *** percent by value from

2003 to 2005. Apparent U.S. consumption of segments by quantity decreased by *** percent but

increased by *** percent by value from 2003 to 2005.
IV-12

Table IV-6

Diamond sawblade parts: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, by sources, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES OF PARTS

Market shares of diamond sawblade parts are presented in table IV-7. The quantity and value of

U.S. producers’ market share of cores decreased, though to a lesser extent by value. U.S. producers’

market share, by quantity, of segments increased slightly from 2003 to 2004, but was at virtually the same

level in 2005 (*** percent) as it was in 2003 (*** percent). By value, U.S. producers’ share of the market

declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005.

Table IV-7

Diamond sawblade parts: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES AND PARTS

Data on apparent consumption of diamond sawblades and parts (combined) are presented in table

IV-8. Because the quantities of finished diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts are measured in

distinct units, the apparent U.S. consumption presented is based exclusively on value data for finished

diamond sawblades and parts of diamond sawblades. The value of U.S. consumption increased from

2003 to 2005.

Table IV-8

Diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, by sources, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 123,932 121,904 121,666

U.S. shipments imports from--

China 14,048 22,716 31,436

Korea 40,341 52,205 58,970

 Subtotal 54,389 74,921 90,406

All other sources 20,852 24,276 19,127

 All imports 75,240 99,197 109,534

Apparent consumption 199,173 221,100 231,200

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
 11 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, May

22, 2006 and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 29310, May 22, 2006.

 12 The statutory provision on critical circumstances instructs the Commission, should Commerce find critical

circumstances under 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(3), to include in its final determination “a finding as to whether the

imports subject to the affirmative determination under subsection (a)(3) of this section are likely to undermine

seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping duty order to be issued under section 1673e of this title.” 19 U.S.C.

(continued...)

IV-13

U.S. MARKET SHARES OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES AND PARTS

Market shares for diamond sawblades and parts (combined) are presented in table IV-9. U.S.

producers’ market share measured by value decreased from 62.2 percent in 2003 to 52.6 percent in 2005. 

Subject imports from China rose during the same period, from 7.1 percent to 13.6 percent. Imports from

Korea also increased, but at a lesser extent from 20.3 percent in 2003 to 25.5 percent in 2005.

Table IV-9

Diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, by sources, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 199,173 221,100 231,200

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 62.2 55.1 52.6

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China 7.1 10.3 13.6

Korea 20.3 23.6 25.5

 Subtotal 27.3 33.9 39.1

All other sources 10.5 11.0 8.3

All imports 37.8 44.9 47.4

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

In its final determinations regarding diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China and Korea,

Commerce made affirmative critical circumstances determinations with respect to the subject merchandise

produced and/or exported by two Chinese producers, Bosun and Hebei Jikai, in addition to the PRC-wide

entity.11 Critical circumstances were found to exist for imports from one Korean producer, Shinhan,

along with those in the “All Others” category (Ehwa and Hyosung were excluded from the critical

circumstances finding). If the Commission makes a final affirmative determination in this investigation,

the Commission must further consider “whether the imports subject to the affirmative {Commerce critical

circumstances} determination . . . are likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping

duty order to be issued.”12
 12 (...continued)

§ 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i).

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii).

 14 70 FR 24612 (May 10, 2005).

 15 No importer reported imports of diamond sawblade segments from China.

 16 In general, U.S. importers were unable to report inventories specific to covered sources on a monthly basis. 

The exception was *** which accounted for a substantial share of covered imports of diamond sawblades from

China.

IV-14

The statute provides that in making a finding with respect to critical circumstances, the

Commission shall consider, among other factors it considers relevant:

(I) the timing and the volume of the imports,

(II) a rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and

(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the

antidumping order will be seriously undermined.13

Relevant data regarding the timing and volume of imports are presented below. Data concerning

inventories appear below and in Part VII of this report. Other circumstances bearing on the remedial

effect of any antidumping duty order - namely prices - are discussed in Part V of this report.

Petitioners filed the petition that led to the initiation of these investigations on May 3, 2005.14

Accordingly, table IV-10 below provides import data for the period November 2004 through October

2005 for imports of diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade cores15 from Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the

firms subject to the PRC-wide rate. Table IV-11 provides import data for the same period for imports of

finished diamond sawblades, cores, and segments from Shinhan and the “All Other” firms subject to the

Korean-wide rate.16

Table IV-10

Finished diamond sawblades and cores: Imports from covered sources from China, by month, November

2004-October 2005

* * * * * * *

For finished diamond sawblades, comparing the six-month period November 2004 - April 2005

with the six-month period May 2005 - October 2005, imports from sources subject to critical

circumstances in China increased from *** units to *** units, or by *** percent. By value, comparing

the six-month period November 2004 - April 2005 with the six-month period May 2005 - October 2005,

covered imports increased from *** to ***, or by *** percent. End-of-period inventory quantity, more

than doubled between November 2004 and October 2005.

For cores, covered imports from China were only imported during the six-month period May

2005 - October 2005, totaling *** units valued at ***.
IV-15

Table IV-11

Finished diamond sawblades and cores: Imports from covered sources from Korea, by month, November

2004-October 2005

* * * * * * *

For finished diamond sawblades, comparing the six-month period November 2004 - April 2005

with the six-month period May 2005 - October 2005, imports from sources subject to critical

circumstances in Korea increased from *** units to *** units or by *** percent. By value, comparing the

six-month period November 2004 - April 2005 with the six-month period May 2005 - October 2005,

imports from sources subject to critical circumstances in Korea increased from *** to ***, or by ***

percent. By quantity, comparing the six-month period November 2004 - April 2005 with the six-month

period May 2005 - October 2005, imports of cores from sources subject to critical circumstances in Korea

decreased from *** units to *** units, or by *** percent. By value, comparing the six-month period

November 2004 - April 2005 with the six-month period May 2005 - October 2005, imports of cores from

sources subject to critical circumstances in Korea decreased from *** to ***, or by *** percent. For

segments, imports decreased from *** units during the first six-month period to *** units in the latter sixmonth period, or by ***. The value of segment imports increased from *** in the first six-month period

to *** in the latter six-month period, or by ***.
 
 1

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-19 and IV-B-20.

 2

 According to ***, the major core-cost reductions occurred prior to 2003, but in general core costs are still

dropping.

 3

 According to ***, the cost of diamond sawblade cores produced from Japanese mild steel has increased since

2003.

 4

 *** reported that its price increase was ***.

 5

 *** reported that its labor costs have risen by 10-15 percent since 2003.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

Prices of finished diamond sawblades can fluctuate based on demand factors such as the general

business cycle, residential construction, and nonresidential construction (particularly road construction

and repair). On the supply side, prices of finished diamond sawblades can also differ by order size and 

product features, including, but not restricted to, the types and sizes of diamond sawblades and the grades

of diamond sawblades. Prices of diamond sawblade cores can also differ by the same demand and supply

factors. In addition, prices of diamond sawblade segments can differ based on the quantity and quality of

diamonds and the composition of the metal powders used in the production of the segments.

Raw Material Costs

U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades frequently produce the segments, but purchase the

cores. The raw material inputs used to produce segments are the diamonds and various metal powders. 

In addition, steel is the primary raw material used to produce the diamond sawblade cores. Total raw

material costs averaged 49.6 percent of U.S. producers’ total reported costs of goods sold for finished

diamond saw blades produced in the United States during January 2003-December 2005.

Ten U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades and segments and two U.S. producers of

diamond sawblade cores reported changes in their raw material costs and other factor costs in their

production of the diamond sawblade parts during January 2003-December 2005.1

 Although U.S.

producers of finished diamond sawblades reported decreases in the cost of diamonds, by 27.8 percent

according to ***, they also reported that costs of silver, copper, tungsten, and cobalt metal powders, also

used in the production of diamond sawblade segments, increased. In addition, two of the six U.S.

producers of finished diamond sawblades commenting on their costs of diamond sawblade cores indicated

that such costs have fallen,2

 whereas four U.S. producers reported that such costs have increased.3 These

differences in cost changes of diamond sawblade cores likely depend on the source of the diamond

sawblade cores, as ***, reported that it increased its prices by *** percent in ***, the only increase during

January 2003-December 2005, although its steel prices increased by *** percent and its energy costs

increased by *** percent during this period.4

 ***, reported that its steel prices have increased as has its

energy and transportation costs, but it has not been able to raise prices because, according to the firm, of

dumped imports from China and Korea. U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades and segments

also indicated that their costs of energy, labor,5

 packaging-paint finishing on the sawblades, and

transportation increased during January 2003-December 2005. Of the six U.S. producers of finished

diamond sawblades that also commented on the impact of changes in their costs on their selling prices,

five U.S. producers reported that their was no impact because pricing is driven by market competition, not
 6

 According to ***, increased costs of producing finished diamond sawblades have affected its profit margins, not

selling prices, and according to ***, the low cost of finished diamond sawblades from China and Korea have

prevented the firm from raising its selling prices.

 7

 Producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-8.

 8

 Importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-8.

 9

 Ibid.

 10 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-9 and III-B-9, respectively.

V-2

costs,6

 whereas the single remaining U.S. producer, ***, reported that increased costs have affected its

selling prices.

Tariff Rates and Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

As noted in Part I of this report, the U.S. normal trade relations ad valorem import duty rate was

zero for imports of diamond sawblades under HTS subheading 8202.39.00 during January 2003-

December 2005. During January 2003-December 2005, transportation charges for imports of diamond

sawblades from China and Korea to the U.S. ports of entry, as a share of U.S. official customs values,

averaged 5.5 percent and 4.8 percent, respectively.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Finished Diamond Sawblades

The 14 responding U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades and the 20 responding U.S.

importers of the finished diamond sawblades from China and Korea reported in their questionnaire

responses that U.S.-inland freight costs averaged less than 4.0 percent of delivered selling prices to their

U.S. customers. U.S. freight costs of the responding U.S. producers averaged 3.0 percent during January

2003-December 2005. The U.S. producers reported shipping 7.3 percent of their domestic sales of their

U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades to U.S. customers located within 100 miles of their U.S.

plants/warehouse facilities, 53.8 percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 38.9 percent over 1,000

miles.7

 U.S. freight costs of the 12 responding U.S. importers of the Chinese finished diamond sawblades

averaged 3.2 percent during January 2003-December 2005. The U.S. importers reported shipping

25.0 percent of their U.S. sales of their imported Chinese finished diamond sawblades to U.S. customers

located within 100 miles from their U.S. shipping locations, 40.7 percent between 101 and 1,000 miles,

and 34.3 percent over 1,000 miles.8

 U.S. freight costs of the 11 responding U.S. importers of the Korean

finished diamond sawblades averaged 2.4 percent during January 2003-December 2005. The U.S.

importers reported shipping 32.4 percent of their U.S. sales of their imported Korean finished diamond

sawblades to U.S. customers located within 100 miles from their U.S. shipping locations, 37.5 percent

between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 30.1 percent over 1,000 miles.9

The majority of the responding U.S. producers and importers reported selling the U.S.-produced

and imported finished diamond sawblades nationally, whereas 4 of 11 responding U.S. producers, 5 of 19

responding U.S. importers of the Chinese finished diamond sawblades, and 5 of 19 responding importers

of the Korean finished diamond sawblades reported selling their respective products to various regions in

the United States.10 The number of U.S. producers and importers reporting selling their U.S.- produced

and imported finished diamond sawblades nationally or in specific U.S. regions, by country of origin, is

shown in the following tabulation.
 11 The single responding U.S. producer and two of three responding importers reported selling the U.S.-produced

and imported Chinese diamond sawblade cores nationally, whereas the remaining responding U.S. importer reported

selling its imported Chinese diamond sawblade cores on the West Coast (producer and importer questionnaire

responses, sections IV-B-9 and III-B-9, respectively).

 12 Producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-8.

 13 Importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-8.

 14 Two of the three responding U.S. producers reported selling their U.S.-produced diamond sawblade segments

nationally, whereas the remaining responding U.S. producer reported selling its diamond sawblade segments in the

Northeast (U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-9).

V-3

U.S. Regions U.S. Chinese Korean Total

National 7 14 14 35

Northeast 2 - - 2

Mid-Atlantic 1 - 1 2

Midwest 2 - 1 3

Southeast 1 1 2 4

Southwest 3 2 3 8

Rocky Mountains 3 - 2 5

West Coast 3 4 3 10

Northwest 2 - 2 4

Note.–Some individual firms reported for more than a single specific region.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Diamond Sawblade Parts

The two responding U.S. producers of diamond sawblade cores and the two responding U.S.

importers of the diamond sawblade cores from China reported in their questionnaire responses that U.S.-

inland freight costs averaged less than *** percent of delivered selling prices to their U.S. customers;11 no

U.S. importers of the Korean diamond sawblade cores reported the U.S. freight information. U.S. freight

costs of the responding U.S. producers averaged *** percent during January 2003-December 2005. The

U.S. producers reported shipping *** percent of their domestic sales of their U.S.-produced diamond

sawblade cores to U.S. customers located within 100 miles of their U.S. plants/warehouse facilities, ***

percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent over 1,000 miles.12 U.S. freight costs of the

responding U.S. importers of the Chinese diamond sawblade cores averaged *** percent during January

2003-December 2005. The U.S. importers reported shipping *** percent of their U.S. sales of their

imported Chinese diamond sawblade cores to U.S. customers located within 100 miles from their U.S.

shipping locations, *** percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent over 1,000 miles.13

The only three responding U.S. producers of diamond sawblade segments reported in their

questionnaire responses that U.S.-inland freight costs averaged *** percent of delivered selling prices to

their U.S. customers during January 2003-December 2005;14 no U.S. importers of the Korean diamond

sawblade segments reported the U.S. freight information. The U.S. producers reported shipping ***
 15 Producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-8.

 16 The quarterly nominal and real exchange rate indices were calculated from quarterly-average nominal exchange

rates and producer price indices reported by the IMF for each country. The exchange rate indices were based on

exchange rates expressed in U.S. dollars per unit of the foreign currency, such that index numbers below 100

represent depreciation and numbers above 100 represent appreciation of the foreign currency vis-a-vis the U.S.

dollar. The quarterly real exchange rate index was calculated from the nominal exchange rate, the producer price

index in Korea, and the producer price index in the United States.

 17 The Chinese government effectively pegged the yuan to the U.S. dollar at 8.28 yuan per dollar during much of

this period.

 18 On July 21, 2005, the Chinese government announced that it would no longer peg the yuan to the U.S. dollar

but would tie the yuan to a basket of currencies. Within this new basket, the yuan was revalued upward against the

U.S. dollar by 2.1 percent, or from 8.28 yuan per dollar under the old peg to 8.11 yuan per dollar under the new

exchange rate policy. The Chinese government has not disclosed which currencies are in the new basket, but

indicated that the weight of the U.S. dollar represented less than 50 percent of the new basket of currencies.

V-4

percent of their domestic sales of their U.S.-produced diamond sawblade segments to U.S. customers

located within 100 miles of their U.S. plants/warehouse facilities, *** percent between 101 and 1,000

miles, and *** percent over 1,000 miles.15

Exchange Rates

Figure V-1 shows the quarterly nominal exchange rate index of the Chinese yuan relative to the

U.S. dollar during January 2003-December 2005, while figure V-2 shows quarterly nominal and real

exchange rate indices (the latter are nominal exchange rates adjusted for relative rates of inflation)16 of the

Korean won relative to the U.S. dollar. The nominal exchange rate for the Chinese yuan vis-a-vis the

U.S. dollar remained stable during most of this period,17 with some appreciation (2.4 percent) of the

Chinese yuan against the U.S. dollar during the last half of 2005 as the Chinese government altered its 

exchange rate policy (figure V-1).18

The quarterly nominal value of the Korean won initially appreciated against the U.S. dollar, by

19.3 percent during January 2003-June 2005, and then depreciated somewhat against the U.S. dollar

through December 2005, by 3.4 percent (figure V-2). The quarterly real value of the won also initially 

appreciated against the U.S. dollar, by 15.4 percent during January 2003-June 2005, and then depreciated

against the U.S. dollar through December 2005, by 9.2 percent.
V-5

Figure V-1

Nominal exchange rate indices of the Chinese yuan relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2003-December 2005

Note: Index (Jan.-Mar. 2000=100). Exchange rates are in U.S. dollars per Chinese yuan.

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, January 2006 and April 2005.

Figure V-2

Real and nominal exchange rate indices of the Korean won relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters,

January 2003-December 2005

Note: Index (Jan.-Mar. 2000=100). Exchange rates are in U.S. dollars per Korean won.

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, January 2006 and April 2005.
 19 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-1 and III-B-1, respectively.

 20 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-4 and III-B-4, respectively. Of the 12 U.S.

producers responding to how they determine spot prices, 8 reported that they negotiated prices with their customers,

while the remaining 4 used price lists. Of the 21 responding U.S. importers of the Chinese diamond sawblades, 16

reported negotiating prices with their customers, while the remaining 5 used price lists. Of the 10 responding U.S.

importers of the Korean diamond sawblades, 7 reported negotiating prices with their customers, while the remaining

3 used price lists.

 21 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-4 and III-B-4, respectively.

 22 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-3 and III-B-3, respectively.

 23 The single firm reporting for long-term contracts, ***, reported that its long-term contracts, involving the

imported Chinese products, fix price, which cannot be renegotiated, and do not contain meet-or-release provisions

(importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-2).

V-6

PRICING PRACTICES

Finished Diamond Sawblades

Fourteen U.S. producers of domestically produced diamond sawblades, 18 U.S. importers of the

Chinese diamond sawblades, and 19 U.S. importers of the Korean diamond sawblades reported their 2005

U.S. commercial shipments of diamond sawblades by type of sale.19 The percentage shares of the 2005

shipments by type of sale are shown by country of origin in the following tabulation.

Type of sale

United States

(percentage)

China

(percentage)

Korea

(percentage)

Spot sales 78.1 71.4 88.5

Short-term sales 21.9 28.3 11.5

Long-term sales - 0.3 -

 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.--Spot sales are usually one-time delivery, within 30 days of the purchase agreement; short-term sales are for

multiple deliveries for up to 12 months after the purchase agreement; and long-term sales are for multiple

deliveries for more than 12 months after the purchase agreement.

For spot sales, the majority of U.S. producers and importers reported that they negotiated prices

on a transaction-by-transaction basis, with the remaining firms using price lists.20 For short-term and

long-term sales agreements, the responding U.S. producers and importers reported that prices were

negotiated with their customers. In negotiating prices, U.S. producers and importers reported considering

factors such as order volume, customer size, competitive conditions, and cost of production.21 The

responding U.S. producers and importers reported that short-term sales agreements do not extend beyond

12 months and can be as short as one month, while long-term sales agreements, reported by a single

importer (of the Chinese products), were for 36 months.22 The responding U.S. producers and importers

reported that short-term sales agreements typically fixed price and sometimes quantity, where prices are

typically not renegotiated unless both buyer and seller agree to renegotiate the price.23 Three of the four

responding U.S. producers reported that the short-term sales agreements contain meet-or-release

provisions, whereas five of the eight responding U.S. importers of the products from China and Korea
 24 The single remaining U.S. producer reported that its short-term sales agreements did not contain meet-orrelease provisions, while the remaining three importers (of the Chinese products) reported that their short-term

agreements contained meet-or-release provisions (U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IVB-2 and III-B-2, respectively).

 25 Purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-19.

 26 Purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-19.

 27 Purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-33.

 28 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-5, III-B-5, and III-19,

respectively

 29 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-6.

 30 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-8.

 31 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-6.

 32 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-6.

 33 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-8.

 34 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-6.

 35 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-6.

V-7

reported that the short-term sales agreements typically do not contain meet-or-release provisions.24

Sixteen of 52 responding purchasers reported that their purchase prices of diamond sawblades were

established through negotiations with their suppliers, while the remaining 36 firms indicated that

suppliers set the price.25 Twenty-six of 48 responding purchasers reported that they did not mention

competing prices to their suppliers when obtaining a price for diamond sawblades, while the remaining

22 firms indicated that they did mention competing prices.26 All 48 responding purchasers reported that

they did not purchase diamond sawblades on the internet.27

Ten of 14 responding U.S. producers of diamond sawblades, nine of 18 responding U.S.

importers of Chinese diamond sawblades, 14 of 17 responding U.S. importers of Korean diamond

sawblades, and 22 of 27 responding U.S. purchasers reported that larger purchase volumes lead to lower

prices.28 The U.S. producers and importers reported that they typically negotiate volume discounts with

customers rather than quote from a set discount schedule/policy. 

Nine of 11 responding U.S. producers reported selling their U.S.-produced diamond sawblades on

an f.o.b. plant or warehouse basis, one producer reported selling on a delivered basis, and one producer

reported selling on both bases.29 Regardless of how prices are quoted, f.o.b. or delivered, all the

responding U.S. producers reported arranging transportation of the diamond sawblades to their U.S.

customers.30 Six of 13 responding U.S. producers reported offering payment terms of net 30 days, and the

remaining seven producers offered early payment discounts of 2-5 percent/net 30 days.31

Eleven of 15 responding U.S. importers of the Chinese diamond sawblades reported selling on a

U.S. f.o.b. warehouse basis, three importers reported selling on a delivered basis, and the remaining

importer reported selling f.o.b. China.32 Twenty-four of 26 responding importers of the Chinese diamond

sawblades reported arranging transportation of the diamond sawblades to their U.S. customers, while the

remaining two importers reported that their customers arranged the freight.33 Twelve of 18 responding

U.S. importers of the Chinese diamond sawblades reported offering payment terms of net 30 days, four

other importers offered early payment discounts of 2 percent/net 30 days, and the single remaining

importer required cash on delivery.34

Eight of 14 responding U.S. importers of the Korean diamond sawblades reported selling on a

U.S. f.o.b. warehouse basis, five other importers reported selling on a delivered basis, and the remaining

importer reported selling on both bases.35 All eight of the responding importers of the Korean diamond
 36 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-8.

 37 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-6.

 38 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-7 and III-B-7, respectively. The shipment

shares reported were weighted by the reported U.S. commercial shipments of the domestic and imported diamond

sawblades during 2005.

 39 Purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-29.

 40 Eight of the 16 purchasers reporting that they never purchased finished diamond sawblades at the lowest price

provided comments and cited quality most frequently as the reason, but also indicated other reasons including

delivery time, performance consistency, availability, cutting speed, product life, product consistency, and approved

supplier.

 41 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-4 and III-B-4, respectively. Of the three

U.S. producers reporting price increases, *** reported increasing prices by *** percent effective March 1, 2006,

which reportedly seems to be holding; *** reported a *** percent price increase in January 2004 and a *** percent

increase in January 2006; and *** reported that its new catalog issued on February 28, 2005 had some of its prices

(continued...)

V-8

sawblades reported arranging transportation of the diamond sawblades to their U.S. customers.36 Eleven

of 16 responding U.S. importers of the Korean diamond sawblades reported offering payment terms of net

30 days, four other importer offered early payment discounts of 2 percent/net 30 days, and the single

remaining importer offered net 45 days.37

Thirteen U.S. producers of diamond sawblades, 17 U.S. importers of the Chinese diamond

sawblades, and 18 U.S. importers of the Korean diamond sawblades reported the share of their U.S. sales

during January 2003-December 2005 shipped from their U.S. inventories, the share shipped directly from

their U.S., Chinese, or Korean production, and the number of days between the U.S. customers’ orders

and when the product is delivered for each type of shipment.38 The following tabulation shows the

shipment shares and order lead times by shipment type and by country of origin.

Shipment type

United States China Korea

Shipment

share

(percent)

Lead time

(number

of days)

Shipment

share

(percent)

Lead time

(number

of days)

Shipment

share

(percent)

Lead time

(number

of days)

From U.S. inventory 51.8 2 81.0 4 61.1 4

From production 48.2 5 19.0 66 38.9 50

 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sixteen of 49 responding U.S. purchasers reported that they never purchased finished diamond

sawblades at the lowest price, 19 purchasers reported that they sometimes purchased diamond sawblades

at the lowest price, 10 purchasers reported that they usually purchased diamond sawblades at the lowest

price, and the remaining 4 purchasers reported that they always purchased diamond sawblades at the

lowest price.39 Purchase factors other than lowest price cited by the firms providing comments that did

not always purchase diamond sawblades at the lowest price included quality, availability, reliability,

technical support, and delivery time.40

Three of eight responding U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades, four of nine responding

U.S. importers of the Chinese finished diamond sawblades, and four of seven responding U.S. importers

of the Korean finished diamond sawblades reported that they have increased prices on their diamond

sawblades since January 1, 2003.41 One of the responding U.S. producers, two of the responding U.S.
 41 (...continued)

increasing and some decreasing. Of the four U.S. importers of the Chinese products reporting price increases, three

firms, *** reported increasing prices as a result of the U.S. antidumping investigations on diamond sawblades; ***

implemented price increases in January 2006, *** implemented price increases in February 2006, and *** did not

specify when it increased its prices. ***, the remaining U.S. importer of the Chinese products reporting price

increases, reported increasing prices by *** percent on March 3, 2003, by *** percent on January 5, 2005, by ***

percent on June 20, 2005, and by *** percent on January 1, 2006. *** reported that the price increases were

effective on all types and sizes of diamond sawblades, but the firm indicated that it has been forced to offer deeper

discounts to remain competitive. Of the four U.S. importers of the Korean products reporting price increases, ***

reported increasing prices by *** percent on March 1, 2006; *** reported a general price increase in February 2006,

as a result of the antidumping investigations on diamond sawblades; *** reported the same price increases as those

for its imported Chinese products; and *** reported increasing prices by an average of *** percent on all its

diamond sawblades on January 1, 2006. *** reported that this was its first price increase on diamond sawblades

since 1999.

 42 Ibid.

 43 Ibid.

 44 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-30.

 45 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-1 and III-B-1, respectively.

V-9

importers of the Chinese products, and one of the responding U.S. importers of the Korean products

reported generally reducing prices on their diamond sawblades since January 1, 2003.42 The remaining

four responding U.S. producers, three responding U.S. importers of the Chinese products, and two

responding U.S. importers of the Korean products reported that they have not changed prices of their

finished diamond sawblades since January 1, 2003.43

Twenty-two purchasers identified companies that they considered to be price leaders for finished

diamond sawblades in the U.S. market since 2003.44 These purchasers identified more than 20 firms that

they considered to be price leaders, but identified 11 firms more than once. The two firms identified most

frequently as price leaders were Diamond Products and Gang Yan, followed by MK Diamond, Diamond

Blade Warehouse, General Tool, SH Trading, Bosun, Hoffman Diamond Products, Dimas, Diteq, and

Ehwa.

Diamond Sawblade Parts

Diamond sawblade cores are sold in the U.S. market almost exclusively to U.S. producers of

finished diamond sawblades, while modest sales of diamond sawblade segments are usually sold to U.S.

producers of diamond sawblades and to large endusers, the latter for repair of existing diamond

sawblades. 

Two U.S. producers of diamond sawblade cores, five U.S. producers of diamond sawblade

segments, three U.S. importers of the Chinese diamond sawblade cores, and two U.S. importers of the

Korean diamond sawblade segments reported their 2005 U.S. commercial shipments of these diamond

sawblade parts by type of sale.45 The percentage shares of the 2005 shipments by type of sale and type of

diamond sawblade part are shown by country of origin in the following tabulation.
 46 U.S. importer questionnaire response, section III-B-4.

 47 Staff telephone interview with ***.

 48 Ibid.

 49 Ibid.

 50 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-3. ***.

 51 Ibid. The firm indicated that prices can be renegotiated during the agreement period, but only by mutual

consent between the buyer and seller.

V-10

Type of sale

United States

(percentage)

China

(percentage)

Korea

(percentage)

Cores Segments Cores Segments Cores Segments

Spot sales *** *** *** *** *** ***

Short-term sales *** *** *** *** *** ***

Long-term sales *** *** *** *** *** ***

 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0

Note.--Spot sales are usually one-time delivery, within 30 days of the purchase agreement; short-term sales are for

multiple deliveries for up to 12 months after the purchase agreement; and long-term sales are for multiple

deliveries for more than 12 months after the purchase agreement.

For spot sales of diamond sawblade cores, two U.S. importers of the Chinese products reported

that they negotiate prices with their customers;46 although U.S. producers did not respond to this part of

the questionnaire, ***, indicated in a telephone interview that it negotiates prices with it customers on its

spot sales.47 For short-term sales agreements for diamond sawblade cores, *** indicated that U.S.

producers negotiate prices with their U.S. customers.48 *** explained that it sells diamond sawblade

cores to four U.S. producers on consignment, and ships to these customers during December-March, a

slow period for ***.49 The four U.S. producers then pay for the diamond sawblade cores when they use

them, usually within *** days of delivery but the firms have up to *** to pay for these products, whether

they use them or not. Price is negotiated for the consignment sales in December or January and is fixed

for the year. The two U.S. producers of diamond sawblade cores reported that short-term sales

agreements are for 12 months, the price and sometimes quantity are fixed, and such agreements do not

include a meet-or-release provision.50 The U.S. importers of the Chinese and Korean diamond sawblade

cores did not respond to this section of the questionnaire. All seven responding U.S. purchasers reported

that they did not purchase diamond sawblade cores on the internet.

For spot sales of diamond sawblade segments, two of three responding U.S. producers reported

that their spot prices are negotiated, while the single remaining producer reported selling at a fixed

discount from its price list. The single responding U.S. importer of the Korean diamond sawblade

segments reported negotiating the spot selling prices with its customers. For short-term sales of diamond

sawblade segments, the lone responding firm, ***, reporting for the U.S.-produced products, reported that

selling prices are based on negotiation; no U.S. importer reported for the imported Korean diamond

sawblade segments. The single responding U.S. producer, ***, reported that its short-term sales

agreements involving the U.S.-produced diamond sawblade segments range from 6-12 months, fix price

and quantity but this varies, and contains meet-or-release provisions.51 All six responding U.S.

purchasers reported that they did not purchase diamond sawblade segments on the internet.

The two responding U.S. producers of diamond sawblade cores and four of five responding U.S.

producers of diamond sawblade segments reported that larger purchase volumes lead to lower prices. The
 52 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-5 and III-B-5, respectively.

 53 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-6 and III-B-5, respectively.

 54 The single responding U.S. producer of diamond sawblade cores reported that the purchaser arranged delivery

of these products, whereas the single responding U.S. importer of the Chinese and Korean diamond sawblade cores

reported that it arranged delivery to its customers (U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IVB-8 and III-B-8, respectively).

 55 Ibid.

 56 The three responding U.S. producers of diamond sawblade segments and the single responding U.S. importer of

the Korean diamond sawblade segments all reported arranging freight to their U.S. customers (U.S. producer and

importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-8 and III-B-8, respectively); no U.S. importer reported for the

imported Chinese diamond sawblade segments.

 57 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-B-6.

 58 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-B-6.

 59 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire response, sections IV-B-7 and III-B-7, respectively.

V-11

remaining U.S. producer of diamond sawblade segments and the single responding importer of Chinese

diamond sawblade cores reported that they did not offer quantity discounts.52 No U.S. importers

responded for the imported Korean diamond sawblade cores or segments.

The single responding U.S. producer of diamond blade cores, three of the four responding

importers of the Chinese diamond sawblade cores, and the single responding importer of the imported

Korean diamond sawblade cores reported selling on a U.S. f.o.b. warehouse or port basis.53 The

remaining U.S. importer of the Chinese diamond sawblade cores reported selling on a delivered price

basis.54 Two of the three responding U.S. producers of diamond sawblade segments, and the single

responding importer of Korean diamond sawblade segments reported selling on a U.S. f.o.b. warehouse

basis.55 The remaining U.S. producer of diamond sawblade segments reported selling on a delivered price

basis.56 The two responding U.S. producers of diamond sawblade cores reported offering payment terms

2 percent 10 days/net 30 days, whereas the five responding U.S. producers of diamond sawblade

segments reported offering a variety of payment terms including cash on delivery, 2 percent 10 days/net

30 days, 5 percent 20 days/net 30 days, and net 30 days.57 The three responding U.S. importers of the

Chinese diamond sawblade cores, the single responding U.S. importer of both the Chinese diamond

sawblade cores and the Korean diamond sawblade segments all reported offering payment terms of net 30

days.58

Two U.S. producers of diamond sawblade cores, five U.S. producers of diamond sawblade

segments, three U.S. importers of the Chinese sawblade cores, and two U.S. importers of the Korean

diamond sawblade segments reported the shares of their U.S. sales during January 2003- December 2005

shipped from U.S. inventories, the share shipped directly from U.S., Chinese, or Korean production and

the number of days between the U.S. customers’ orders and when the product is delivered for each type of

shipment.59 The following tabulation shows the shipment shares and order lead times by country of

origin, type of product, and type of shipment.
 60 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-4.

 61 Ibid.

 62 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-30.

V-12

Type of product/

shipment type

United States China Korea

Shipment

share

(percent)

Lead

time

(number

of days)

Shipment

share

(percent)

Lead

time

(number

of days)

Shipment

share

(percent)

Lead

time

(number

of days)

Diamond sawblade cores:

From U.S. inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

From production *** *** *** *** *** ***

 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 -

Diamond sawblade segments:

From U.S. inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

From production *** *** *** *** *** ***

 TOTAL 100.0 - 100.0

A single responding U.S. producer of diamond sawblades cores, and two of five responding U.S.

producers of diamond sawblade segments reported that they have increased selling prices on their

diamond sawblade parts since January 1, 2003;60 U.S. importers did not respond to this part of the

questionnaire for diamond sawblade cores and segments. The remaining three U.S. producers of diamond

sawblade segments reported that they have not increased selling prices on these products since January 1,

2003.61 The single responding U.S. producer of diamond sawblade cores, ***, reported that it increased

prices of its cores by *** percent on July 1, 2004, but the increase ***. For the two U.S. producers

reporting price increases for the diamond sawblade segments, *** reported increasing prices by ***

percent effective March 1, 2006, which reportedly seems to be holding; and *** reported increasing

prices by *** percent on March 3, 2003, by *** percent on January 5, 2005, and by *** percent on

January 1, 2006, and noted that most increases have held.

Three purchasers identified companies that they considered to be price leaders for diamond

sawblades cores in the U.S. market since 2003 and two purchasers identified two companies, Diamond

Vantage and Ehwa, that they considered to be price leaders for diamond sawblade segments.62 The

following seven companies were identified as price leaders for diamond sawblade cores: Champion,

Diamondback, Diamond Blade Warehouse, Dixie Diamond, Diteq, MK Diamond, and Western Saw.
 63 The product descriptions were based on comments regarding draft questionnaires provided primarily by 

Korean producers and importers, including several follow-up discussions with the respondents (e-mails from ***). 

Petitioners suggested the laser-welded product descriptions used in the preliminary phase, but recommended

specifying only the diameter size, wet or dry cutting, and segment thickness, and leaving out any reference to grade,

type of material to be cut, and the type of saw. In addition, the petitioners suggested an additional product. The

information that petitioners recommended deleting from the product descriptions would broaden the product

descriptions and was not responsive to the staff’s request that the product descriptions should be more precise than

those during the preliminary phase. The product definitions used in the final phase were specified in more detail

than those used during the preliminary phase of these investigations, particularly with respect to the specification of

premium grade, in order to obtain pricing data on products that, as Commissioners noted in their preliminary views,

“are not overly broad and represent meaningful comparisons” (Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From China

and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3791, August 2005, p. 26, fn. 219. 

Final product selections were intended to represent a range of product sizes and applications, while concentrating on

diamond sawblades in the size where the most frequent overlap of the domestic and imported products occur–14

inches in diameter.

V-13

PRICE DATA

Questionnaire Price Data

U.S. selling value and quantity data were requested for sales to U.S. customers unrelated to the

responding firms for the following seven finished diamond sawblade products produced in the United

States and imported from China and Korea:63

Product 1.– 4" diameter laser-welded blades for dry cutting, 0.080" segment thickness,

Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 72-75 and

diamond concentration in a range of 12-15 percent by volume of the segments or

alternatively 0.55-0.65 carats/ccm);

Product 2.– 12" diameter laser-welded blades for dry cutting, 0.110" segmented

thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 82-85

and diamond concentration in a range of 17-20 percent by volume of the segments or

alternatively 0.75-0.85 carats/ccm) for use in high speed saws of 5,000 rpm or more;

Product 3.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for dry cutting, 0.110" segment thickness,

Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 82-85 and

diamond concentration in a range of 17-20 percent by volume of the segments or

alternatively 0.75-0.85 carats/ccm) for use in high speed saws of 5,000 rpm or more;

Product 4.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for dry cutting, 0.125" segment thickness,

Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 82-85 and

diamond concentration in a range of 17-20 percent by volume of the segments or

alternatively 0.75-0.85 carats/ccm) for use in high speed saws of 5,000 rpm or more;

Product 5.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.125"

segmented thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI

range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a range of 33-35 percent by volume of the

segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55 carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or more;
 64 Branded distributors, including telemarketers, sell finished diamond sawblades with their own brand names and

include firms such as Diamond Blade Warehouse and National Diamond.

 65 Other distributors sell finished diamond sawblades with the brand name of the U.S. manufacturer or importer of

the diamond sawblades.

 66 NBBR are retailers such as Home Depot, Lowes, and Sears; these stores have multiple locations throughout the

United States and each store has a large number of square feet of retail space.

 67 Professional construction firms were identified, for purposes of the price data, as end users in the professional

construction market, including all customers that are members of the Concrete Sawing and Drilling Association.

 68 Reported selling price and purchase price data of imported Chinese products produced by Gang Yan were

requested separately from price data of imported Chinese products produced by all other Chinese producers. The

price data for the imported Chinese products shown in the final report include prices of the products produced by

Gang Yan.

 69 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-A-2, III-A-2, and V-3,

respectively.

 70 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-A-3.

 71 Ibid. *** also indicated that performance measurements of finished DSBs are usually related to specific job

requirements and/or conditions and to endusers’ perception of those requirements. According to *** the

performance of a diamond sawblade is dependent upon the material being cut, the type of sawing equipment, the

sawing conditions (coolant flow rate, blade speed, depth of the saw cut, blade transverse rate), and skill of saw

operator. Ibid.

V-14

Product 6.– 18" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.125"

segment thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range

of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a range of 33-35 percent by volume of the

segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55 carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or more; and

Product 7.– 24" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.155"

segment thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range

of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a range of 33-35 percent by volume of the

segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55 carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or more.

The price data were requested from U.S. producers and importers for their quarterly shipments of

the specified finished diamond sawblade products during January 2003-December 2005 that were

produced in the United States and imported from China and Korea. The requested price data were based

on net U.S. f.o.b. selling price data for shipments to U.S. customers unrelated to the suppliers. The

responding firms were requested to report the price data separately for sales to U.S. branded distributors,64

other distributors,65 national big-box retailers (NBBR),66 and to professional construction firms.67

Delivered purchase price data for these seven specified finished diamond sawblade products produced in

the United States and imported from China and Korea were also requested from U.S. purchasers.68

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers generally reported selling or purchasing multiple

grades of diamond sawblades.69 These firms indicated most frequently that diamond quality and diamond

concentration determined the grade of the diamond sawblade, but they also mentioned the bond

formulations in the segments and the method of attaching the cutting pieces to the core as factors

affecting the grade of the diamond sawblade. *** noted, however, that there are no universal standards of

diamond sawblade grade levels in the United States.70 The grade factors result in different performance

measures of blade life and cutting speed, but *** asserted that making performance ratings for different

grades of diamond sawblades is highly speculative at best and highly erroneous at worst.71 As a result, it

may not have been possible for all the responding U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers to adhere to

all of the specifications of the seven pricing products when reporting their price data.
 72 A total of 24 U.S. purchasers reported the requested purchase price data; nine branded distributors (three of

these nine were also other retailers), four “other” distributors (sold only the brand names of their suppliers), four

“other” retailers, one OEM (not a diamond sawblade producer), and six OEMs (also diamond sawblade producers).

V-15

Ten U.S. producers of diamond sawblades provided useable selling price data for the

domestically produced finished diamond sawblades, 11 U.S. importers provided useable selling price data

for the imported Chinese products, and 10 U.S. importers provided useable selling price data for the

imported Korean products, but not necessarily for all products, types of customers, or periods requested. 

The following tabulation shows the value and quantity of reported selling price data during January

2003-December 2005, by country and by type of customer for all products combined, and the total value

and quantity reported for pricing purposes as a share of total U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced and

imported Chinese and Korean finished diamond sawblades during this period.

Type of customer

United States China Korea

Reported

pricing

data

Share1

(percent)

Reported

pricing

data

Share2

(percent)

Reported

pricing

data

Share3

(percent)

 Value (dollars)

 Branded distributors $7,693,902 $806,570 $3,948,094

 Other distributors 30,316,084 46,034 1,993,275

 National big-box retailers - 560,834 11,609

 Prof. construction firms 22,292,111 609,725 4,502,958

 TOTAL 60,302,097 17.9 2,023,163 3.0 10,455,936 7.4

 Quantity (number of sawblades)

 Branded distributors 55,794 13,426 60,183

 Other distributors 240,542 794 27,291

 National big-box retailers - 52,710 117

 Prof. construction firms 88,981 9,231 26,637

 TOTAL 385,317 23.5 76,161 1.3 114,228 1.9

 1 Share of total U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades during January 2003-December

2005.

 2

 Share of total U.S. shipments of finished diamond sawblades imported from China during January 2003-

December 2005.

 3

 Share of total U.S. shipments of finished diamond sawblades imported from Korea during January 2003-

December 2005.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Six U.S. purchasers provided useable purchase price data for the domestically produced finished

diamond sawblades, 13 U.S. purchasers provided useable purchase price data for the imported Chinese

products, and 18 U.S. purchasers provided useable purchase price data for the imported Korean products,

but not necessarily for all products, or periods requested.72 The following tabulation shows the value and

quantity of reported purchase price data during January 2003-December 2005, by country of origin and
V-16

by type of purchaser for all products combined, and the total value and quantity reported for pricing

purposes as a share of total U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced and imported Chinese and Korean finished

diamond sawblades during this period.

Type of purchaser

United States China Korea

Reported

pricing

data

Share1

(percent)

Reported

pricing

data

Share2

(percent)

Reported

pricing

data

Share3

(percent)

 Value (dollars)

 Branded distributors $606,699 $964,547 $3,188,96

 Other distributors 125,525 47,505 102,613

 Other retailers 25,498 9,732 962,986

 OEM (non-diamond sawblade producer) - - 1,096,481

 OEM (diamond sawblade producer) - 484,321 1,087,838

 TOTAL 757,722 0.2 1,506,105 2.2 3,568,814 4.5

 Quantity (number of sawblades)

 Branded distributors 3,424 41,719 63,153

 Other distributors 536 993 682

 Other retailers 1,000 627 22,386

 OEM (non-diamond sawblade producer) - - 55,038

 OEM (diamond sawblade producer) - 13,135 44,945

 TOTAL 4,960 0.3 56,474 1.0 186,204 3.0

 1

 Share of total U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced finished diamond sawblades during January 2003-December 2005.

 2

 Share of total U.S. shipments of finished diamond sawblades imported from China during January 2003-December 2005.

 3

 Share of total U.S. shipments of finished diamond sawblades imported from Korea during January 2003-December 2005.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Quarterly weighted-average prices and quarterly shipments of the domestic and imported

specified finished diamond sawblade products are based on the reported U.S. net f.ob. selling price data

reported by the responding U.S. producers and importers and are shown by products and by types of

customers in tables V-1a through V-7c. The quarterly selling prices are also shown by products and types

of customers in figures V-3a through V-9c. The price data for sales to national big-box retailers are not

shown in the tables or figures; U.S. producers did not report any sales to this type of customer and the

price data reported by U.S. importers of the Chinese and Korean finished diamond sawblades tend to be

sporadic. Reported quarterly selling prices and quantities of the specified finished diamond sawblade

products imported from China and Korea are shown combined for the two countries, by type of customer

and by product, in appendix G, tables G-1 through G-3.
 73 Comparing reported prices among U.S. producers that were petitioners and supporters of the petition by using

the firms’ weighted-average unit values for the full periods reported showed price differences among these firms for

sales to branded distributors that ranged from *** percent for product *** to *** percent for product ***; for sales to

other distributors, price differences ranged from *** percent for product *** to *** percent for product ***; and for

sales to professional construction firms, price differences ranged from *** percent for product *** to *** percent for

product ***.

 74 Diamond concentration and diamond quality were cited most frequently as factors that significantly determine

the grade of a diamond sawblade, but suppliers do not necessarily specify their grades with uniform measures of

diamond concentration and diamond quality. 

 75 The price data coverage was not expected to be high given the thousands of product variations, but the pricing

items are representative of the most common sizes and customer types where overlap between the domestic and

subject imported products occurred.

V-17

The reported selling price data showed noticeable differences in prices among U.S. producers and

among U.S. importers for the same finished diamond sawblade product and type of customer.73 Such

differences may be explained, at least partially, by differences in the quantity sold, but may also result

from differences in the grade/quality of the diamond sawblades,74 and differences in views of the types

customers, particularly professional construction firms (as discussed in Part II). In addition, given the

large number of size/grade/customer combinations, the price data reported understandably represent a

limited amount of total shipments of U.S.-produced diamond sawblades and imported diamond sawblades

from China and Korea during 2003-05.75 As a result, price trends and price comparisons involving the

reported U.S. net f.o.b. selling prices of the domestic and imported products should be viewed with these

considerations in mind.

Table V-1a

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 1 sold to U.S. branded distributors, and margins of

underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-1b

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 1 sold to U.S. other distributors, and margins of underselling

(overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-1c

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 1 sold to U.S. professional construction firms, and margins of

underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-2a

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 2 sold to U.S. branded distributors, and margins of

underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *
V-18

Table V-2b

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 2 sold to U.S. other distributors, and margins of underselling

(overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-2c

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 2 sold to U.S. professional construction firms, and margins of

underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-3a

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 3 sold to U.S. branded distributors, and margins of

underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *
V-19

Table V-3b

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the U.S.-produced and

imported product 31

 sold to U.S. other distributors, and margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by

quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States China Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 112.43 3,160 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 109.75 3,059 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 106.81 2,647 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 69.20 7,421 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 74.11 5,740 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 89.87 3,421 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 83.38 3,119 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 92.98 2,795 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 85.51 2,881 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 76.18 3,619 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2) 37,862 6 (2) *** *** (

2

) (2) *** *** (

2

)

 1 Product 3.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for dry cutting, 0.110" segment thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a

TI/TTI range of 82-85 and diamond concentration in a range of 17-20 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 0.75-0.85 carats/ccm) for use

in high speed saws of 5,000 rpm or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table V-3c

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 3 sold to U.S. professional construction firms, and margins of

underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *
V-20

Table V-4a

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the U.S.-produced and

imported product 41

 sold to U.S. branded distributors, and margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by

quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States China Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 118.30 2,046 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 125.55 2,081 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 116.06 1,571 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 115.61 1,369 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 124.71 1,400 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 132.96 1,272 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 132.03 780 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 122.32 609 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 124.52 884 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 119.05 927 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2) 12,939 5 (2) *** *** (2

) (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 4.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for dry cutting, 0.125" segment thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a

TI/TTI range of 82-85 and diamond concentration in a range of 17-20 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 0.75-0.85 carats/ccm) for use

in high speed saws of 5,000 rpm or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-21

Table V-4b

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 41

 sold to U.S. other distributors, and margins of underselling

(overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States Korea

Price

(per blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Price

(per blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $143.90 8,269 5 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 139.83 11,576 6 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 138.13 11,241 6 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 141.17 9,011 6 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 134.59 9,795 6 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 134.49 12,622 5 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 134.67 11,059 6 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 132.78 8,170 5 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 127.74 9,751 5 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 126.71 12,354 6 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 128.99 11,272 6 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 127.30 9,081 5 *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 124,201 6 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 4.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for dry cutting, 0.125" segment thickness, Premium grade blade

(diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 82-85 and diamond concentration in a range of 17-20 percent by

volume of the segments or alternatively 0.75-0.85 carats/ccm) for use in high speed saws of 5,000 rpm or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-22

Table V-4c

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the U.S.-produced and

imported product 41

 sold to U.S. professional construction firms, and margins of underselling (overselling), by country of

origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States China Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $173.16 815 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 183.28 1,084 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 179.49 1,060 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 174.07 719 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 154.21 815 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 155.06 1,232 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 157.85 1,198 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 153.64 935 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 152.23 1,063 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 162.14 1,329 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 167.93 1,172 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 153.73 959 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 12,381 4 (2) *** *** (2) (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 4.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for dry cutting, 0.125" segment thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a

TI/TTI range of 82-85 and diamond concentration in a range of 17-20 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 0.75-0.85 carats/ccm) for use

in high speed saws of 5,000 rpm or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-23

Table V-5a

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the U.S.-produced and

imported product 51

 sold to U.S. branded distributors, and margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by

quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States China Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $201.22 239 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 198.85 359 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 204.17 356 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 199.35 551 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 183.01 307 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 195.63 441 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 187.08 401 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 178.66 418 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 174.47 352 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 179.27 439 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 182.04 402 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 171.24 455 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 4,720 7 (2) *** *** (2) (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 5.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.125" segmented thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact

strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55

carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-24

Table V-5b

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 51

 sold to U.S. other distributors, and margins of underselling

(overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States Korea

Price

(per blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $266.18 538 5 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 267.07 807 6 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 265.68 856 5 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 239.98 584 5 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 217.05 695 5 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 246.23 997 6 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 224.56 883 5 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 225.30 583 6 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 215.72 617 7 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 222.81 970 7 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 242.09 2,317 7 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 209.28 1,105 7 *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 10,952 7 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 5.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.125" segmented thickness,

Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a

range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55 carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or

more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-25

Table V-5c

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the U.S.-produced and

imported product 51

 sold to U.S. professional construction firms, and margins of underselling (overselling), by country of

origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States China Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $264.08 2,198 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 235.21 4,279 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 249.36 5,014 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 216.59 3,212 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 216.72 1,699 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 218.54 5,584 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 229.54 6,025 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 225.40 4,260 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 252.87 1,526 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 208.81 5,675 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 196.60 7,323 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 200.74 2,854 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 49,649 7 (2) *** *** (2) (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 5.– 14" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.125" segmented thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact

strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55

carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-26

Table V-6a

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the U.S.-produced and

imported product 61

 sold to U.S. branded distributors, and margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by

quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States China Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $272.27 138 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 255.83 170 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 268.71 173 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 258.65 243 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.- 246.78 192 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.- 239.58 239 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July- 245.83 251 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.- 243.56 218 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.- 234.58 278 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.- 232.29 274 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July- 229.36 275 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.- 222.22 294 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 2,745 6 (2) *** *** (2) (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 6.– 18" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.125" segment thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact

strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55

carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-27

Table V-6b

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 61

 sold to U.S. other distributors, and margins of underselling

(overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States Korea

Price

(per blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $281.18 579 5 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 327.17 752 5 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 285.74 678 5 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 296.39 505 6 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 271.30 644 5 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 280.66 745 5 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 271.87 776 6 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 269.06 709 6 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 264.09 848 7 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 270.94 1,020 7 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 268.22 1,234 7 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 264.10 676 7 *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 9,166 7 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 6.– 18" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.125" segment thickness,

Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a

range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55 carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or

more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-28

Table V-6c

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 61

 sold to U.S. professional construction firms, and margins

of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States Korea

Price

(per blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $377.82 735 7 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 354.04 1,562 7 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 350.43 1,354 7 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 362.99 886 7 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 340.90 1,044 7 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 341.37 1,331 7 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 347.98 1,170 7 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 337.06 1,105 7 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 322.21 954 7 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 302.72 2,602 7 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 273.30 3,149 7 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 279.54 2,433 7 *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 18,325 7 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 6.– 18" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.125" segment thickness,

Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a

range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55 carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or

more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-29

Table V-7a

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the U.S.-produced and

imported product 71

 sold to U.S. branded distributors, and margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by

quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States China Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $509.94 103 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 475.94 145 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 456.31 156 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 447.40 142 4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.- 423.88 77 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.- 440.88 197 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July- 454.26 143 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.- 414.29 122 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.- 436.65 85 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.- 397.99 168 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July- 443.29 146 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.- 423.29 169 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 1,653 6 (2) *** *** (2) (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 7.– 24" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.155" segment thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact

strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55

carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-30

Table V-7b

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the U.S.-produced and

imported product 71

 sold to U.S. other distributors, and margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by

quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States China Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No.

of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $553.16 126 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 550.91 265 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 569.72 260 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 530.51 164 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.- 484.16 170 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.- 480.01 307 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July- 481.16 335 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.- 459.56 212 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.- 453.82 231 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.- 481.62 340 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July- 483.39 324 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.- 460.82 243 6 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 2,977 6 (2) *** *** (2) (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 7.– 24" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.155" segment thickness, Premium grade blade (diamond impact

strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55

carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-31

Table V-7c

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

U.S.-produced and imported product 71

 sold to U.S. professional construction firms, and margins

of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

Period of

shipment

United States Korea

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Price

(per

blade)

Quantity

(blades)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $634.47 289 6 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 605.75 476 6 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 580.59 489 6 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 586.86 297 6 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 564.33 331 6 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 585.74 523 6 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 566.11 410 6 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 567.88 432 6 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 572.70 371 6 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 559.50 464 6 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 495.06 527 6 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 573.02 433 6 *** *** *** ***

TOTALS (2

) 5,042 6 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 7.– 24" diameter laser-welded blades for wet cutting cured concrete, 0.155" segment thickness,

Premium grade blade (diamond impact strength within a TI/TTI range of 74-77 and diamond concentration in a

range of 33-35 percent by volume of the segments or alternatively 1.45-1.55 carats/ccm) for use in saws of 35 hp or

more.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-32

Figure V-3

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices for product 1, by

country of origin, types of customers, and quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices for product 2, by

country of origin, types of customers, and quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices for product 3, by

country of origin, types of customers, and quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices for product 4, by

country of origin, types of customers, and quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices for product 5, by

country of origin, types of customers, and quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-8

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices for product 6, by

country of origin, types of customers, and quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-9

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices for product 7, by

country of origin, types of customers, and quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *
 76 U.S. producers’ weighted-average selling prices of their U.S.-produced products declined during the period for 

products 2-7 sold to branded distributors and to other distributors, and products 3-7 sold to professional construction

firms during January 2003-December 2005.

 77 U.S. importers’ weighted-average selling prices of their imported Korean products declined during the periods

reported for products 1-4 sold to branded distributors, products 1-4 and product 7 sold to other distributors, product 5

sold to national big-box retailers, and products 1-6 sold to professional construction firms.

V-33

Selling Price Trends

The U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. quarterly selling prices of the specified finished diamond

sawblade products produced domestically fluctuated but generally declined during January 2003-

December 2005 (tables V-1a through V-7c and figures V-3 through V-9). In addition, see tables V-8a

through V-8c for summary details of the price trends. Period price declines for the U.S.-produced

products ranged from a high of *** percent for product 3 sold to other distributors to a low of 6.1 percent

for product 6 sold to other distributors, both during January-March 2003 through October-December

2005.76 On the other hand, U.S. producers’ weighted-average prices increased for product 1 sold to

branded distributors, to other distributors, and to professional construction firms, and for product 2 sold to

professional construction firms. Period price increases ranged from a high of *** percent for product 1

sold to professional construction firms to a low of *** percent for product 1 sold to other distributors,

both during January-March 2003 through October-December 2005.

The U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. quarterly selling prices of the specified finished diamond

sawblade products imported from China fluctuated and showed a mixed pattern of period price declines,

increases, and no change during January 2003-December 2005. U.S. importers’ weighted-average selling

prices of their imported Chinese products declined during the periods reported for products 3, 4, and 6

sold to branded distributors, and products 2 and 3 sold to other distributors. Period price declines for the

specified products imported from China ranged from a high of *** percent for product 6 sold to branded

distributors during October-December 2004 through July-September 2005 to a low of *** percent for

product 3 sold to branded distributors during April-June 2004 through October-December 2005. On the

other hand, U.S. importers’ weighted-average selling prices of their imported Chinese products increased

during the periods reported for products 5 and 7 sold to branded distributors, and products 4-5 sold to

professional construction firms. Period price increases ranged from a high of *** percent for product 4

sold to professional construction firms during January-March 2004 through October-December 2005 to a

low of *** percent for product 2 sold to branded distributors during July-September 2004 through

October-December 2005. U.S. importers’ weighted-average selling prices of their imported Chinese

products did not change for products 1-3 sold to professional construction firms during January-March

2003 through October-December 2005, while only a single quarter of price data was reported for the

imported Chinese product 7 sold to other distributors.

The U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. quarterly selling prices of the specified finished diamond

sawblade products imported from Korea fluctuated but generally declined during January 2003-December

2005. Period price declines for the specified products imported from Korea ranged from a high of ***

percent for product 2 sold to professional construction firms to a low of *** percent for product 3 sold to

branded distributors, both during January-March 2003 through October-December 2005.77 On the other

hand, U.S. importers’ weighted-average selling prices of their imported Korean products increased during

the periods reported for products 5-7 sold to branded distributors, products 5-6 sold to other distributors,

and product 7 sold to professional construction firms. Period price increases ranged from a high of ***

percent for product 6 sold to other distributors to a low of *** percent for product 7 sold to branded

distributors, both during January-March 2003 through October-December 2005.
V-34

Table V-8a

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary of the quarterly weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices

for finished diamond sawblade products 1 through 7 sold to U.S. branded distributors, by country

of origin, January 2003-December 2005

Country

Number of

quarters

reported

Highest price in

the period (per

blade)

Lowest price in

the period (per

blade)

Percentage

change in price

in the period1

Product 1

United States 12 *** *** ***

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 6 *** *** ***2

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 7 *** *** ***3

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 12 *** 115.61 ***

China 7 *** *** ***4

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 5

United States 12 204.17 171.24 -14.9

China 11 *** *** ***

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 6

United States 12 272.27 222.22 -18.4

China 8 *** *** ***5

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 7

United States 12 509.94 397.99 -17.0

China 12 *** *** ***

Korea 12 *** *** ***

 1 Price change is from the first quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2005 if available. If data for these

quarters are not available, it is the change from the first quarter to the last quarter for which the data are available;

this price change does not necessarily show the change between the highest and lowest prices, unless such prices

were in the first and last quarters for which data are available.

 2

 Price change is from the third quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2005.

 3

 Price change is from the second quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2005.

 4

 Price change is from the second quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2005.

 5

 Price change is from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2005.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-35

Table V-8b

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary of the quarterly weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices

for finished diamond sawblade products 1 through 7 sold to U.S. other distributors, by country of

origin, January 2003-December 2005

Country

Number of

quarters

reported

Highest price in

the period (per

blade)

Lowest price in

the period (per

blade)

Percentage

change in price

in the period1

Product 1

United States 12 *** *** ***

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 8 *** *** ***2

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 12 112.43 *** ***

China 9 *** *** ***3

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 12 143.90 126.71 -11.5

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 5

United States 12 267.07 209.28 -21.4

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 6

United States 12 327.17 264.09 -6.1

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 7

United States 12 569.72 453.82 -16.7

China 1 *** *** ***

Korea 6 *** *** ***4

 1 Price change is from the first quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2005 if available. If data for these

quarters are not available, it is the change from the first quarter to the last quarter for which the data are available;

this price change does not necessarily show the change between the highest and lowest prices, unless such prices

were in the first and last quarters for which data are available.

 2

 Price change is from the fourth quarter of 2003 to the third quarter of 2005.

 3

 Price change is from the second quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2005.

 4

 Price change is from the second quarter of 2003 to the third quarter of 2005.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-36

Table V-8c

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary of the quarterly weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices

for finished diamond sawblade products 1 through 7 sold to U.S. professional construction firms,

by country of origin, January 2003-December 2005

Country

Number of

quarters

reported

Highest price in

the period (per

blade)

Lowest price in

the period (per

blade)

Percentage

change in price

in the period1

Product 1

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 12 *** *** ***

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 12 *** *** ***

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 12 *** *** ***

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 12 183.28 152.23 -11.2

China 3 *** *** ***2

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 5

United States 12 264.08 196.60 -23.9

China 7 *** *** ***3

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 6

United States 12 377.82 273.30 -26.0

Korea 12 *** *** ***

Product 7

United States 12 634.47 495.06 -9.7

Korea 11 *** *** ***4

 1 Price change is from the first quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2005 if available. If these are not available, it is the

change from the first quarter to the last quarter for which the data are available; this price change does not necessarily show the

change between the highest and lowest prices, unless such prices were in the first and last quarters for which data are available.

 2

 Price change is from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2005.

 3

 Price change is from the first quarter of 2003 to the third quarter of 2004.

 4

 Price change is from the second quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2005.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 78 The 189 quarterly selling price comparisons showing the imported Korean products priced less than the U.S.-

produced products accounted for $5.8 million in shipments of the Korean products, while the 56 quarterly price

comparisons showing the imported Korean products priced higher than the U.S.-produced products accounted for

$4.6 million in shipments of the Korean products.

V-37

Selling Price Comparisons

A total of 360 quarterly selling price comparisons were possible between the domestic and

imported specified finished diamond sawblade products 1-7 shipped by the U.S. producers and importers

to specified types of U.S. customers on a U.S. f.o.b. selling price basis during January 2003-December

2005 (tables V-1a through V-7c). One hundred and fifteen selling price comparisons were possible

between the domestic and imported products from China, while 245 selling price comparisons were

possible between the domestic and imported products from Korea. One hundred and twelve of the 115

selling price comparisons involving the imported Chinese products showed that the imported products

were priced less than the U.S.-produced products, and in the 3 remaining price comparisons the imported

Chinese products were priced higher than the U.S.-produced products. One hundred and eighty-nine of

the 245 selling price comparisons involving the imported Korean products showed that the imported

products were priced less than the U.S.-produced products, and in the remaining 56 price comparisons the

imported Korean products were priced higher than the U.S.-produced products.78 The quarterly price

comparisons based on reported selling price data are summarized in tables V-9a through V-9c.

The imported Chinese products that were priced less than the U.S.-produced products showed the

greatest concentration of underselling for sales of products 3 and 5, based on the value of shipments of the

imported Chinese products, and for sales to branded distributors and professional construction firms,

based on both the number of price comparisons and the value of shipments of the Chinese products. The

imported Korean products that were priced less than the U.S.-produced products showed the greatest

concentration of such sales for product 5, based on the value of shipments of the Korean products, and for

shipments to branded distributors, the latter based on both the number of price comparisons and the value

of shipments of the Korean products. On the other hand, the imported Korean products that were priced

higher than the U.S.-produced products showed the greatest concentration of such sales for product 4 and

shipments to professional construction firms, based on the value of shipments of the Korean products.
V-38

Table V-9a

Finished diamond sawblades: Quarterly U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling price comparisons between U.S.-

produced and imported finished diamond sawblades, by country of origin and by year, 2003-051

Country/

period

Total price

comparisons Underselling by imports Overselling by imports

No.

Value2

(dollars) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

underselling

(percentage) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

overselling

(percentage)

China:

 2003 26 $327,430 26 $327,430 25.6 - 83.0 - - -

 2004 43 379,227 42 377,711 22.1 - 83.6 1 $1,516 2.4

 2005 46 755,672 44 577,048 17.8 - 86.4 2 178,624 28.4 - 36.1

TOTALS 115 1,462,329 112 1,282,189 3 180,140

Korea:

 2003 80 $2,876,446 59 $1,833,501 1.2 - 80.8 21 $1,042,945 1.7 - 45.4

 2004 82 3,568,534 67 2,128,522 4.6 - 78.8 15 1,440,012 8.3 - 141.6

 2005 83 3,999,347 63 1,865,782 3.9 - 76.3 20 2,133,565 2.0 - 78.7

TOTALS 245 10,444,327 189 5,827,805 56 4,616,522

 1 The number of quarterly price comparisons shown for each country involve all the specified products reported and sales to U.S.

branded distributors, other distributors, and professional construction firms; U.S. producers did not report any sales to national big-box

retailers, such that no price comparisons were possible with the imported products sold to this latter type of customer.

 2

 Value of U.S. sales of the specified finished diamond sawblade products imported from the countries.

Note.--Due to rounding, the value totals in this table may not equal the totals in tables V-9b and V-9c.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-39

Table V-9b

Finished diamond sawblades: Quarterly U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling price comparisons between U.S.-

produced and imported finished diamond sawblades, by country of origin and by product, during January 2003-

December 20051

Country/

product

Total price

comparisons Underselling by imports Overselling by imports

No.

Value2

(dollars) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

underselling

(percentage) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

overselling

(percentage)

China:

 Product 1 12 $17,500 12 $17,500 79.8 - 86.4 - - -

 Product 2 26 94,850 26 94,850 22.1 - 72.5 - - -

 Product 3 28 609,302 28 609,302 17.8 - 74.5 - - -

 Product 4 10 195,977 8 17,353 23.5 - 39.7 2 $178,624 28.4 - 36.1

 Product 5 18 407,895 18 407,895 37.3 - 65.5 - - -

 Product 6 8 91,660 7 90,144 39.0 - 48.8 1 1,516 2.4

 Product 7 13 45,145 13 45,145 38.0 - 67.3 - - -

TOTALS 115 1,462,329 112 1,282,189 3 180,140

Korea:

 Product 1 36 $149,821 36 $149,821 6.7 - 78.8 - - -

 Product 2 36 639,266 24 300,828 1.7 - 57.7 12 $338,438 1.7 - 79.0

 Product 3 36 1,511,003 11 456,714 4.6 - 25.0 25 1,054,289 2.0 - 141.6

 Product 4 36 3,592,362 20 424,486 3.9 - 27.6 16 3,167,876 3.0 - 39.4

 Product 5 36 3,771,912 34 3,722,846 6.3 - 80.8 2 49,066 3.1 - 3.8

 Product 6 36 614,029 36 614,029 1.2 - 73.5 - - -

 Product 7 29 165,934 28 159,081 12.9 - 60.6 1 6,853 25.8

TOTALS 245 10,444,327 189 5,827,805 56 4,616,522

 1 The quarterly price comparisons shown for each country involve sales to U.S. branded distributors, other distributors, and

professional construction firms; U.S. producers did not report any sales to national big-box retailers, such that no price comparisons were

possible with the imported products sold to this latter type of customer.

 2

 Value of U.S. sales of the specified finished diamond sawblade products imported from the countries.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
V-40

Table V-9c

Finished diamond sawblades: Quarterly U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling price comparisons between U.S.-

produced and imported finished diamond sawblades, by country of origin and by type of customer, during January

2003-December 20051

Country/

type of customer

Total price

comparisons Underselling by imports Overselling by imports

No.

Value2

(dollars) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

underselling

(percentage) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

overselling

(percentage)

China:

 Branded distributors 51 $806,570 50 $805,054 23.5 - 70.5 1 $1,516 2.4

 Other distributors 18 46,034 18 46,034 17.8 - 54.7 - - -

 Prof. const. firms 46 609,725 44 431,101 28.7 - 86.4 2 178,624 28.4 - 36.1

TOTALS 115 1,462,329 112 1,282,189 3 180,140

Korea:

 Branded distributors 84 $3,948,094 68 $3,351,454 1.7 - 78.8 16 $596,640 3.0 - 47.5

 Other distributors 78 1,993,275 58 1,322,503 3.1 - 80.8 20 670,772 1.7 - 141.6

 Prof. const. firms 83 4,502,958 63 1,153,848 1.2 - 58.8 20 3,349,110 2.0 - 39.4

TOTALS 245 10,444,327 189 5,827,805 56 4,616,522

 1 The number of quarterly price comparisons shown for each country involve all the specified products reported; U.S. producers did not

report any sales to national big-box retailers, such that no price comparisons were possible with the imported products sold to this latter type

of customer.

 2

 Value of U.S. sales of the specified finished diamond sawblade products imported from the countries.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 79 The price data reported by U.S. purchasers are shown only for those products and types of customers reporting

where there were at least some price comparisons between the domestic and subject imported diamond sawblades.

 80 The 68 quarterly selling price comparisons showing the imported Korean products priced less than the U.S.-

produced products accounted for $3.3 million in shipments of the Korean products, while the 7 quarterly price

comparisons showing the imported Korean products priced higher than the U.S.-produced products accounted for

$23,080 in shipments of the Korean products.

V-41

Purchase Price Comparisons

A total of 122 quarterly delivered purchase price comparisons were possible between the

domestic and imported specified finished diamond sawblade products during January 2003-December

2005; these price comparisons involved product 1 purchased by “other” retailers, products 3-7 purchased

by U.S. branded distributors, and products 5-7 purchased by U.S. “other” distributors on a delivered price

basis (tables V-10 through V-18).79 Forty-seven purchase price comparisons were possible between the

domestic and imported products from China, while 75 purchase price comparisons were possible between

the domestic and imported products from Korea. Forty-six of the 47 purchase price comparisons

involving the imported Chinese products showed that the imported products were priced less than the

U.S.-produced products, and in the single remaining price comparison the imported Chinese product was

priced higher than the U.S.-produced product. Sixty-eight of the 75 purchase price comparisons

involving the imported Korean products showed that the imported products were priced less than the

U.S.-produced products, and in the 7 remaining price comparisons the imported Korean products were

priced higher than the U.S.-produced products.80 The quarterly price comparisons based on reported

delivered purchase price data are summarized in tables V-19a through V-19c.

Table V-10

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported Korean product 1 purchased by U.S. other retailers, and

margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-

December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-11

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported product 3 purchased by U.S. branded distributors, and margins

of underselling (overselling), by country of origin, and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-12

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported product 4 purchased by U.S. branded distributors, and margins

of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *
V-42

Table V-13

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported product 5 purchased by U.S. branded distributors, and margins

of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-14

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported product 6 purchased by U.S. branded distributors, and margins

of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-15

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported Korean product 7 purchased by U.S. branded distributors, and

margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-

December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-16

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported product 5 purchased by U.S. other distributors, and margins of

underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-17

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported product 6 purchased by U.S. other distributors, and margins of

underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table V-18

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase prices and quantities

of the U.S.-produced and imported Chinese product 7 purchased by U.S. other distributors, and

margins of underselling (overselling), by country of origin and by quarters, January 2003-

December 2005

* * * * * * *
V-43

Table V-19a

Finished diamond sawblades: Quarterly U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase price comparisons between

U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades, by country of origin and by year, 2003-051

Country/

period

Total price

comparisons Underselling by imports Overselling by imports

No.

Value2

(dollars) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

underselling

(percentage) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

overselling

(percentage)

China:

 2003 13 $56,768 13 $56,768 46.5 - 79.3 - - -

 2004 16 190,509 15 190,236 15.7 - 70.7 1 $273 1.8

 2005 18 562,148 18 562,148 33.0 - 67.3 - - -

TOTALS 47 809,425 46 809,152 1 273

Korea:

 2003 21 $870,625 17 868,025 26.5 - 66.8 4 $2,600 27.8 - 67.2

 2004 27 1,389,913 24 1,369,433 3.1 - 69.5 3 20,480 0.3 - 4.1

 2005 27 1,082,993 27 1,082,993 12.5 - 71.5 - - -

TOTALS 75 3,343,531 68 3,320,451 7 23,080

 1 The number of quarterly price comparisons shown for each country involve all the specified products reported and purchased by

branded distributors, other distributors, and other retailers.

 2 Value of U.S. purchases of the specified finished diamond sawblade products imported from the countries.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-44

Table V-19b

Finished diamond sawblades: Quarterly U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase price comparisons between

U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades, by country of origin and by product, during January

2003-December 20051

Country/

product

Total price

comparisons Underselling by imports Overselling by imports

No.

Value2

(dollars) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

underselling

(percentage) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

overselling

(percentage)

China:

 Product 1 - - - - - - - -

 Product 2 - - - - - - - -

 Product 3 12 45,125 12 $45,125 47.9 - 61.9 - - -

 Product 4 10 751,076 10 751,076 65.3 - 70.7 - - -

 Product 5 11 6,386 11 6,386 46.5 - 69.4 - - -

 Product 6 13 4,878 12 4,605 15.7 - 79.3 1 $273 1.8

 Product 7 1 1,960 1 1,960 51.0 - - -

TOTALS 47 809,425 46 809,152 1 273

Korea:

 Product 1 8 $163,549 7 $145,221 12.7 - 54.5 1 $18,328 4.1

 Product 2 - - - - - - - -

 Product 3 12 120,325 12 120,325 34.5 - 71.5 - - -

 Product 4 12 2,950,375 12 2,950,375 46.5 - 70.8 - - -

 Product 5 19 70,205 15 67,605 12.6 - 62.6 4 2,600 27.8 - 67.2

 Product 6 15 24,380 13 22,228 3.1 - 59.1 2 2,152 0.3 - 0.3

 Product 7 9 14,697 9 14,697 16.7 - 57.4 - - -

TOTALS 75 3,343,531 68 3,320,451 7 23,080

 1 The quarterly price comparisons shown for each country involve purchases by branded distributors, other distributors, and other

retailers.

 2 Value of U.S. purchases of the specified finished diamond sawblade products imported from the countries.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
V-45

Table V-19c

Finished diamond sawblades: Quarterly U.S. weighted-average net delivered purchase price comparisons between

U.S.-produced and imported finished diamond sawblades, by country of origin and by type of customer, during

January 2003-December 20051

Country/

type of customer

Total price

comparisons Underselling by imports Overselling by imports

No.

Value2

(dollars) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

underselling

(percentage) No.

Value2

(dollars)

Range of

overselling

(percentage)

China:

 Branded distributors 38 $803,458 38 $803,458 47.9 - 79.3 - - -

 Other distributors 9 5,967 8 5,694 15.7 - 59.1 1 $273 1.8

 Other retailers - - - - - - - -

TOTALS 47 809,425 46 809,152 1 273

Korea:

 Branded distributors 49 $3,101,310 49 $3,101,310 16.7 - 71.5 - - -

 Other distributors 18 78,672 12 73,920 3.1 - 34.2 6 $4,752 0.3 - 67.2

 Other retailers 8 163,549 7 145,221 12.7 - 54.5 1 18,328 4.1

TOTALS 75 3,343,531 68 3,320,451 7 23,080

 1 The number of quarterly price comparisons shown for each country involve all the specified products reported.

 2 Value of U.S. purchases of the specified finished diamond sawblade products imported from the countries.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 81 The remaining five firms, ***, reported that they did not lose revenues due to competition with the imported

diamond sawblade products from China and Korea.

 82 The remaining five firms, ***, reported that they did not lose sales to the imported diamond sawblade products

from China and Korea.

 83 During the preliminary phase of these investigations, another U.S. producer, ***, which has not provided a

questionnaire response in this final phase, asserted that “on a regular basis, we lose business to Chinese product

based on quoted prices by 50+ percent.”

 84 *** also provided after the hearing additional allegations of lost sales regarding its U.S.-produced finished

diamond sawblades. The data provided, however, were aggregated for the entire period, 2003-05, and appeared to

conflict with one of its lost sales allegations previously submitted (all lost sales allegations submitted by ***

involved a single firm, ***). Staff requested that *** submit the aggregated lost sales allegations at least on a yearly

basis, but preferably on a transaction basis as it did for its previous submissions (staff e-mail to ***); staff did not

receive a response.

 85 Petition, p. 9.

 86 Most affidavits contained the following language “In the past year my company has purchased approximately

‘$INSERT AMOUNT’ of {Korean or Chinese} saw blades that we would have otherwise purchased from a U.S.

producer.” There is no mention of whether this “otherwise” refers to a case where there were no Chinese or Korean

imports, if the import prices were higher, or for some other reason. The affidavits further include language that, “in

the past year I received price reductions from U.S. producers in the amount of ‘$INSERT AMOUNT’ for diamond

sawblades in order to retain a sale in spite of lower-priced offers from {Korea or China}.” 

V-46

LOST REVENUES AND LOST SALES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of finished diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade

parts to report in their questionnaire responses any instances of lost revenues or lost sales that they

experienced due to competition from imports from China and Korea since January 2003. Five of the

10 firms responding for lost revenues indicated that they had to reduce prices to prevent losing sales to

the finished diamond sawblades and/or diamond sawblade parts products imported from China and/or

Korea, but only one of these firms, ***, provided the information requested.81 Another of the five firms,

***, reported that it did not have documentation to support its allegation, but was confident that it has

reduced prices to meet competition. According to ***, in many cases new products are developed to

meet competition price points, which reduce prices for similar products. Six of the 11 firms responding

for lost sales reported that they had lost sales to finished diamond sawblades and/or diamond sawblade

parts imported from China and/or Korea, but only two firms, ***, provided the information requested.82

Another of the six firms, ***, reported that it did not have documentation to back up its allegation, but

was confident that it has lost business in certain situations.83 After the hearing, *** provided additional

allegations of lost sales regarding its U.S.-produced diamond sawblade cores.84

In addition to questionnaire responses, petitioners were required to provide lost revenue and lost

sales information in their petition. Petitioners, however, did not provide sufficient data regarding specific

instances of lost sales or revenues in the petition, although they did note that “(t)he nature of the sales

process for diamond sawblades makes it difficult to document anecdotal cases of lost sales and

revenues.”85 Instead, petitioners provided affidavits in their petition from 10 producers, resellers

(distributors), and purchasers of diamond sawblades.86 These affidavits, however, did not include specific

information to verify with purchasers whether these allegations were correct. Resellers noted in their

affidavits that Chinese and Korean suppliers of diamond sawblades are bypassing their companies and

marketing directly to past, present, and potential customers of the resellers. The staff requested during the

final phase of these investigations that the petitioners provide the requested lost revenue and lost sales
 87 E-mail of staff to ***. The staff had sent a similar request during the preliminary phase of these investigations,

but did not receive the information requested (e-mail of staff to ***).

 88 ***.

V-47

information for the general assertions that were cited in the petition, but the petitioners did not provide

any of the requested information.87

The Commission received useable information involving a single instance of lost revenue and 13

instances of lost sales; a summary of the useable lost sales information obtained is shown in table V-20. 

Most of the lost sales allegations and the lost revenue allegation involved diamond sawblade cores. The

single instance of lost revenue, along with additional comments of responding purchasers cited in the lost

revenue and lost sales allegations, are presented in the text that follows.

*** agreed with the lost revenue allegation involving diamond sawblade cores.88 *** reported

that, in 2003, the firm threatened ***. Consequently, ***.

*** agreed with the five lost sales allegations involving diamond sawblade cores, but noted that

the country of origin was Korea, not China, for the January 1, 2004 allegation. *** reported that it has

purchased diamond sawblade cores from Korea at significantly reduced prices. *** also asserted that it

has lost over $*** in sales of its finished diamond sawblades to imported Chinese products between

January 2003-February 2006, which involved a single firm.

*** agreed with the two lost sales allegations involving diamond sawblade cores, but did not

provide any discussion.

*** agreed with the four lost sales allegations involving diamond sawblade cores, but did not

provide any discussion.

Table V-20

Finished diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts: Lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *
 
 1

 The accounting and related information systems used by U.S. producers generally do not track financial results

in the manner or detail requested by the Commission. As a result and not necessarily unique to this case, elements of

manufacturing costs and other operating expense items were constructed from relevant financial information. 

 The following companies reported on a fiscal-year (“FY”) basis: Terra Diamond (February 28); Western Saw

(April 30); Concut and Dixie Diamond (May 31); Texas Diamond (October 31); and N-E-D (November 30). The

remaining U.S. producers reported on a calendar-year basis. As requested by staff, Terra Diamond’s financial

results represent FY 2004, FY 2005, and FY 2006. 

 Neither Blackhawk, which reportedly entered bankruptcy after the Commission’s preliminary determination,

nor *** submitted questionnaire responses for the final phase of these investigations. In lieu of updated responses,

the overlapping financial results (2003, 2004, and January-March 2005) submitted by Blackhawk and *** for the

preliminary phase of these investigations are presented in this section. As indicated in the note to table VI-3, staff

estimated ***. ***. 

 2

 A small volume of transfers was reported by ***. *** reported internal consumption.

 ***. ***’ March 24, 2006 response to staff follow-up questions. ***. ***’ April 3, 2006 response to staff

follow-up questions.

 3

 June 5, 2006 verification report. 

 4

 ***. 

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

This section of the report presents U.S. producers’ financial results on diamond sawblades,

diamond sawblade parts, and combined operations on diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts. 

The financial results are based on U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and represent

a mix of calendar and fiscal-year periods.1

 The majority of revenue on diamond sawblades reflects

commercial sales.2

Staff conducted a verification of Husqvarna’s U.S. producer’s questionnaire response on May 24

and 25, 2006 at the company’s *** diamond sawblade manufacturing facility in Columbia, SC. Changes

pursuant to verification are reflected in this and other affected sections of the report.3

 

OPERATIONS ON DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Income-and-loss data for producers of diamond sawblades are presented in table VI-1 and on a

per-unit basis in table VI-2. 

While the overall financial results on diamond sawblades represent the combined operations of

multiple companies, *** account for the majority of sales.4

 Selected company-specific financial

information of operations on diamond sawblades is presented in table VI-3. 

The variance analysis of operations on diamond sawblades, presented in table VI-4, shows that

the reduction in gross profit between 2003 and 2004 was due to a negative price variance partially offset
VI-2

Table VI-1

Diamond sawblades: Results of operations, 2003-05 

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2003 2004 2005

Quantity (units)

Commercial sales *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Transfers *** *** ***

Total net sales quantity 570,620 581,124 568,262

Value ($1,000)

Commercial sales *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Transfers *** *** ***

Total net sales value 117,409 115,144 114,618

Cost of sales: 0

Raw material 34,432 34,024 35,650

Direct labor 10,662 10,755 10,540

Other factory costs 24,978 25,083 23,822

 Total cost of goods sold 70,071 69,861 70,012

Gross profit 47,338 45,282 44,607

SG&A expenses 34,650 33,046 32,543

Operating income 12,688 12,236 12,064

Interest expense 891 722 847

Other expenses 3,989 3,110 1,092

Other income items 1,372 1,805 546

Net income 9,180 10,209 10,671

Depreciation/amortization 4,069 3,732 2,682

Estimated cash flow 13,249 13,941 13,353

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Raw material 29.3 29.6 31.1

Direct labor 9.1 9.3 9.2

Other factory costs 21.3 21.8 20.8

 Cost of goods sold 59.7 60.7 61.1

Gross profit 40.3 39.3 38.9

SG&A expenses 29.5 28.7 28.4

Operating income 10.8 10.6 10.5

Net income 7.8 8.9 9.3

Number of producers reporting

Data 16 16 16

Operating losses 6 7 6

Note.--The difference in volume compared to the preliminary phase of these investigations is largely due to revisions

made by ***. See footnote 15. 

 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 5

 The variance analysis is most useful when period-to-period activity represents the same underlying product and

product mix. In this case, the scope of the product can result in relatively large differences in average unit sales

values and associated costs. Additionally, it is presumed that at least some change in product mix has occurred

during the period. While the variance analysis is still generally meaningful, the above-referenced factors should be

noted. 

 In terms of explaining period-to-period changes in gross profit, higher volume in the context of revenue

represents a positive variance, while higher volume in the context of cost represents a negative variance. Since

“other factory costs” include fixed and variable cost components, higher production/sales volume generally increases

fixed cost absorption which in turn reduces average unit other factory costs. In this sense, higher production/sales

volume indirectly contributes to a positive cost variance because they usually lower average COGS. 

 6

 The decline in 2004 SG&A expenses was accounted for primarily by ***. As shown in table VI-3, ***’s

SG&A expenses to sales ratio declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004. The relative decline in

***’s allocated 2004 SG&A expenses was ***. 

VI-3

Table VI-2

Diamond sawblades: Results of operations (per unit), 2003-05

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2003 2004 2005

Value (per unit)

Commercial sales *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** ***

Transfers *** *** ***

Average net sales $205.76 $198.14 $201.70

Cost of goods sold:

 Raw material 60.34 58.55 62.73

 Direct labor 18.68 18.51 18.55

 Other factory costs 43.77 43.16 41.92

 Total cost of goods sold 122.80 120.22 123.20

Gross profit 82.96 77.92 78.50

SG&A expenses 60.72 56.87 57.27

Operating income 22.24 21.06 21.23

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

by reductions in the average cost of raw materials.5 The resulting contraction of average gross profit was

offset somewhat by increased volume. The decline in overall gross profit was accompanied by an overall

negative 2003-04 operating income variance despite a relatively large reduction in 2004 SG&A

expenses.6

Table VI-3

Diamond sawblades: Results of operations by firm, 2003-05

* * * * * * *
VI-4

Table VI-4

Diamond sawblades: Variance analysis of U.S. producers, 2003-05

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales:

 Price variance (2,306) (4,427) 2,023

 Volume variance (485) 2,161 (2,548)

 Total net sales variance (2,791) (2,265) (525)

Cost of sales:

Raw material:

 Cost variance (1,360) 1,041 (2,378)

 Volume variance 142 (634) 753

 Net raw material variance (1,218) 407 (1,625)

Direct labor:

 Cost variance 78 104 (23)

 Volume variance 44 (196) 238

 Net direct labor variance 122 (93) 215

Other factory costs:

 Cost variance 1,052 355 705

 Volume variance 103 (460) 555

 Net other factory cost variance 1,155 (105) 1,260

Net cost of sales:

 Cost variance (230) 1,500 (1,696)

 Volume variance 290 (1,290) 1,546

 Total net cost of sales 60 210 (150)

Gross profit variance (2,731) (2,056) (675)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance 1,964 2,241 (228)

 Volume variance 143 (638) 731

 Total SG&A variance 2,107 1,604 504

Operating income variance (624) (452) (172)

Summarized as:

 Price variance (2,306) (4,427) 2,023

 Net cost/expense variance 1,734 3,741 (1,924)

 Net volume variance (52) 234 (271)

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 
 7

 With respect to the costs that the Commission would normally consider to be COGS, the petition’s calculation

of normal value (exhibit II-20 of petition) estimated that *** percent is accounted for by cores, *** percent by metal

powder, and *** percent by diamonds. 

 8

 ***’s March 27, 2006 response to staff questions. ***. ***’s March 28, 2006 response to staff follow-up

questions. 

 9

 ***’ March 24, 2006 response to staff questions. ***. 

 10 ***. ***’s March 27, 2006 response to staff questions. ***. ***’s March 21, 2006 response to staff

questions. ***. ***’s March 30, 2006 response to staff questions.

 11 ***. ***’ March 24, 2006 response to staff questions. 

 12 ***’s March 27, 2006 response to staff questions.

 13 ***’s March 30, 2006 response to staff questions.

VI-5

In 2005, average unit gross profit increased marginally as the result of a positive price variance (a

component of the total net sales variance) which more than offset the corresponding negative cost

variance (a component of the total net cost of sales variances). The negative cost variance was primarily

the result of higher average raw material costs. Given the small increase in average unit gross profit, the

decline in absolute gross profit in 2005 was entirely the result of a decline in volume. A positive net

SG&A expense variance (the combination of both the expense variance and volume variance) partially

offset the decline in gross profit, resulting in a 2004-05 negative operating income variance. 

As shown in table VI-2, average raw material costs fluctuated during the period, with several

different factors impacting the overall trend. Table VI-5, which presents the average purchase cost for

primary raw material inputs, shows that the average purchase cost of steel cores increased by a relatively

small amount during the period, while the average purchase cost of metal powder increased substantially

and the average purchase cost of diamonds declined. It should be noted that the single most important

raw material cost in the production of a diamond sawblade is the steel core.7

Table VI-5

Diamond sawblades: Average costs of primary inputs, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

*** reported lower average steel core purchase costs. ***.8 Also with regard to steel core costs,

***.9

 

In terms of changes in overall average raw material costs, *** reported a modest increase, while

*** reported a modest decrease. Most smaller U.S. producers reported relatively large increases in

average steel core purchase cost, while changes in average raw material costs were mixed.10 

The other components of COGS, direct labor and other factory costs, showed somewhat smaller

relative changes. ***.11 In response to a question regarding its lower average other factory costs, ***.12

***.13

 As a percentage of sales, SG&A expenses are relatively high compared to the average SG&A

expense ratios reported in other cases. It should be noted, however, that the industry’s higher average

SG&A expense ratios also correspond to relatively higher gross profit ratios. In response to staff

questions regarding the level of SG&A expense ratios, several producers noted increased sales efforts and

corresponding expenses necessary to compete with imports from China and Korea. Other producers
 14 ***. ***’s March 27, 2006 response to staff questions. ***. 

 ***. ***’s March 28, 2006 response to staff questions. As discussed in footnote 15, ***. 

 ***. ***’s March 27, 2006 response to staff questions.

 ***. ***’ March 24, 2006 response to staff questions. 

 ***. ***’s April 6, 2006 response to staff questions.

 15 As indicated previously, the net SG&A expense variance refers to the combination of the SG&A expense

variance and associated volume variance. 

 16 ***. ***’s March 17, 2006 response to staff questions. ***. ***’s March 24, 2006 response to staff

questions. ***. Ibid. ***. 

 17 ***. ***’s March 28, 2006 response to staff questions. ***. 

 ***. ***’s April 3, 2006 response to staff questions. ***.

 18 ***’s April 6, 2006 response to staff questions. ***. 

 19 As presented in table VI-6, value added represents manufacturing conversion costs (direct labor and other

factory costs) plus allocated SG&A expenses. Value added divided by the sum of value added plus raw material

yields the percentage amounts presented – SG&A included in the first pair of columns and SG&A excluded in the

second pair of columns. 

 20 Internal consumption is not presented in this section. U.S. core producers do not produce diamond sawblades

or any other products with the cores that they produce. As such and in the sense generally used by the Commission,

U.S. core producers cannot internally consume their production of cores. In contrast, U.S. segment producers

internally consume most of their segments in the production of diamond sawblades.

VI-6

indicated that intensive sales and product support is the nature of the markets served and that high levels

of SG&A expenses relative to sales are normal.14 

The SG&A expense ratios of most companies moved within a relatively narrow range throughout

the period. As noted previously, there was a large positive net SG&A expense variance between 2003

and 2004 which was primarily due to ***. This was followed by a smaller positive net SG&A expense

variance between 2004 and 2005.15

***. ***. ***.16 ***.17

***.18 

Value Added on Diamond Sawblades

Value added on U.S. producers’ diamond sawblade operations is presented in table VI-6.19 With

the exception ***, the level of average value added was generally correlated with company-specific

average sales values. ***. 

Table VI-6

Diamond sawblades: Value added by firm, 2005

* * * * * * *

OPERATIONS ON DIAMOND SAWBLADE PARTS

Income-and-loss data for producers of diamond sawblade parts are presented in table VI-7.

Selected company-specific financial information for operations on diamond sawblade parts is presented in

table VI-8.20 An overall variance analysis on the financial results of diamond sawblade parts is not

presented because sales and cost information for cores and segments cannot be meaningfully combined

and unitized. 
 21 ***. *** March 27, 2006 response to staff questions. 

 22 ***. *** March 24, 2006 response to staff questions. 

 23 ***. *** March 27, 2006 response to staff questions.

VI-7

Cores

Of the two U.S. producers of diamond sawblade cores, Hyde Tools and Western Saw, the

majority of sales were accounted for by ***. Both core producers exhibited somewhat different trends

during the period examined with *** total volume and revenue moving within a narrow range, while ***

volume and revenue declined. 

Average core sales values were only somewhat higher in 2005 compared to 2003 with

corresponding increases in COGS resulting in an erosion of gross margin. With the absence of any

substantial change in the absolute level of SG&A expenses, an operating loss on cores was reported for

2005. The minimal increase in average core sales values during the period appears to be consistent with

the previously-referenced statement by *** that U.S. core producers were under pressure to limit price

increases.

Table VI-9 presents *** average purchase cost of steel during the period examined. As shown,

the average purchase cost of steel increased by approximately *** percent while the overall average raw

material cost for cores, shown in table VI-8, increased by only *** percent.

In response to a question regarding this pattern, ***.21 ***.22

Table VI-7

Diamond sawblade parts: Results of operations, 2003-05 

* * * * * * *

Table VI-8

Diamond sawblade parts: Results of operations by firm, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

Table VI-9

Diamond sawblade parts: Average per pound purchase cost of steel (core production only), 2003-

05

* * * * * * *

As with the producers of diamond sawblades, core producers’ SG&A expense-to-sales ratios were

also relatively high.23

Segments 

Unlike the core producers, commercial sales of segments represent a relatively small part of the

respective producers’ overall diamond sawblade operations. With the exception of ***, overall segment

operations were profitable. As discussed previously, ***. For most companies it is understood that the

majority of segments produced are consumed internally in the production of diamond sawblades.
 24 ***.

 25 ***. 

 26 The following companies reported R&D expenses during the period examined: ***. 

 27 ***’ March 24, 2006 response to staff questions. 

 28 ***’s March 27, 2006 response to staff questions.

VI-8

COMBINED OPERATIONS ON DIAMOND SAWBLADES AND DIAMOND 

SAWBLADE PARTS

Income-and-loss data for the combined operations of producers of diamond sawblades and

diamond sawblade parts are presented in table VI-10. Selected company-specific financial information

for combined operations is presented in table VI-11. 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Data on capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses for diamond

sawblades and parts are shown in table VI-12. 

Total capital expenditures for the period were somewhat lower compared to the overall

depreciation expense (see table VI-10). ***.24 ***.25 The majority of other producers reported at least

some capital expenditures.

***.26 ***.27 ***.28

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The reported value of assets (combined diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts) and

calculated return on investment (“ROI”) are shown in table VI-13. 
VI-9

Table VI-10

Diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts: Results of combined operations, 2003-05 

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2003 2004 2005

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales value 129,348 127,714 127,233

Cost of goods sold 78,107 78,322 78,761

Gross profit 51,241 49,392 48,472

SG&A expenses 38,508 36,925 36,573

Operating income 12,733 12,467 11,899

Interest expense 1,088 887 1,035

Other expenses 4,037 3,157 1,107

Other income items 1,390 1,868 609

Net income 8,998 10,291 10,366

Depreciation/amortization 4,536 4,452 3,251

Estimated cash flow 13,534 14,743 13,617

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Cost of goods sold 60.4 61.3 61.9

Gross profit 39.6 38.7 38.1

SG&A expenses 29.8 28.9 28.7

Operating income 9.8 9.8 9.4

Net income 7.0 8.1 8.1

Number of producers reporting

Data 18 18 18

Operating losses 6 6 6

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VI-11

Diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts: Results of operations by firm, 2003-05

* * * * * * *
VI-10

Table VI-12

Diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts: Capital expenditures and research and

development expenses, 2003-05

Item

Calendar year and fiscal year

2003 2004 2005

Capital expenditures Value ($1,000)

* * * * * * *

Total capital expenditures 1,678 3,282 2,917

R&D expenses Value ($1,000)

* * * * * * *

Total R&D expenses 708 1,052 1,127

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VI-13

Diamond sawblades and diamond sawblade parts: Value of assets and return on investment,

2003-05

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2003 2004 2005

Value ($1,000)

Operating income 12,797 12,496 11,885

Total assets 96,815 95,871 97,563

Ratio of operating income to assets (percent) 

Return on assets 13.2 13.0 12.2

Note.--Operating income and assets in this table are modified compared to the corresponding information reported

in this section and in appendix C. ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects

of imports of diamond sawblades and parts from China and/or Korea on their firms’ growth, investment,

and ability to raise capital or development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the product). 

Actual Negative Effects

Barranca ***.

Blackhawk ***.

Concut ***.

Diamond B ***.

Dixie Diamond ***. 

Diamond Products ***. 
 29 ***.

VI-11

General Tool ***.

Granquartz29 ***.

Hoffman ***.

Hoosier 29 ***.

Husqvarna ***.

Hyde Tools ***.

K2 ***. 

N-E-D ***. 

Saint Gobain ***.

SH Trading ***.

Sanders ***.

Terra Diamond ***.

Texas Diamond ***.

Western Saw ***.

Anticipated Negative Effects

Barranca ***. 

Blackhawk ***.

Concut ***.

Diamond B ***. 

Dixie Diamond ***. 

Diamond Products ***.

General Tool ***.

Granquartz 29 ***.

Hoffman ***. 

Hoosier 29 ***. 

Husqvarna ***.

Hyde Tools ***.

K2 ***.

N-E-D ***.

Saint Gobain ***.

Sanders ***. 

SH Trading ***.

Terra Diamond ***.

Texas Diamond ***.

Western Saw ***.
 
 1

 Jiangyin is not a producer of subject merchandise; it is an exporter.

 2

 *** reported no plans to change capacity. *** did not provide a response.

 3

 ***. ***.

 4

 *** plans to serve, in order of importance *** with the new capacity.

 5

 The company plans to produce continuous rim diamond sawblades to serve the East Asian and European

markets.

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented

in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S.

producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on

inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for

“product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets,

follows.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the final phase of these investigations, 15 Chinese producers/exporters of finished diamond

sawblades and parts provided responses to the Commission’s requests for information. The firms that

responded are Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co. (“Gang Yan”), Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd.

(“Bosun”), Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Huachang”), Electrolux

Construction Products Co., Ltd. (“Electrolux China”), Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd.

(“Guilin”), Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu”), Jiangyin Likn Ind. Co.,

Ltd. (“Jiangyin”),1

 Quanzhou Shuangyang Diamond Tool Col, Ltd. (“Shuangyang”), Rizhao Hein Saw

(“Rizhao”), Saint-Gobain Abrasives Co., Ltd. (“Saint Gobain China”), Shinhan Diamond Industrial

(“Shinhan China”), Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Ind. Co., Ltd. (“Weihai”), Yichang HXF Circular

Saw Ind. Co., Ltd. (“HXF”), and ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd (“ZL”). The largest reporting producer of

diamond sawblades in China, ***, produced *** finished diamond sawblades, and reportedly accounted

for *** percent of all diamond sawblade production in China. Other top producers in China are ***. 

Four producers in China reported commercial shipments of cores and seven firms reported commercial

shipments of segments.

Table VII-1 presents responding firms’ production of other products on equipment and machinery

used in the production of diamond sawblades and parts, of diamond sawblades and parts as a share of

production of all products on the same equipment, and shares of reported sales of diamond sawblades and

parts, as a percentage of total sales in 2005. Aggregate Chinese diamond sawblades and parts capacity,

production, shipments, and inventory data supplied by the responding firms are presented in tables VII-2,

VII-3, and VII-4.

Several Chinese producers reported either expansions or expansion plans.2

 *** expanded its

capacity from 2003 to 2005 from *** units to *** units, and ***. ***.3

 ***. *** plans to add more

capacity, as needed, to serve, in the following priority, the *** markets. *** capacity expansion from

2003 to 2005 was due to ***. ***, a core producer, ***.4

 ***. This firm is in the start up phase and

plans to begin production of diamond sawblades in the third quarter of 2006. In 2007, it plans to have the

capacity to produce *** units.5
VII-2

Table VII-1

Diamond sawblades and parts: Chinese producers, production of other products on equipment and

machinery used in the production of diamond sawblades and parts, shares of diamond sawblades

production on the same equipment, and shares of firms’ total sales represented by sales of diamond

sawblades and parts, 2005

* * * * * * *

Table VII-2

Finished diamond sawblades: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-05

and projected 2006-07

* * * * * * *

Table VII-3

Diamond sawblade cores: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-05

and projected 2006-07

Item

Actual experience Projections

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (units)

Capacity 8,867,000 12,308,000 13,529,000 14,472,000 15,116,000

Production 7,649,806 10,942,666 11,859,059 12,388,000 12,914,000

End of period inventories 425,929 516,086 476,864 532,864 538,364

Shipments:

Internal consumption 6,843,690 9,406,864 9,855,310 10,061,000 10,335,000

Home market 703,555 1,176,441 828,424 1,030,000 1,132,000

Exports to--

The United States 40,698 5,476 51,748 105,500 134,000

All other markets1 61,444 263,728 1,161,799 1,135,500 1,424,500

Total exports 102,142 269,204 1,213,547 1,241,000 1,558,500

Total shipments 7,649,387 10,852,509 11,897,281 12,332,000 13,025,500

Value ($1,000)

Shipments:

Internal consumption 3,714 5,230 5,247 5,167 5,239

Home market 10,428 13,635 13,329 16,600 18,260

Exports to--

The United States 285 143 454 842 1,127

All other markets1 3,171 6,354 9,602 13,800 16,300

Total exports 3,456 6,497 10,056 14,642 17,427

Total shipments 17,597 25,362 28,632 36,409 40,926

Table continued on next page.
VII-3

Table VII-3--Continued

Diamond sawblade cores: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-05

and projected 2006-07

Item

Actual experience Projections

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ratios and shares (percent, by quantity)

Capacity utilization 86.3 88.9 87.7 85.6 85.4

Inventories to production 5.6 4.7 4.0 4.3 4.2

Inventories to total

shipments 5.6 4.8 4.0 4.3 4.1

Ratios and shares (percent, by value)

Share of total value of

shipments:

Internal consumption 21.1 20.6 18.3 14.2 12.8

Home market 59.3 53.8 46.6 45.6 44.6

Exports to--

The United States 1.6 0.6 1.6 2.3 2.8

All other markets1 18.0 25.1 33.5 37.9 39.8

All export

markets 19.6 25.6 35.1 40.2 42.6

 1

 Other principal export markets include Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Note. – Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VII-4

Diamond sawblade segments: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-

05 and projected 2006-07

* * * * * * *

Table VII-5 presents responding Chinese firms’ total shipments of diamond sawblades by type of

attachment and diameter of blade.

Table VII-5

Finished diamond sawblades: Chinese shipments, by type of attachment and size of blade, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN KOREA

In the final phase of these investigations, three Korean foreign producers/exporters of diamond

sawblades provided responses to the Commission’s request for information. The firms that responded are

Ehwa Diamond Ind. Co., Ltd. (“Ehwa”), Hyosung D&P Co., Ltd. (“Hyosung”), and Shinhan Diamond

Ind. Co., Ltd. (“Shinhan”). The largest producer of finished diamond sawblades in Korea, ***, produced

*** units in 2005 and accounted for approximately *** percent of diamond sawblade production in

Korea. *** accounted for *** percent of Korean production and *** accounted for *** percent of

Korean production. *** and *** reported shipments of cores and segments.
 6

 *** reported purchases of cores from ***.

VII-4

Table VII-6 presents responding firms’ production of other products on equipment and machinery

used in the production of diamond sawblades and parts, diamond sawblades and parts as a share of total

production of all products on the same equipment, and shares of reported sales of diamond sawblades and

parts, as a percentage of their total sales in 2005. Aggregate Korean diamond sawblade and parts

production capacity, production, shipments, and inventory data supplied by the responding firms are

presented in table VII-7, table VII-8, and table VII-9. *** increased capacity from *** units in 2003 to

*** units in 2005, and plans to have the capacity to produce *** units by 2007. The capacity increases

were reported to serve increased demand in the European markets for stone cutting applications. ***

reported no plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down Korean production. *** reported production of

cores and also reported purchases of cores, which is reflected in internal consumption in table VII-8. ***

purchases cores from domestic (Korean) suppliers that according to *** do not export cores to the United

States.6

Table VII-6

Diamond sawblades and parts: Korean producers, production of other products on equipment and

machinery used in the production of diamond sawblades and parts, shares of diamond sawblades

production on the same equipment, and shares of firms’ total sales represented by sales of diamond

sawblades and parts, 2005

* * * * * * *

Table VII-7

Finished diamond sawblades: Korean production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-05

and projected 2006-07

* * * * * * *

Table VII-8

Diamond sawblade cores: Korean production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-05 and

projected 2006-07

* * * * * * *

Table VII-9

Diamond sawblade segments: Korean production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-05

and projected 2006-07

* * * * * * *

Table VII-10 presents responding Korean firms’ shipments of diamond sawblades by type of

attachment and diameter of blade.

Table VII-10

Finished diamond sawblades: Korean shipments, by type of attachment and size of blade, 2003-05

* * * * * * *
VII-5

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

U.S. importers’ inventories of finished diamond sawblades, cores, and segments are presented in

tables VII-11, VII-12, and VII-13, respectively. Twenty importers reported inventories of subject imports

during the period for which data were collected.

Table VII-11

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2003-05

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Imports from China:

Inventories (units) 555,680 659,966 1,154,400

Ratio to imports (percent) 42.4 29.9 33.3

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) 52.5 33.7 41.6

Imports from Korea:

Inventories (units) 616,878 773,610 969,397

Ratio to imports (percent) 34.9 33.2 38.2

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) 36.9 36.2 42.2

Total imports from subject sources:

Inventories (units) 1,172,558 1,433,576 2,123,797

Ratio to imports (percent) 38.1 31.6 35.4

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) 42.9 35.0 41.9

Imports from other sources:

Inventories (units) 136,291 216,483 107,316

Ratio to imports (percent) 11.7 14.2 10.3

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) 11.5 15.3 9.4

Imports from all sources:

Inventories (units) 1,308,849 1,650,059 2,231,113

Ratio to imports (percent) 30.8 27.2 31.7

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) 33.4 29.9 35.9

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Partial-year ratios are based on annualized import and

shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VII-6

Table VII-12

Diamond sawblade cores: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2003-05

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Imports from China:

Inventories (units) *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) *** *** ***

Imports from Korea:

Inventories (units) *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) *** *** ***

Total imports from subject countries:

Inventories (units) *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) *** *** ***

Imports from other sources:

Inventories (units) *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) *** *** ***

Imports from all sources:

Inventories (units) 50,295 54,529 54,507

Ratio to imports (percent) 34.9 28.2 26.1

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) 35.4 28.8 26.1

 1

 Not applicable.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Partial-year ratios are based on annualized import and

shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VII-7

Table VII-13

Diamond sawblade segments: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2003-05

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005

Imports from China:

Inventories (units) 000

Ratio to imports (percent) (1

) (1) (1)

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) (1

) (1) (1)

Imports from Korea:

Inventories (units) *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) *** *** ***

Total imports from subject countries:

Inventories (units) *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) *** *** ***

Imports from other sources:

Inventories (units) *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) *** *** ***

Imports from all sources:

Inventories (units) 1,132,404 1,039,712 947,409

Ratio to imports (percent) 84.8 99.4 87.9

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

(percent) 82.0 91.3 80.9

 1

Not applicable.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Partial-year ratios are based on annualized import and

shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 7

 ***’s foreign producer questionnaire. This firm did not provide the Commission with a response for the final

phase of these investigations.

 8

 Counsel for Korean respondents reported in the preliminary phase of these investigations that there are no

known findings or remedies on diamond sawblades from Korea. 

VII-8

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS FOR DIAMOND SAWBLADES

Table VII-14 presents data on U.S. importers’ arrangements for the importation of diamond

sawblades and parts from China and Korea. Sixteen firms arranged for imports from China and 14 firms

arranged for imports from Korea.

Table VII-14

Diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. importers’ orders, by quarter, 2006

Item

Value ($1,000)

Jan.-Mar.

2006

Apr.-June

2006

July-Sept.

2006

Oct.-Dec.

2006

China 36,380 10,611 3,158 3,023

Korea 45,706 3,398 948 866

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

DUMPING IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, one Korean foreign producer reported that

sintered turbo rim cutters from Korea were subject to antidumping findings or remedies in Germany,

Italy, and the United Kingdom.7

 However, staff was unable to find such antidumping findings listed by

the WTO.8

 No producer of diamond sawblades from China reported being subject to any import relief

investigations, including antidumping findings or remedies, in the United States or in any other country. 

Likewise, no importer reported either Korea or China being subject to any import relief investigations in

the United States or any other country.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

3324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2006 / Notices 

1 1 For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘all finished circular sawblades, 

whether slotted or not, with a working part that is 

comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and 

parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, 

except as specifically excluded below. Within the 

scope (of these investigations) are semifinished 

diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade 

cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond 

sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or 

not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. 

Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured 

principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A 

diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of 

diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and 

regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal 

powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, 

nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together 

into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited 

to, a heating and pressing process).’’ Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, and 

Preliminary Partial Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 

77121, 77123 (December 29, 2005) and Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Negative Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 

Thereof form the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 77135, 

77138 (December 29, 2005). 

In addition, Commerce excluded these products 

from its scope: sawblades with diamonds directly 

attached to the core with a resin or electroplated 

bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond 

segment; diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores 

with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with 

a thickness greater than 1.1 inches; circular steel 

plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond 

material, such as external teeth that protrude from 

the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not 

finished; diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell 

C hardness of less than 25; and diamond sawblades 

and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that 

predominantly have a mesh size number greater 

than 240 (such as 250 or 260). Ibid. 

Jefferson Plaza NE., Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, 87109; telephone 505–342–

3443; facsimile 505–342–3195; e-mail: 

april.f.sanders@usace.army.mil. 

Mr. Nabil Shafike, Ph.D., New Mexico 

Interstate Stream Commission, 121 

Tijeras NE., Suite 2000, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico 87102; telephone 505–764–

3866; facsimile 505–764–3893; e-mail: 

nabil.shafike@state.nm.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to various legal authorities, and subject 

to allocation of supplies and priority of 

water rights under state law, 

Reclamation and the Corps operate 

dams, reservoirs, and other facilities in 

the upper Rio Grande basin to: 

(1) Store and deliver water for 

agricultural, domestic, municipal, 

industrial, and environmental uses; 

(2) Assist the Commission in meeting 

downstream water delivery obligations 

mandated by the Rio Grande Compact; 

(3) Provide flood protection and 

sediment control; and 

(4) Comply with existing laws, 

contract obligations, and international 

treaties. 

The Upper Rio Grande Basin Water 

Operations Review (Review) provides 

the basis of, and is integral to, 

preparation of the DEIS. The purpose of 

the Review and DEIS is to: 

(1) Identify flexibilities in operation of 

federal reservoirs and facilities in the 

upper Rio Grande basin that are within 

existing authorities of Reclamation, the 

Corps, and the Commission, and in 

compliance with federal and state laws; 

(2) Develop a better understanding of 

how these facilities could be operated 

more efficiently and effectively as an 

integrated system; 

(3) Formulate a plan for future water 

operations at these facilities that is 

within the existing authorities of 

Reclamation, the Corps, and the 

Commission; complies with federal, 

state, and other applicable laws and 

regulations; and assures continued safe 

dam operations; 

(4) Improve processes for making 

decisions about water operations 

through better interagency 

communication and coordination, and 

facilitation of public review and input; 

and 

(5) Support compliance by the Corps, 

Reclamation, and the Commission with 

applicable law and regulations, 

including, but not limited to, the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

the Endangered Species Act. 

The DEIS addresses water operations 

at the following facilities with the noted 

exceptions and limitations: 

• Flood control operations at Platoro 

Reservoir (the Review and EIS will 

include only flood control operations at 

Platoro that are under Corps authority; 

water supply operations at Platoro are 

under local control) 

• Closed Basin Division—San Luis 

Valley Project 

• Heron Dam and Reservoir 

• Abiquiu Dam and Reservoir 

• Cochiti Dam and Reservoir 

• Low Flow Conveyance Channel 

• Flood control operations at 

Elephant Butte Dam and Reservoir 

(because of current litigation, water 

supply operations at Elephant Butte are 

not included in the Review or DEIS) 

• Flood control operations at Caballo 

Dam and Reservoir (because of current 

litigation, water supply operations at 

Caballo are not included in the Review 

or DEIS). 

Public Disclosure 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public 

review. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their home 

address from public disclosure, which 

we will honor to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold a 

respondent’s identity from public 

disclosure, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. We will make all submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public disclosure in their entirety. 

Dated: January 10, 2006. 

Rick L. Gold, 

Regional Director—Bureau of Reclamation, 

Upper Colorado Region. 

[FR Doc. 06–470 Filed 1–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1092–1093 

(Final)] 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

From China and Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

antidumping investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping investigation Nos. 

731–TA–1092–1093 (Final) under 

section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to 

determine whether an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury, or the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of less-than-fair-value imports 

from China and Korea of diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof, provided 

for in subheading 8202.39 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS).1 When 

packaged together as a set for retail sale 

with an item that is separately classified 

under headings 8202 to 8205 of the 

HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts 

thereof may be imported under heading 

8206 of the HTSUS. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of these 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Szustakowski (202–205–3188), 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2006 / Notices 3325 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that imports of diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from China 

and Korea are being sold in the United 

States at less than fair value within the 

meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were 

requested in a petition filed on May 3, 

2005, by the Diamond Sawblade 

Manufacturers’ Coalition and its 

individual members: Blackhawk 

Diamond, Inc, Fullerton, CA; Diamond 

B, Inc., Santa Fe Springs, CA; Diamond 

Products, Elyria, OH; Dixie Diamond, 

Lilburn, GA; Hoffman Diamond, 

Punxsutawney, PA; Hyde 

Manufacturing, Southbridge, MA; 

Sanders Saws, Honey Brook, PA; Terra 

Diamond, Salt Lake City, UT; and 

Western Saw, Inc., Oxnard, CA. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of these 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on May 2, 2006, and 

a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on May 16, 2006, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before May 10, 2006. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 12, 2006, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is May 9, 2006. Parties may also 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is May 23, 

2006; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before May 23, 2006. On June 9, 2006, 

the Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before June 13, 2006, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in 

II(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 17, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–644 Filed 1–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 29303 

1 Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd., 

Danyang Youhe Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Fujian 

Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co. Ltd., Guilin Tebon 

Superhard Material Co. Ltd., Huzhou Gu Import & 

Export Co., Ltd, Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tools 

Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Jiangyin LIKN Industry Co. 

Ltd., Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd., 

Rizhao Hein Saw Co. Ltd., Shanghai Deda Industry 

& Trading Co. Ltd., Sichuan Huili Tools Co., Weihai 

Xiangguang Mechanical Industrail Co., Ltd., Wuhan 

Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Company, Ltd., 

Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Tea 

Import & Export Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Wanli Tools 

Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wanli’’), Zhenjiang Inter-China 

Import & Export Co., Ltd., (collectively, 

‘‘preliminary separate rate applicants’’), as well as 

four additional separate rate companies, Qingdao 

Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qingdao 

Shinhan’’), Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Global’’), Shanghai Robtol Tool 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Robtol’’), and Huachang 

Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Huachang’’) (collectively with preliminary 

separate rate applicants, ‘‘final separate rate 

companies’’). 

2One mandatory respondent, Saint-Gobain 

Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Saint Gobain’’) did 

not participate in this investigation. 

Health and Human Services, 

Department of Agriculture, National 

Institutes of Health, Food and Drug 

Administration, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, etc.). The 

goal of each of these groups is to assess 

the impact of the OIG’s 

recommendations and to address 

concerns raised by the regulated 

communities. 

BIS has also increased its enforcement 

focus on deemed exports. A number of 

cases involving violations of deemed 

export requirements have been 

concluded with criminal and civil 

penalties and BIS will continue to 

pursue violations of the EAR’s deemed 

export requirements to ensure U.S. 

national security is not compromised by 

unauthorized technology transfers to

foreign nationals. In addition, BIS is 

collaborating with the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation on related enforcement 

issues through the National Security 

Higher Education Advisory Board. 

Finally, BIS received funding in the 

FY2006 budget to implement an 

Enhanced Deemed Export Control 

Initiative. This initiative has two 

components—licensing and 

enforcement. The initiative will enable 

BIS to: (1) Process an increased volume 

of license applications in a timely 

manner, in order to ensure that U.S. 

entities are able to gain access to the 

expertise of foreign nationals who do 

not pose security concerns; and (2) 

ensure that U.S. entities are aware of 

and comply with U.S. deemed export 

license requirements through expanded 

outreach and enforcement activities. 

Both aspects are necessary to enhance 

U.S. national and economic security. 

Dated: May 17, 2006. 

Matthew Borman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–7778 Filed 5–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–900] 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006. 

SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) and preliminary 

determination of partial affirmative 

critical circumstances in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

diamond sawblades and parts thereof 

(‘‘diamond sawblades’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2004, through March 31, 

2005. The investigation covers four 

manufacturers/exporters which are 

mandatory respondents and twenty–one 

separate rate applicants. We invited 

interested parties to comment on our 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV and partial affirmative critical 

circumstances. Based on our analysis of 

the comments we received, we have 

made changes to our calculations for 

certain of the mandatory respondents 

and the weight–averaged margins for the 

separate rate applicants.1 We have also 

granted a separate rate to four additional 

applicants. The final dumping margins 

for this investigation are listed in the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anya Naschak or Carrie Blozy, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6375 or 482–5403, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Final Determination 

We determine that diamond 

sawblades from the PRC are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at LTFV as provided in section 735 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section of this 

notice. 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on December 29, 2005. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Preliminary 

Partial Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 77121 

(December 29, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). The Department 

conducted verification of Bosun Tools 

Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Bosun’’), Beijing Gang 

Yan Diamond Product Company 

(‘‘BGY’’), and Hebei Jikai Industrial 

Group Co. Ltd. (‘‘Hebei Jikai’’) 

(collectively, ‘‘respondents’’), the three 

mandatory respondents participating in 

this investigation2 in both the PRC and 

the United States (where applicable), 

and Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading 

Co. Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Deda’’), one of the 

separate rate applicants. See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

On February 6, 2006, the Department 

solicited comments from all interested 

parties regarding changes to its 

calculation of financial ratios. On 

February 7, 2006, Bosun and Petitioner 

submitted additional comments on the 

valuation of factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’) for the final determination. On 

February 13, 2006, BGY also submitted 

additional comments on the valuation of 

FOPs for the final determination. On 

February 21, 2006, Bosun submitted a 

rebuttal to Petitioner’s February 7, 2006, 

comments. 

On February 1, 2006, the Department 

received a separate rate application from 

Qingdao Shinhan. The Department 

determined on February 24, 2006, that 

Qingdao Shinhan’s separate rate 

application was timely filed. See 

Memorandum to the File from Catherine 

Bertrand dated February 24, 2006. On 

March 22, 2006, the Department 

preliminarily determined that the 

information contained in Qingdao 

Shinhan’s separate rate application 

demonstrated that it qualified for a 

separate rate in this investigation. 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. We received 

comments from the Diamond Sawblade 

Manufacturers’ Coalition (‘‘Petitioner’’), 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
29304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 

3As discussed below under ‘‘Affiliation,’’ the 

AT&M entity includes BGY and HXF. 

the mandatory respondents, Quanzhou 

Shuangyang Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘QSY’’), Global, Robtol, Electrolux 

Construction Products (Xiamen) Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Electrolux’’), and Huachang. 

On April 3, 2006, parties submitted 

case briefs. On April 10, 2006, parties 

submitted rebuttal briefs. On April 14, 

2006, the Department rejected the case 

brief of Petitioner and the rebuttal briefs 

of Petitioner and BGY, because they 

contained unsolicited new factual 

information. Petitioner and BGY 

resubmitted their respective briefs on 

April 18, 2006. 

On January 6, 2006, Bosun requested 

that the Department hold a public 

hearing in this proceeding. On January 

19, 2006, Petitioner requested the 

Department hold a public hearing in 

this proceeding. On April 3, 2006, 

Petitioner requested that the hearing 

held by the Department be a closed 

hearing. On April 25, 2006, the 

Department held a hearing in this 

proceeding. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Determination in the Investigation 

of Diamond Sawblades and parts 

thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated May 15, 2006, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum’’). A list of 

the issues which parties raised and to 

which we respond in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as an Appendix. The 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce 

Building, Room B–099, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes in the 

margin calculation for Bosun, BGY, and 

Hebei Jikai as follows: 

The Department has revised the 

surrogate financial ratios to utilize a 

source placed on the record by 

Petitioner after the Preliminary 

Determination. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 1 for a 

discussion of this issue. See also 

Memorandum to the File: Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Diamond 

Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Recalculation of Surrogate Financial 

Ratios for the Final Determination, 

dated May 15, 2006. 

Bosun 

The Department made corrections to 

Bosun’s factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) 

database based on the minor corrections 

submitted by Bosun on the first day of 

the PRC verification, and changes to 

Bosun’s constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) database based on the minor 

corrections submitted by Bosun on the 

first day of the U.S. sales verification. 

See Memorandum to the File: 

Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Bosun Tools Group Co., 

Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of 

Diamond Saw Blades and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China 

dated March 24, 2006 (‘‘Bosun PRC 

Verification Report’’), at Exhibit 2; 

Memorandum to the File: Verification of 

the U.S. CEP Sales Response of Bosun 

Tools Group Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Investigation of Diamond 

Saw Blades and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China dated March 

27, 2006 (‘‘Bosun US Verification 

Report’’) at Exhibit 1 for a list of the 

corrections submitted by Bosun. For a 

description of how these changes were 

incorporated, see Memorandum to the 

File: Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. 

Program Analysis for the Final 

Determination dated May 15, 2006 

(‘‘Bosun Final Analysis Memo’’). The 

Department has also corrected three 

clerical errors identified by Bosun after 

the Preliminary Determination. See, e.g., 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 33; Bosun Final Analysis 

Memo. 

In addition, the Department made 

changes to Bosun’s FOP and CEP 

databases based on comments received 

by Bosun and Petitioner. For a 

description of these changes, see Issues 

and Decision Memorandum, and Bosun 

Final Analysis Memo. 

BGY 

Based on the Department’s 

determination in the Preliminary 

Determination to treat as a single entity 

with BGY, Advanced Technology & 

Materials Co., Ltd. (‘‘AT&M’’), and 

Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial 

Co., Ltd (‘‘HXF’’), the Department 

requested U.S. sales and FOP databases 

from the AT&M single entity.3 The 

AT&M single entity certified that BGY 

and HXF were the only entities within 

the AT&M single entity to have 

exported, or sold for export, subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI, and submitted complete U.S. 

sales and FOP information with respect 

to HXF. The Department has continued 

to find that BGY, AT&M, and HXF 

should be treated as a single entity for 

purposes of this final determination 

and, therefore, has incorporated HXF’s 

and BGY’s U.S. sales and FOP 

information in the calculation of a 

margin for the AT&M single entity. See 

‘‘Affiliation’’ section below, and 

Memorandum to the File: Advanced 

Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. Entity 

Program Analysis for the Final 

Determination, dated May 15, 2006 

(‘‘AT&M Final Analysis Memo’’), for a 

more detailed explanation of these 

changes. 

The Department made corrections to 

BGY’s FOP database based on the minor 

corrections submitted by BGY on the 

first day of the PRC verification, and 

changes to BGY’s CEP database based on 

the minor corrections submitted by BGY 

on the first day of the U.S. sales 

verification. See Memorandum to the 

File: Verification of the Sales and 

Factors Response of Beijing Gang Yan 

Diamond Product Company in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China, 

dated March 27, 2006 (‘‘BGY 

Verification Report’’) at Exhibit 3; 

Memorandum to the File: Verification of 

the Sales and Factors Response of Gang 

Yan Diamond Products, Inc. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China, 

dated March 27, 2006 (‘‘GYDP 

Verification Report’’). For a complete 

description of how these changes were 

made see AT&M Final Analysis Memo. 

See also Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 19. 

In addition, the Department made 

changes to the AT&M entity’s FOP and 

U.S. sales databases based on comments 

received by parties. For a description of 

these changes see Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, and AT&M Final 

Analysis Memo. 

Hebei Jikai 

The Department made corrections to 

Hebei Jikai’s FOP database based on the 

minor corrections submitted by Hebei 

Jikai on the first day of the verification. 

See Memorandum to the File: 

Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Hebei Jikai Industrial 

Group Co. Ltd. in the Antidumping 

Investigation of Diamond Saw Blades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China dated March 23, 2006 

(‘‘Hebei Jikai Verification Report’’), at 

Exhibit 1. The Department also made 

corrections to the gross weight in Hebei 

Jikai’s U.S. sales database based on 

information collected at the verification 

of Hebei Jikai. See Hebei Jikai 

Verification Report at 3. For a 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 29305 

description of how these changes were 

incorporated in the final margin 

program, see Memorandum to the File: 

Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Hebei Jikai’’) Program Analysis for the 

Final Determination, dated May 15, 

2006 (‘‘Hebei Jikai Final Analysis 

Memo’’). 

In addition, the Department made 

changes to Hebei Jikai’s FOP and U.S. 

sales databases based on comments 

received by Hebei Jikai and Petitioner. 

For a description of these changes see 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, and 

Hebei Jikai Final Analysis Memo. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are all finished circular 

sawblades, whether slotted or not, with 

a working part that is comprised of a 

diamond segment or segments, and 

parts thereof, regardless of specification 

or size, except as specifically excluded 

below. Within the scope of this 

investigation are semifinished diamond 

sawblades, including diamond sawblade 

cores and diamond sawblade segments. 

Diamond sawblade cores are circular 

steel plates, whether or not attached to 

non–steel plates, with slots. Diamond 

sawblade cores are manufactured 

principally, but not exclusively, from 

alloy steel. A diamond sawblade 

segment consists of a mixture of 

diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, 

and regardless of the quantity of 

diamonds) and metal powders 

(including, but not limited to, iron, 

cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are 

formed together into a solid shape (from 

generally, but not limited to, a heating 

and pressing process). 

Sawblades with diamonds directly 

attached to the core with a resin or 

electroplated bond, which thereby do 

not contain a diamond segment, are not 

included within the scope of the 

investigation. Diamond sawblades and/ 

or sawblade cores with a thickness of 

less than 0.025 inches, or with a 

thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are 

excluded from the scope of the 

investigation. Circular steel plates that 

have a cutting edge of non–diamond 

material, such as external teeth that 

protrude from the outer diameter of the 

plate, whether or not finished, are 

excluded from the scope of this 

investigation. Diamond sawblade cores 

with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 

25 are excluded from the scope of the 

investigation. Diamond sawblades and/ 

or diamond segment(s) with diamonds 

that predominantly have a mesh size 

number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 

260) are excluded from the scope of the 

investigation. 

Merchandise subject to this 

investigation is typically imported 

under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). When 

packaged together as a set for retail sale 

with an item that is separately classified 

under headings 8202 to 8205 of the 

HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts 

thereof may be imported under heading 

8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff 

classifications are provided for 

convenience and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection purposes; however, 

the written description of the scope of 

this investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Rulings 

During the course of this 

investigation, the Department issued 

several scope rulings, all of which are 

affirmed through this final 

determination. Specifically, in the 

Preliminary Determination, the 

Department ruled that concave and 

convex cores, and finished diamond 

sawblades produced from such cores, 

are within the scope of this 

investigation. See Memorandum from 

Maisha Cryor, Senior International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas 

F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, 

‘‘Consideration of Scope Exclusion and 

Clarification Requests,’’ dated December 

20, 2005, at page 8. The Department also 

ruled that metal–bonded 1A1R grinding 

wheels are within the scope of this 

investigation. Id. at 11. On April 7, 

2006, the Department found granite 

contour diamond sawblades within the 

scope of the investigation. See 

Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, 

Senior International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting 

Office Director, ‘‘Consideration of Scope 

Exclusion Request,’’ dated April 7, 

2006. In this decision, the Department 

confirmed that the Rockwell C hardness 

threshold contained in the scope of the 

investigation applies only to cores, and 

not to finished diamond sawblades. Id. 

at 7. Lastly, the term ‘‘sawblade’’ is 

defined as those products that meet the 

1A1R specification, where the segment 

thickness is larger than the thickness of 

the core. See Petitioner’s May 3, 2005, 

submission at Exhibit I–10 (‘‘The 

segment or rim is slightly wider than the 

steel blade to allow the attacking edge 

to penetrate the material without the 

steel blade rubbing against it’’); 

Petitioner’s May 10, 2005, submission, 

at page 14 (‘‘the segment or rim is 

slightly wider than the steel blade to 

allow the attacking edge to penetrate the 

material without the steel blade rubbing 

against it’’); Transcript to April 25, 

2006, Public Hearing in the companion 

investigation of diamond sawblades 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(statement by the petitioner that the 

‘‘international codes for sawblades are 

1A1R, 1A1RS, and 1A1RSS, where the 

R means recessed. And that refers to the 

core, {where} the core is thinner than 

the segments’’); and ITC Investigation 

No. 731–TA–1093, August 2005 (‘‘The 

segment, or rim, is slightly wider than 

the steel blade to permit the leading 

edge to penetrate the material without 

the steel blade rubbing against it and to 

discourage blade binding’’). For this 

final determination, the Department has 

determined not to revise the scope of 

the investigation. See also Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the respondents and one 

separate rate applicant for use in our 

final determination. See the 

Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation in the CRU 

with respect to Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, 

and Shanghai Deda. For all verified 

companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Critical Circumstances 

On November 21, 2005, Petitioner 

alleged that there is a reasonable basis 

to believe or suspect critical 

circumstances exist with respect to the 

antidumping investigations of diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the 

PRC. In the Preliminary Determination, 

the Department found that critical 

circumstances exist for imports of 

diamond sawblades from Bosun and the 

PRC–wide entity, but that critical 

circumstances did not exist for the 

preliminary separate rate applicants, 

BGY, or Hebei Jikai. See Memorandum 

to Stephen J. Claeys: Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, dated December 20, 

2005 (‘‘Prelim Critical Circumstances 

Memo’’). Based on the changes made to 

Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, and the final 

separate rate companies’ margins, and 

as discussed further in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10, 

the Department has re–examined its 

preliminary finding that critical 

circumstances exist for imports of 

diamond sawblades from Bosun, and 

Hebei Jikai, and the PRC–wide entity, 

but that critical circumstances did not 

exist for the AT&M entity. In addition, 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
29306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 

the Department has examined the final 

separate rate companies. 

Section 735(2)(3) of the Act provides 

that a final critical circumstances 

determination will include a finding 

that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping 

and material injury by reason of 

dumped imports in the United States or 

elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or 

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose 

account, the merchandise was imported 

knew or should have known that the 

exporter was selling the subject 

merchandise at less than its fair value 

and that there was likely to be material 

injury by reason of such sales; and (B) 

there have been massive imports of the 

subject merchandise over a relatively 

short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations provides 

that, in determining whether imports of 

the subject merchandise have been 

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally 

will examine: (i) the volume and value 

of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and 

(iii) the share of domestic consumption 

accounted for by the imports. In 

addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that 

an increase in imports of 15 percent 

during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of 

time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’

As discussed in detail in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

10, the Department continues to find 

that there is a reasonable basis to believe 

or suspect that the importer knew or 

should have known that there was likely 

to be material injury by means of sales 

at LTFV of subject merchandise from 

the PRC. In the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department found 

that (1) Bosun and the PRC–wide entity 

had margins of more than 25 percent for 

export price sales and more than 15 

percent for constructed export price 

sales, and (2) BGY, Hebei Jikai, and the 

preliminary separate rate applicants did 

not have margins of more than 25 

percent for export price sales and more 

than 15 percent for constructed export 

price sales. See Prelim Critical 

Circumstances Memo at Attachment II. 

For this final determination, Bosun, 

Hebei Jikai, and the PRC–wide entity 

each have margins of more than 25 

percent for export price sales and more 

than 15 percent for constructed export 

price sales, while the AT&M single 

entity and the final separate rate 

companies have margins less than 25 

percent for export price sales and more 

than 15 percent for constructed export 

price sales. Therefore, the Department 

finds, for this final determination, that 

Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC–wide 

entity have sufficient margins to impute 

importer knowledge of sales at less than 

fair value. See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, 

Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Ukraine: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 

(February 11, 2002); Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10. However, 

the AT&M single entity and the final 

separate rate companies’ margins are 

insufficient to impute importer 

knowledge of sales at less than fair 

value. In addition, as no party in this 

proceeding has called into question the 

Department’s preliminary determination 

of massive imports with respect to 

Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, the final 

separate rate companies, and the PRC–

wide entity, the Department also 

continues to find that there have been 

massive imports of the subject 

merchandise over a relatively short 

period for Bosun, the AT&M single 

entity, Hebei Jikai, the final separate rate 

companies, and the PRC–wide entity. 

See Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 10 and Prelim Critical 

Circumstances Memo at Attachment I. 

Therefore, given the analysis 

summarized above, and described in 

more detail in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10, we 

determine that critical circumstances 

exist for imports of diamond sawblades 

from Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC–

wide entity. However, we do not find 

that critical circumstances exist for the 

AT&M single entity or the final separate 

rate companies. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a similar level of economic development 

pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination, 70 FR at 77124–77125. 

For the final determination, we made no 

changes to our findings with respect to 

the selection of a surrogate country. 

Affiliation 

In the Preliminary Determination, 

based on the evidence on the record, we 

preliminarily found that BGY was 

affiliated with AT&M and HXF pursuant 

to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the 

Act. In addition, based on the evidence 

presented in BGY’s questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily found that 

BGY, HXF, and AT&M should be treated 

as a single entity for the purposes of the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

diamond sawblades from the PRC. See 

Memorandum to the File from Anya 

Naschak: Affiliation and Treatment as a 

Single Entity of Beijing Gang Yan 

Diamond Product Company, Advanced 

Technology & Materials Co., Ltd., and 

Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial 

Co., Ltd.; Affiliation of Gang Yan 

Diamond Products, Inc. and Beijing 

Gang Yan Diamond Product Company; 

and Affiliation of Gang Yan Diamond 

Products, Inc., SANC Materials, Inc., 

and Cliff (Tianjin) International, Ltd., 

dated December 20, 2005 (‘‘AT&M 

Affiliation Memo’’). This finding was 

based on the determination that BGY, 

HXF, and AT&M are affiliated, that BGY 

and HXF have production facilities for 

‘‘identical products,’’ and no substantial 

retooling of either facility would be 

necessary in order to ‘‘restructure 

manufacturing priorities.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(1). Additionally, based on 

levels of common ownership and 

control, and intertwined operations, the 

Department found that there is 

significant potential for manipulation of 

price or production between the parties. 

See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Accordingly, 

the Department requested after the 

Preliminary Determination that the 

AT&M single entity provide complete 

responses to sections C and D of the 

Department’s questionnaire with respect 

to all of the AT&M single entity’s sales 

to the first U.S. unaffiliated customer 

and factors of production for these sales. 

See Letter from Carrie Blozy to BGY 

dated December 23, 2005. On January 

26, 2006, the AT&M Group submitted 

the requested information. Based on the 

information contained in the AT&M 

single entity’s responses to date, and 

based on information collected at 

verification (see BGY Verification 

Report), the Department finds no 

evidence to countermand the 

Department’s finding in the Preliminary 

Determination that BGY, HXF, and 

AT&M are affiliated pursuant to sections 

771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act, and 

that these companies should be treated 

as a single entity for the purposes of the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

diamond sawblades from the PRC, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) 

and (2). Therefore, the Department 

continues to find, for this final 

determination, that BGY, HXF, and 

AT&M are a single entity, and will 

calculate a single antidumping margin 

for the AT&M entity. 

In addition, the Department also 

found in its Preliminary Determination 

that Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. 

(‘‘GYDP’’), is affiliated with BGY, 

pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the 

Act, and that GYDP, SANC Materials, 

Inc. (‘‘SANC’’), and Cliff (Tianjin) 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 29307 

4See Sparklers 56 FR 20588 and Silicon Carbide 

59 FR 22585. 

International, Ltd. (‘‘Cliff’’) are affiliated 

with each other pursuant to sections 

771(33)(B), (E), and (F) of the Act. See 

BGY Affiliation Memo. Since the 

Preliminary Determination, the 

Department has found no information 

that would rebut this determination. 

Therefore, the Department continues to 

find GYDP, SANC, and Cliff to be 

affiliated with each other pursuant to 

sections 771(33)(B), (E), and (F) of the 

Act, and that BGY and GYDP are 

affiliated with each other pursuant to 

section 771(33)(E) of the Act, for this 

final determination. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 

1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’), and Section 351.107(d) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that BGY, Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and 

the Separate Rate Applicants 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate–rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by the AT&M entity, 

Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the Separate 

Rate Applicants demonstrate both a de 

jure and de facto absence of government 

control, with respect to their respective 

exports of the merchandise under 

investigation, and, thus are eligible for 

separate rate status. 

The AT&M Single Entity 

With respect to the AT&M single 

entity, in the Preliminary 

Determination, based on the evidence 

on the record, we preliminarily found 

that BGY had both de jure and de facto 

control over its export activities, but 

noted that the Department would 

further examine this issue for the final 

determination. In light of the 

Department’s decision in the 

Preliminary Determination that BGY 

was affiliated with AT&M and HXF, and 

that BGY, AT&M, and HXF should be 

treated as a single entity, the 

Department further examined AT&M, 

BGY, and HXF’s claim to a separate rate. 

The Department finds, based on 

information submitted on the record of 

this proceeding after the Preliminary 

Determination, that the AT&M single 

entity has demonstrated both a de jure 

and de facto absence of government 

control and should be granted a separate 

rate. As discussed further in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

16, the evidence provided by HXF and 

AT&M after the Preliminary 

Determination supports a finding of de 

jure absence of governmental control 

based on the following: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) the applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) any 

other formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies.4 The evidence on the record 

with respect to HXF also supports a 

finding of de facto absence of 

governmental control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following: 

(1) It sets its own export prices 

independent of the government and 

without the approval of a government 

authority; (2) it retains the proceeds 

from its sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding disposition of 

profits or financing of losses; (3) it has 

the authority to negotiate and sign 

contracts and other agreements; and (4) 

it has autonomy from the government 

regarding the selection of management. 

See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87. 

Therefore, because the Department 

found no evidence that AT&M made 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI, and 

because AT&M is a single entity 

including BGY and HXF, and BGY and 

HXF have demonstrated a de facto 

independence from government control, 

we find that the AT&M single entity has 

demonstrated a de facto independence 

from government control with respect to 

its export activities. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at Comment 16. 

Other Separate Rate Applicants 

Additionally, in the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

considered for a separate rate only the 

seventeen applicants whose 

applications were considered complete 

by the sixty-day deadline established by 

the application, and these companies, 

the Separate Rate Applicants, were 

granted a separate rate. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation for the Separate Rate 

Applicants that we granted a separate 

rate to in the Preliminary Determination 

demonstrates a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control, with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, and, 

thus are eligible for separate rate status. 

Therefore, for the final determination 

we are continuing to grant these 

seventeen applicants a separate rate. 

On February 1, 2006, the Department 

received a separate rate application from 

Qingdao Shinhan, and determined that 

Qingdao Shinhan’s separate rate 

application was timely filed. See 

Memorandum to the File from Catherine 

Bertrand dated February 24, 2006. On 

March 22, 2006, the Department 

preliminarily determined that the 

information contained in Qingdao 

Shinhan’s separate rate application 

demonstrated that it qualified for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Memorandum to the File from Catherine 

Bertrand: Separate Rates Application of 

Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial 

Co., Ltd. dated March 22, 2006. For the 

final determination, we continue to find 

that the evidence placed on the record 

of this investigation by Qingdao 

Shinhan demonstrates an absence of 

government control, both in law and in 

fact, with respect to its exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, and, 

thus is eligible for separate rate status. 

For a further discussion of this issue See 

Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 

15. 

In addition, the Department received 

case briefs from QSY, Global, Robtol, 

Electrolux, and Huachang, arguing that 

the Department should grant these 

companies a separate rate. These 

companies had been denied a separate 

rate in the Preliminary Determination 

because the Department determined 

these applications were not filed in a 

complete manner by the deadline. See 

Memorandum to James C. Doyle from 

Carrie Blozy: Antidumping Investigation 

of Diamond Sawblades and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China: Deficient Separate Rate 

Applications, dated October 12, 2005. 

With respect to Global, Robtol, and 

Huachang the Department finds that, 

after analyzing their separate rates 

applications, these companies have 

demonstrated both a de jure and de 

facto absence of government control and 

should be granted a separate rate. The 

evidence provided by these companies 

in their respective separate rates 

applications supports a finding of de 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
29308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 

5See Respondent Selection Memo. 

jure absence of governmental control 

based on the following: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with the individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) the applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) any 

other formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. See, e.g., Sparklers, 56 FR 

20588 and Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 

22586–87. The evidence on the record 

with respect to these companies also 

supports a finding of de facto absence 

of governmental control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following 

for each company: (1) It sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) it retains the 

proceeds from its sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) it has the authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) it has autonomy 

from the government regarding the 

selection of management. See Sparklers, 

56 FR 20589; Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 

22586–87. Therefore, the Department is 

granting Global, Robol, and Huachang a 

separate rate. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 13 and 14 

for a further discussion of this issue. 

Further, the Department is continuing 

to deny a separate rate to QSY and 

Electrolux because the Department still 

finds that the separate rate applications 

of QSY and Electrolux are deficient. 

Therefore, the Department will not 

conduct a separate rates analysis for 

these two companies. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 12 

and 14. 

The PRC–Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies and the PRC–wide entity did 

not respond to our request for Q&V 

information and Saint Gobain, one of 

the largest exporters of the merchandise 

under investigation,5 did not respond to 

the Department’s questionnaire. In the 

Preliminary Determination we treated 

these PRC producers/exporters as part of 

the PRC–wide entity because they did 

not demonstrate that they operate free of 

government control. No additional 

information has been placed on the 

record with respect to these entities 

after the Preliminary Determination. 

The PRC–wide entity, including Saint 

Gobain, has not provided the 

Department with the requested 

information. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the 

Department continues to find that the 

use of facts available is appropriate to 

determine the PRC–wide rate. Section 

776(b) of the Act provides that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–

Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products 

from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 

5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also 

‘‘Statement of Administrative Action’’

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). We find 

that, because the PRC–wide entity did 

not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department finds that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is appropriate. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate—the 

PRC–wide rate—to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from 

the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 

25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC–wide 

rate applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from the 

respondents which are listed in the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

below (except as noted). 

Corroboration 

At the Preliminary Determination, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act, we corroborated our adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) margin using 

information submitted by certain 

respondents. See Memorandum to the 

File: Corroboration of the PRC–Wide 

Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated December 20, 

2005 (‘‘Corroboration Memo’’). The 

Statement of Administration Action also 

clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value, i.e., reliable and 

relevant. See ‘‘Statement of 

Administrative Action’’ accompanying 

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 870 

(1994) (‘‘SAA’’) at 870. 

To assess the probative value of the 

total AFA rate it has chosen for Saint 

Gobain and the PRC–wide entity, the 

Department compared the final margin 

calculations of certain respondents in 

this investigation with the rate of 164.09 

percent from the petition. We find that 

the rate is within the range of the 

highest margins we have determined in 

this investigation. See Memorandum to 

the File: Corroboration of the PRC–Wide 

Facts Available Rate for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated May 15, 2006 

(‘‘Final Corroboration Memo’’). Since 

the record of this investigation contains 

margins within the range of the petition 

margin, we determine that the rate from 

the petition continues to be relevant for 

use in this investigation. As discussed 

therein, we found that the margin of 

164.09 percent has probative value. See 

Final Corroboration Memo. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

164.09 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice, 70 FR 35625, 35629. 

This change in practice is described in 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/. The Policy Bulletin 

05.1 states: 

‘‘[w]hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non–

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash–

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 29309 

7 Including BGY and HXF. 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, at page 6. 

Therefore, for the final determination, 

we have assigned a combination rate to 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate. 

As discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, 

the Department will continue to not 

issue a combination rate for exports 

made by Cliff and manufactured by 

BGY, as these sales were made by BGY. 

Further, the Department continues to 

find that BGY should be treated as a 

single entity with AT&M and HXF, and 

the AT&M single entity has 

demonstrated its eligibility for a 

separate rate in this case. Therefore, the 

Department will apply a single 

combination rate for the AT&M single 

entity as the producer and exporter. 

However, exports where Cliff acted as a 

facilitator for the AT&M single entity are 

eligible to claim AT&M’s antidumping 

duty cash deposit rate. For a further 

discussion of this issue, see Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at Comments 

16–18. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted–average margins 

exist for the POI: 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average 

Deposit Rate 

Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. ......................... Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. 62.50% 

Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. ................................................. Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. 34.19% 

Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ..................... Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd. ....................... Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd. .......................... Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd. ........................... Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd. ................................... Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 48.50% 

Huzhou Gu’s Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................ Danyang Aurui Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Huzhou Gu’s Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................ Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. ......... Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd. ............................................. Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd. ............................................. Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. 20.72% 

Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. ..................... Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. ........................ Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd. .................................................... Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. ........................ Hua Da Superabrasive Tools Technology Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ..................... Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. ................ Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Sichuan Huili Tools Co. ......................................................... Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Sichuan Huili Tools Co. ......................................................... Sichuan Huili Tools Co. 20.72% 

Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. ............. Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. ........................ Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. 20.72% 

Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. ..................................... Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................ Danyang Dida Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72%

Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................ Danyang Tsunda Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................ Wuxi Lianhua Superhard Material Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd. ................................... Zhejiang Wanli Super–hard Materials Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

Zhenjiang Inter–China Import & Export Co., Ltd. .................. Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72% 

PRC–Wide Rate .................................................................... .................................................................................................. 164.09% 

6 Including Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company, and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Yichang 

HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption as follows: for the final 

separate rate companies, on or after the 

date of publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register, 

December 29, 2005; for Bosun, Hebei 

Jikai, and the PRC–wide entity, on or 

after the date which is 90 days prior to 

the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination, September 

30, 2005, due to the final determination 

of critical circumstances. See e.g., 

Preliminary Determination; Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. 

CBP shall continue to require a cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond equal 

to the estimated amount by which the 

normal value exceeds the U.S. price as 

shown above. In addition, with respect 

to the AT&M single entity, in the 

Preliminary Determination, due to 

BGY’s de minimus preliminary margin, 

the Department did not require any cash 

deposit or posting of a bond. However, 

based on this final determination that 

the AT&M single entity does not have a 

de minimus margin rate, the Department 

will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation 

of all entries of subject merchandise 

from the AT&M single entity7 entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption, on or after the date of 

publication of the Final Determination 

in the Federal Register. These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

final determination of sales at LTFV. As 

our final determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, within 45 days the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
29310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: May 15, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

List of Issues 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Whether The Department 

Should Revise Its Selection of Surrogate 

Financial Ratios 

Comment 2: Whether Process Materials 

and Energy Inputs Should Be Valued As 

Factors of Production 

Comment 3: Preliminary Scope 

Determinations 

Comment 4: Country of Origin 

Determination 

Comment 5: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Physical 

Characteristics and Model Match 

Criteria 

Comment 6: Whether Employee Benefits 

Should Be Moved from Direct Labor To 

Manufacturing Overhead 

Comment 7: Treatment of Negative 

Margins 

Comment 8: Application of Sigma Cap 

Comment 9: Treatment of Packing Costs 

and Byproducts 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Reevaluate its Preliminary 

Partial Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

Comment 11: Surrogate Value Issues 

A. Cores 

B. Oxygen 

C. Graphite and Steel Molds 

D. Copper Powder 

E. Diamonds 

F. Steel Sheet 5 

Separate Rate Applicant–Specific 

Issues 

Comment 12: Separate Rate Status of 

Electrolux 

Comment 13: Separate Rate Status of 

Huachang 

Comment 14: Separate Rate Status of 

QSY, Robtol, and Global 

Comment 15: Separate Rate Status of 

Qingdao Shinhan 

Company–Specific Issues 

BGY Issues: 

Comment 16: Whether the Department 

should Deny a Separate Rate to BGY, 

Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘HXF’’), and Advanced 

Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘AT&M’’) 

Comment 17: Whether BGY was the 

Seller of Sawblades to the United States 

Comment 18: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Combination Rates 

for BGY 

Comment 19: Whether the Department 

should Apply Total Adverse Facts 

Available to BGY 

Comment 20: Whether the Department 

should Calculate CEP Profit Based on 

BGY’s U.S. and Third Country Sales 

Comment 21: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust BGY’s Reported 

Electricity and Labor FOPs. 

Comment 22: Whether to Modify the 

Steel Surrogate Values for BGY 

Comment 23: Whether to Continue to 

Apply an Inflator to Market Economy 

(‘‘ME’’) Purchases of Diamond Powder 

Made Prior to the POI 

Comment 24: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Surrogate Value for 

Gasoline 

Comment 25: Whether to Deduct BGY’s 

Reported Interest Revenue from Gross 

Unit Price 

Comment 26: Whether BGY’s Reported 

Billing Adjustments Should Be 

Considered Direct Selling Expenses 

Comment 27: Whether the Department 

Erred in Certain Statements in the BGY 

and GYDP Verification Reports 

Bosun Issues: 

Comment 28: Whether Returns Should 

Be Treated As A Selling Expense 

Comment 29: Whether Bosun’s U.S. 

Indirect Selling Expenses Should Be 

Revised 

Comment 30: Whether Movement 

Expenses and Repacking Expenses 

Should Be Included In The Calculation 

of CEP Profit 

Comment 31: Surrogate Value for Tape 

Comment 32: Surrogate Value for 

Acrylic Lacquer and Pallet Lacquer 

Comment 33: Whether The Department 

Should Correct Certain Ministerial 

Errors 

Comment 34: Whether The Surrogate 

Value For International Freight Should 

Be Revised 

Comment 35: Whether The Department 

Should Make Additional Adjustments to 

Bosun’s U.S. Sales Data and Supplier 

Databases 

Hebei Jikai Issues: 

Comment 36: Whether to apply AFA to 

Hebei Jikai’s Process Materials 

Comment 37: Whether International 

Freight to Two U.S. Customers Should 

Be Deducted 

Comment 38: Whether Labor and 

Electricity Should Be Adjusted For 

Certain Product Codes 

Comment 39: Surrogate Value for Nickel 

Comment 40: Surrogate Value for 

Copper Plate 

Comment 41: Surrogate Value Packaging 

Film 

Comment 42: Valuation of Steel 

[FR Doc. E6–7763 Filed 5–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–855] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the Republic of 

Korea 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006. 

SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (LTFV) in the antidumping duty 

investigation of diamond sawblades and 

parts thereof from the Republic of Korea 

(Korea). The period of investigation 

(POI) is April 1, 2004, through March 

31, 2005. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weighted–

average dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
29310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: May 15, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

List of Issues 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Whether The Department 

Should Revise Its Selection of Surrogate 

Financial Ratios 

Comment 2: Whether Process Materials 

and Energy Inputs Should Be Valued As 

Factors of Production 

Comment 3: Preliminary Scope 

Determinations 

Comment 4: Country of Origin 

Determination 

Comment 5: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Physical 

Characteristics and Model Match 

Criteria 

Comment 6: Whether Employee Benefits 

Should Be Moved from Direct Labor To 

Manufacturing Overhead 

Comment 7: Treatment of Negative 

Margins 

Comment 8: Application of Sigma Cap 

Comment 9: Treatment of Packing Costs 

and Byproducts 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Reevaluate its Preliminary 

Partial Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

Comment 11: Surrogate Value Issues 

A. Cores 

B. Oxygen 

C. Graphite and Steel Molds 

D. Copper Powder 

E. Diamonds 

F. Steel Sheet 5 

Separate Rate Applicant–Specific 

Issues 

Comment 12: Separate Rate Status of 

Electrolux 

Comment 13: Separate Rate Status of 

Huachang 

Comment 14: Separate Rate Status of 

QSY, Robtol, and Global 

Comment 15: Separate Rate Status of 

Qingdao Shinhan 

Company–Specific Issues 

BGY Issues: 

Comment 16: Whether the Department 

should Deny a Separate Rate to BGY, 

Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘HXF’’), and Advanced 

Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘AT&M’’) 

Comment 17: Whether BGY was the 

Seller of Sawblades to the United States 

Comment 18: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Combination Rates 

for BGY 

Comment 19: Whether the Department 

should Apply Total Adverse Facts 

Available to BGY 

Comment 20: Whether the Department 

should Calculate CEP Profit Based on 

BGY’s U.S. and Third Country Sales 

Comment 21: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust BGY’s Reported 

Electricity and Labor FOPs. 

Comment 22: Whether to Modify the 

Steel Surrogate Values for BGY 

Comment 23: Whether to Continue to 

Apply an Inflator to Market Economy 

(‘‘ME’’) Purchases of Diamond Powder 

Made Prior to the POI 

Comment 24: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Surrogate Value for 

Gasoline 

Comment 25: Whether to Deduct BGY’s 

Reported Interest Revenue from Gross 

Unit Price 

Comment 26: Whether BGY’s Reported 

Billing Adjustments Should Be 

Considered Direct Selling Expenses 

Comment 27: Whether the Department 

Erred in Certain Statements in the BGY 

and GYDP Verification Reports 

Bosun Issues: 

Comment 28: Whether Returns Should 

Be Treated As A Selling Expense 

Comment 29: Whether Bosun’s U.S. 

Indirect Selling Expenses Should Be 

Revised 

Comment 30: Whether Movement 

Expenses and Repacking Expenses 

Should Be Included In The Calculation 

of CEP Profit 

Comment 31: Surrogate Value for Tape 

Comment 32: Surrogate Value for 

Acrylic Lacquer and Pallet Lacquer 

Comment 33: Whether The Department 

Should Correct Certain Ministerial 

Errors 

Comment 34: Whether The Surrogate 

Value For International Freight Should 

Be Revised 

Comment 35: Whether The Department 

Should Make Additional Adjustments to 

Bosun’s U.S. Sales Data and Supplier 

Databases 

Hebei Jikai Issues: 

Comment 36: Whether to apply AFA to 

Hebei Jikai’s Process Materials 

Comment 37: Whether International 

Freight to Two U.S. Customers Should 

Be Deducted 

Comment 38: Whether Labor and 

Electricity Should Be Adjusted For 

Certain Product Codes 

Comment 39: Surrogate Value for Nickel 

Comment 40: Surrogate Value for 

Copper Plate 

Comment 41: Surrogate Value Packaging 

Film 

Comment 42: Valuation of Steel 

[FR Doc. E6–7763 Filed 5–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–855] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the Republic of 

Korea 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006. 

SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (LTFV) in the antidumping duty 

investigation of diamond sawblades and 

parts thereof from the Republic of Korea 

(Korea). The period of investigation 

(POI) is April 1, 2004, through March 

31, 2005. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weighted–

average dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 29311 

1The petitioner in this investigation is the 

Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers’ Coalition. 

in thesection entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’ Finally, we 

determine that critical circumstances do 

not exist with regard to certain exports 

of subject merchandise from Korea by 

Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(Ehwa) and Hyosung Diamond 

Industrial Co. (Hyosung). However, we 

find that critical circumstances do exist 

with respect to Shinhan Diamond 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (Shinhan) and the 

companies covered by the ‘‘All Others’’

rate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maisha Cryor or Thomas Martin, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5831 or (202) 482–

3936, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

determine that diamond sawblades from 

Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold 

in the United States at LTFV, as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Continuation of 

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. In addition, we determine 

that there is no reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

imports of the subject merchandise 

produced by Ehwa and Hyosung. 

However, we find that there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that critical circumstances exist with 

respect to imports of the subject 

merchandise produced by Shinhan and 

companies covered by the ‘‘All Others’’

rate. 

Case History 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on 

December 29, 2005. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Negative 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the Republic of 

Korea, 70 FR 77135 (December 29, 2005) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

Since the preliminary determination, 

the following events have occurred. 

In February 2006 and March 2006, we 

verified the questionnaire responses of 

the three participating respondents in 

this case, Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung. 

On April 17, 2006, we received case 

briefs from the petitioner,1 Ehwa, 

Shinhan, and Hyosung. We also 

received rebuttal briefs on April 24, 

2006, from the petitioner, Ehwa, 

Shinhan, and Hyosung. The Department 

held a public hearing on May 1, 2006, 

at the request of the petitioner, Ehwa, 

Shinhan, and Hyosung. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is April 1, 

2004, through March 31, 2005. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated May 15, 2006, 

which is adopted by this notice. Parties 

can find a complete discussion of the 

issues raised in this investigation and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, room 

B–099 of the main Commerce Building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are all finished circular 

sawblades, whether slotted or not, with 

a working part that is comprised of a 

diamond segment or segments, and 

parts thereof, regardless of specification 

or size, except as specifically excluded 

below. Within the scope of this 

investigation are semifinished diamond 

sawblades, including diamond sawblade 

cores and diamond sawblade segments. 

Diamond sawblade cores are circular 

steel plates, whether or not attached to 

non–steel plates, with slots. Diamond 

sawblade cores are manufactured 

principally, but not exclusively, from 

alloy steel. A diamond sawblade 

segment consists of a mixture of 

diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, 

and regardless of the quantity of 

diamonds) and metal powders 

(including, but not limited to, iron, 

cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are 

formed together into a solid shape (from 

generally, but not limited to, a heating 

and pressing process). 

Sawblades with diamonds directly 

attached to the core with a resin or 

electroplated bond, which thereby do 

not contain a diamond segment, are not 

included within the scope of this 

investigation. Diamond sawblades and/ 

or sawblade cores with a thickness of 

less than 0.025 inches, or with a 

thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are 

excluded from the scope of this 

investigation. Circular steel plates that 

have a cutting edge of non–diamond 

material, such as external teeth that 

protrude from the outer diameter of the 

plate, whether or not finished, are 

excluded from the scope of this 

investigation. Diamond sawblade cores 

with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 

25 are excluded from the scope of the 

petition. Diamond sawblades and/or 

diamond segment(s) with diamonds that 

predominantly have a mesh size number 

greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are 

excluded from the scope of this 

investigation. Merchandise subject to 

this investigation is typically imported 

under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). When packaged 

together as a set for retail sale with an 

item that is separately classified under 

headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, 

diamond sawblades or parts thereof may 

be imported under heading 

8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff 

classification is provided for 

convenience and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection purposes; however, 

the written description of the scope of 

this investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Rulings 

During the course of this 

investigation, the Department issued 

several scope rulings, all of which are 

affirmed through this final 

determination. Specifically, in the 

Preliminary Determination, the 

Department ruled that concave and 

convex cores, and finished diamond 

sawblades produced from such cores, 

are within the scope of this 

investigation. See Memorandum from 

Maisha Cryor, Senior International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas 

F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, 

‘‘Consideration of Scope Exclusion and 

Clarification Requests,’’ dated December 

20, 2005, at page 8. The Department also 

ruled that metal–bonded, diamond 

1A1R grinding wheels are within the 

scope of this investigation. Id. at 11. On 

April 7, 2006, the Department found 

granite contour diamond sawblades 

within the scope of the investigation. 

See Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, 

Senior International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting 

Office Director, ‘‘Consideration of Scope 

Exclusion Request,’’ dated April 7, 

2006. In this decision, the Department 

confirmed that the Rockwell C hardness 

threshold contained in the scope of the 

investigation applies only to cores, and 

not to finished diamond sawblades. Id. 

at 7. Lastly, the term ‘‘sawblade’’ is 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
29312 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 

defined as those products that meet the 

1A1R specification, where the segment 

thickness is larger than the thickness of 

the core. See the petitioner’s May 3, 

2005, submission at Exhibit I–10 (‘‘The 

segment or rim is slightly wider than the 

steel blade to allow the attacking edge 

to penetrate the material without the 

steel blade rubbing against it’’); the 

petitioner’s May 10, 2005, submission, 

at page 14 (‘‘the segment or rim is 

slightly wider than the steel blade to 

allow the attacking edge to penetrate the 

material without the steel blade rubbing 

against it’’); Transcript to April 25, 

2006, Public Hearing in the companion 

investigation of diamond sawblades 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(statement by the petitioner that the 

‘‘international codes for ... sawblades 

are 1A1R, 1A1RS, and 1A1RSS, where 

the R means recessed. And that refers to 

the core, {where} the core is thinner 

than the segments’’); and ITC 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1093, August 

2005 (‘‘The segment, or rim, is slightly 

wider than the steel blade to permit the 

leading edge to penetrate the material 

without the steel blade rubbing against 

it and to discourage blade binding’’). 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations. For 

a discussion of these changes, see the 

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Critical Circumstances 

In our preliminary determination, we 

found that critical circumstances did 

not exist for any mandatory respondent 

or any company subject to the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate. See Preliminary 

Determination, 70 FR at 77142–77144. 

We received comments on our critical 

circumstances determination from the 

petitioner, Ehwa, and Shinhan. Based 

upon those comments, we have revised 

our analysis to include the margins 

listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below, and we based 

our analysis of whether imports were 

massive according to the value of 

shipments, rather than quantity. See 

Memorandum from Mark J. Manning, 

Acting Program Manager, to Thomas F. 

Futtner, Acting Office Director, ‘‘Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances,’’ dated May 15, 2006. 

Due to the changes made in our 

analysis, we determine that critical 

circumstances do not exist for imports 

of subject merchandise from Ehwa and 

Hyosung because, as required section 

735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, there is no 

evidence that importers knew, or should 

have known, that the exporter was 

selling subject merchandise at LTFV. In 

addition, we also note that the 

requirements of section 735(a)(3)(B) of 

Act are not met for Ehwa and Hyosung 

because their imports were not massive. 

However, we find that critical 

circumstances do exist for imports of 

subject merchandise from Shinhan and 

the ‘‘All Others’’ companies because, 

pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, there is evidence that importers 

knew, or should have known, that the 

exporter was selling subject 

merchandise at LTFV. In addition, we 

also note that Shinhan and the ‘‘All 

Others’’ companies satisfy section 

735(a)(3)(B) of Act because their imports 

were massive. Id. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by Ehwa, Shinhan and 

Hyosung for use in our final 

determination. We used standard 

verification procedures including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, and original source 

documents provided by the 

respondents. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after December 29, 

2005, the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. However, since we 

have determined that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

subject merchandise produced by 

Shinhan and the companies covered by 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate, we will instructed 

CBP to suspend liquidation of all 

unliquidated entries of merchandise 

produced and/or exported by these 

companies that entered on or after 

September 30, 2005, which is 90 days 

before the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. See section 

735(c)(4)(B). We will instruct CBP to 

continue to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond for all companies 

based on the estimated weighted–

average dumping margins shown below. 

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist for the period April 1, 2004, 

through March 31, 2005: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted–Average Margin Percentage Critical Circumstances 

Ehwa ...................................................................................... 12.76% No 

Shinhan .................................................................................. 26.55% Yes 

Hyosung ................................................................................. 6.43% No 

All Others ............................................................................... 16.39% Yes 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate on the weighted–

average of the dumping margins 

calculated for the exporters/ 

manufacturers investigated in this 

proceeding. The ‘‘All Others’’ rate is 

calculated exclusive of all de minimis 

margins and margins based entirely on 

adverse facts available. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

these imports are causing material 

injury, or threat of material injury, to an 

industry in the United States. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

officials to assess antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 29313 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: May 15, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Physical 

Characteristics and Model Match 

Criteria. 

Comment 2: Whether the Department 

Should Reaffirm Its Preliminary Scope 

Conclusions In the Final Determination 

And Include These Conclusions in 

Instructions to Customs. 

Comment 3: Whether the Department 

Should Treat the Location of Segment 

Manufacture As the Country of Origin 

for DSB. 

Comment 4: Whether U.S. Repacking 

Expenses, U.S. Warehousing Expenses, 

and U.S. Movement Expenses Should 

Be Treated as Selling Expenses for 

Purposes of Calculating CEP Profit. 

Comment 5: Whether Further 

Manufacturing Costs Should be 

Deducted from the Calculation of Net 

U.S. Price When Such Sales are Not 

Reported. 

Comment 6: Whether Further 

Manufacturing Costs and Revenues 

Should be Included in the Calculation 

of CEP Profit When Such Sales are Not 

Reported. 

Comment 7: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Adjustments to 

Respondents’ Costs to Account for NME 

Inputs in the Calculation of CEP Profit. 

Comment 8: Whether the Department 

Should Correct VCOM and TCOM for 

any Changes it Makes to the Reported 

Costs. 

Comment 9: Whether the Department 

Should Reconsider its Preliminary 

Critical Circumstances Determination. 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust Ehwa’s and Shinhan’s 

Purchases from Affiliated Suppliers. 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Provide Offsets to Dumping. 

Comment 12: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust the Reported Costs for 

Purchases from Unaffiliated NME 

Suppliers. 

Comment 13: Whether the Department’s 

Preliminary Decision to Collapse Ehwa 

and Shinhan was Contrary to Law and 

the Department’s Longstanding and 

Consistent Past Practice. 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

Should Treat Information Regarding a 

Particular Relationship Between Ehwa 

and Shinhan as Public Information. 

Comment 15: Whether the Department 

Should Collapse Ehwa with its Chinese 

Affiliates. 

Comment 16: Whether Ehwa’s Other 

Discounts and Certain Billing 

Adjustments Should be Treated As 

Selling Expenses for Purposes of 

Calculating CEP Profit. 

Comment 17: Whether Ehwa Placed 

Conflicting Values Related to its Indirect 

Selling Expenses on the Record. 

Comment 18: Whether the Department 

Should Correct Formulas Used in 

Ehwa’s Calculation of Indirect Selling 

Expenses. 

Comment 19: Whether the Department 

Should Disallow Ehwa’s Allocation of 

Indirect Selling Expenses Between the 

Industrial and the Stone & Construction 

Divisions because Ehwa’s Sales of 1A1R 

Merchandise are from the Industrial 

Division. 

Comment 20: Whether the Department 

Should Calculate the Indirect Selling 

Expense Ratio for Each of Ehwa’s U.S. 

Affiliates. 

Comment 21: Whether Ehwa Properly 

Excluded its Sales of Refurbished 

Products from its HM Sales Database. 

Comment 22: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust Costs Related to the 

Allocation of Costs Between Indirect 

Selling and G&A Expenses. 

Comment 23: Whether Ehwa’s Use of 

Surrogate Costs Was Appropriate. 

Comment 24: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust G&A Expenses to 

Account for the Over–Accrual of the 

Provision for Retirement Expenses. 

Comment 25: Whether Shinhan Failed 

to Report COM for SHINUS04 and 

SHINHM04. 

Comment 26: Whether the Department 

Should Base Shinhan’s Starting Price on 

INVNPRU Rather than GRSUPRU. 

Comment 27: Whether the Department 

Should Apply AFA to Shinhan’s Inland 

Freight Expenses. 

Comment 28: Whether the Department 

Should Allocate Shinhan’s Freight 

Revenue on the Same Basis as Inland 

Freight. 

Comment 29: Whether the Department 

Double–Counted Shinhan’s Freight 

Revenue. 

Comment 30: Whether the Department 

Should Recalculate Shinhan’s HM and 

International Movement Expenses. 

Comment 31: Whether the Department 

Should Exclude Shinhan’s Sales of 

Refurbished DSB from Shinhan’s HM 

Sales Database or Weight–Average the 

Sales and Costs Databases for 

Refurbished and Non–Refurbished DSB. 

Comment 32: Whether the Department 

Should Collapse Shinhan With Its 

Korean Affiliates. 

Comment 33: Whether the Department 

Should Collapse Shinhan with Its 

Chinese Affiliate. 

Comment 34: Whether the Department 

Should Make Symmetric Adjustments to 

Shinhan’s Reported Sales and Cost Data. 

Comment 35: Whether the Department 

Should Ensure that Segments are not 

Compared with DSB in the Dumping 

Margin Calculations. 

Comment 36: Whether the Department 

Should Allow Shinhan’s Residual Cost 

Variance Adjustment. 

Comment 37: Whether the Department 

Should Use SG&A Methodology 

Submitted During the Cost Verification. 

Comment 38: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust for Items in Shinhan’s 

G&A Expense Rate Calculation. 

Comment 39: Whether the Department 

Should Correct Certain Minor Errors in 

Its Proposed Cost Adjustments. 

Comment 40: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Costs Based on 

Shinhan’s Normal Accounting System. 

Comment 41: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust Shinhan’s Costs for 

Certain CONNUMs. 

Comment 42: Whether the Department 

Should Reduce Shinhan’s Materials 

Rebate Adjustment. 

Comment 43: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust the Production 

Quantities of CONNUMS not Produced 

in the POI. 

Comment 44: Whether the Department 

Should Base Shinhan’s Financial 

Expense Rate on Facts Available. 

Comment 45: Whether The Department 

Should Revise Certain Freight Expenses 

in Hyosung’s U.S. Sales Database. 

Comment 46: Whether the Department 

Should Apply AFA to Hyosung’s 

Reported HM Inland Freight. 

Comment 47: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Indirect Selling 

Expense Ratio for Domestic and Export 

Sales. 

Comment 48: Whether Hyosung Fully 

and Accurately Reported all HM and 

U.S. Sales of Subject Merchandise. 

Comment 49: Whether the Department 

Should Allow a Duty Drawback 

Adjustment for Hyosung. 

Comment 50: Whether the Department 

Should Recalculate Credit Expense for 

the EP Sales with Revised Shipment 

Dates in the Final Determination. 

Comment 51: Whether the Department 

Should Use Hyosung’s Originally 

Reported Costs of Production. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
29314 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Notices 

Comment 52: Whether the Department 

Should Adjust Hyosung’s Reported 

Costs for Unreconciled Differences. 

Comment 53: Whether the Department 

Should Exclude Hyosung’s Prior Period 

Income Tax Payments From G&A 

Expenses. 

Comment 54: Whether the Department 

Should Allow the Short–Term Income 

Generated From Investment Securities 

as an Offset to Hyosung’s Financial 

Expenses. 

Comment 55: Whether the Department 

Should Correct the Surrogate CONNUM 

for two Products on the COP Database. 

Comment 56: Whether the Department 

Should Ensure that the Products 

Purchased from Unaffiliated Suppliers 

Should be Assigned the Reported Costs 

of Production for Those Products. 

Comment 57: Whether the Department 

Should Reject the Petitioner’s Case Brief 

for Failure To Comply With the 

Department’s Regulations. 

[FR Doc. E6–7771 Filed 5–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–533–809 

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 

From India; Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of administrative review of the 

antidumping order covering certain 

forged stainless steel flanges from India. 

See Certain Forged Stainless Steel 

Flanges From India: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

11379 (March 7, 2006) (Preliminary 

Results). The merchandise covered by 

this order is certain forged stainless 

steel flanges as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of the Order’’ section of this notice. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2004, through January 31, 2005. We 

invited parties to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. We received no 

comments. Therefore, the final results 

are unchanged from those presented in 

the preliminary results. The final 

weighted–average dumping margins for 

the reviewed firms are listed below in 

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the 

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner (Paramount Forge) 

(Paramount), David Cordell (Echjay 

Forgings Ltd.) (Echjay), or Robert James, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6312, (202) 482–

0408, or (202) 482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 7, 2006, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

2004–2005 antidumping duty 

administrative review of certain forged 

stainless steel flanges from India. See 

Preliminary Results. The review covers 

Paramount Forge (Paramount) and 

Echjay Forgings Ltd. (Echjay), and the 

period February 1, 2004, through 

January 31, 2005. In the Preliminary 

Results, we invited parties to comment. 

We received no comments. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain forged stainless steel flanges, 

both finished and not finished, 

generally manufactured to specification 

ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such 

as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope 

includes five general types of flanges. 

They are weld–neck, used for butt–weld 

line connection; threaded, used for 

threaded line connections; slip–on and 

lap joint, used with stub–ends/butt–

weld line connections; socket weld, 

used to fit pipe into a machined 

recession; and blind, used to seal off a 

line. The sizes of the flanges within the 

scope range generally from one to six 

inches; however, all sizes of the above–

described merchandise are included in 

the scope. Specifically excluded from 

the scope of this order are cast stainless 

steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges 

generally are manufactured to 

specification ASTM A–351. The flanges 

subject to this order are currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under review is dispositive of whether 

or not the merchandise is covered by the

scope of the order. 

Final Results of the Review 

We determine the following 

percentage weighted–average margins 

exist for the period February 1, 2004, 

through January 31, 2005: 

Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) 

Liquidation 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where 

appropriate, we have calculated 

exporter/importer–specific assessment 

rates. To calculate these rates, we 

divided the total dumping margins for 

the reviewed sales by the total entered 

value of those reviewed sales for each 

importer. Id. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we shall instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.5 percent). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of these final results 

of review. We will direct CBP to assess 

the appropriate assessment rate against 

the entered Customs values for the 

subject merchandise on each of the 

importer’s entries under the relevant 

order during the POR. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Tariff Act): (1) For the 

companies named above, the cash 

deposit rates will be the rates for these 

firms shown above, except that, for 

exporters with de minimis margins (i.e., 

less than 0.5%), no deposit will be 

required; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
 
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF THE PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China and Korea

Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Final)

Date and Time: May 16, 2006 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties:

Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

The Diamond Sawblade Manufacturing Coalition (“DSMC”)

Kevin Baron, CEO, Western Saw Co.

Kraig Baron, President, Western Saw Co.

Richard Brakeman, Chief Financial Officer, Diamond B Inc.

Steve Garrison, Sales Manager, Diamond B Inc.

Leo Edmund, President, B&W Equipment and Supply Corporation

Stacey Guthrie, General Manager, Ricker Machinery Company

Andy Jedick, Vice President and General Manager, Diamond Products, Inc.

Edward P. McCarthy, Owner, McCarthy Associates

Judith O’Day, President, Terra Diamond Industrial

Ken Rizner, Vice President, Industrial Blade Solutions Unit, Hyde Tools, Inc.

Nolan Schabacker, President, Grabber Power Products

Greg Wolters, President, Dixie Diamond Manufacturing

Garrett Wolters, Vice President, Dixie Diamond Manufacturing

Seth Kaplan, Vice President, Charles River Associates

Daniel B. Pickard ) – OF COUNSEL
B-4

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

J. Christine Kim, Director, Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd.

Jae Woo Kim, General Manager, General Tool, Inc.

John Corcoran, President, Sutton Diamond Tool

Dan Steiner, President, DITEQ Corp.

Brian Delahaut, Vice President, MK Diamond

Thomas L. Rogers, Economist, Capital Trade, Inc.

Spencer S. Griffith )

J. David Park ) – OF COUNSEL

Jarrod M. Goldfeder )

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”)

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc.

Douglas I. Nixon, General Manager, Construction Products

Leonard M. Shambon )

 – OF COUNSEL Lynn Fischer Fox )
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,464,299 6,065,126 6,753,839 51.3 35.9 11.4

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 9.1 8.0 -4.3 -3.1 -1.2

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 32.3 41.1 17.4 8.6 8.7

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 35.3 34.0 -3.4 -2.2 -1.2

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 61.2 67.6 75.1 13.9 6.4 7.5

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 23.3 16.9 -9.6 -3.3 -6.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.8 90.9 92.0 4.3 3.1 1.2

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,719 205,592 214,939 16.4 11.3 4.5

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 61.9 54.3 51.9 -10.0 -7.6 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 11.0 14.3 6.8 3.5 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.7 25.7 5.5 3.5 2.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 34.7 40.0 12.3 7.0 5.3

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 10.9 8.1 -2.3 0.6 -2.9

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 45.7 48.1 10.0 7.6 2.5

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,057,497 1,960,114 2,772,961 162.2 85.4 41.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,850 22,565 30,769 122.2 62.9 36.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.10 $11.51 $11.10 -15.3 -12.1 -3.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 555,680 659,966 1,154,400 107.7 18.8 74.9

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,673,469 2,139,437 2,298,931 37.4 27.8 7.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,406 48,821 55,308 47.9 30.5 13.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22.35 $22.82 $24.06 7.6 2.1 5.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 616,878 773,610 969,397 57.1 25.4 25.3

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,730,966 4,099,551 5,071,892 85.7 50.1 23.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,257 71,386 86,077 67.9 39.3 20.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.77 $17.41 $16.97 -9.6 -7.2 -2.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,172,558 1,433,576 2,123,797 81.1 22.3 48.1

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,186,710 1,412,611 1,144,473 -3.6 19.0 -19.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,090 22,473 17,356 -9.1 17.7 -22.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16.09 $15.91 $15.17 -5.7 -1.1 -4.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 136,291 216,483 107,316 -21.3 58.8 -50.4

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,917,676 5,512,162 6,216,365 58.7 40.7 12.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,346 93,859 103,433 47.0 33.4 10.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.96 $17.03 $16.64 -7.3 -5.2 -2.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,308,849 1,650,059 2,231,113 70.5 26.1 35.2

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 949,241 968,584 1,005,141 5.9 2.0 3.8

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 593,461 598,197 589,526 -0.7 0.8 -1.4

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 62.5 61.8 58.7 -3.9 -0.8 -3.1

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546,623 552,964 537,474 -1.7 1.2 -2.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,373 111,733 111,505 -2.5 -2.3 -0.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $209.24 $202.06 $207.46 -0.8 -3.4 2.7

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,117 25,888 26,426 5.2 3.1 2.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,374 4,042 3,860 -11.8 -7.6 -4.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $174.16 $156.13 $146.07 -16.1 -10.4 -6.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . 139,573 146,389 164,632 18.0 4.9 12.5

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . 24.4 25.3 29.2 4.8 0.9 3.9

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 482 477 480 -0.5 -1.1 0.6

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . 980 954 926 -5.5 -2.6 -3.0

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 14,607 14,505 15,112 3.5 -0.7 4.2

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.90 $15.20 $16.32 9.5 2.0 7.4

 Productivity (units/1,000 hours) . 552.5 574.4 595.7 7.8 4.0 3.7

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26.98 $26.46 $27.40 1.6 -1.9 3.6

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570,620 581,124 568,262 -0.4 1.8 -2.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,409 115,144 114,618 -2.4 -1.9 -0.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $205.76 $198.14 $201.70 -2.0 -3.7 1.8

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 70,071 69,861 70,012 -0.1 -0.3 0.2

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . 47,338 45,282 44,607 -5.8 -4.3 -1.5

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,650 33,046 32,543 -6.1 -4.6 -1.5

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . 12,688 12,236 12,064 -4.9 -3.6 -1.4

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 1,250 2,582 1,517 21.3 106.5 -41.3

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $122.80 $120.22 $123.20 0.3 -2.1 2.5

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $60.72 $56.87 $57.27 -5.7 -6.4 0.7

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $22.24 $21.06 $21.23 -4.5 -5.3 0.8

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.7 60.7 61.1 1.4 1.0 0.4

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 10.6 10.5 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year ba

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-4
Table C-1A

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 2 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,464,299 6,065,126 6,753,839 51.3 35.9 11.4

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 2 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 2 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 9.1 8.0 -4.3 -3.1 -1.2

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 32.3 41.1 17.4 8.6 8.7

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 35.3 34.0 -3.4 -2.2 -1.2

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 61.2 67.6 75.1 13.9 6.4 7.5

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 23.3 16.9 -9.6 -3.3 -6.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.8 90.9 92.0 4.3 3.1 1.2

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,719 205,592 214,939 16.4 11.3 4.5

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 2 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 2 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.9 54.3 51.9 -10.0 -7.6 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 11.0 14.3 6.8 3.5 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.7 25.7 5.5 3.5 2.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 34.7 40.0 12.3 7.0 5.3

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 10.9 8.1 -2.3 0.6 -2.9

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 45.7 48.1 10.0 7.6 2.5

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,057,497 1,960,114 2,772,961 162.2 85.4 41.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,850 22,565 30,769 122.2 62.9 36.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.10 $11.51 $11.10 -15.3 -12.1 -3.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 555,680 659,966 1,154,400 107.7 18.8 74.9

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,673,469 2,139,437 2,298,931 37.4 27.8 7.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,406 48,821 55,308 47.9 30.5 13.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22.35 $22.82 $24.06 7.6 2.1 5.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 616,878 773,610 969,397 -32.6 -26.3 -2.4

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,730,966 4,099,551 5,071,892 85.7 50.1 23.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,257 71,386 86,077 67.9 39.3 20.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.77 $17.41 $16.97 -9.6 -7.2 -2.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,172,558 1,433,576 2,123,797 81.1 22.3 48.1

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,186,710 1,412,611 1,144,473 -3.6 19.0 -19.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,090 22,473 17,356 -9.1 17.7 -22.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16.09 $15.91 $15.17 -5.7 -1.1 -4.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 136,291 216,483 107,316 -21.3 58.8 -50.4

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,917,676 5,512,162 6,216,365 58.7 40.7 12.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,346 93,859 103,433 47.0 33.4 10.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.96 $17.03 $16.64 -7.3 -5.2 -2.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,308,849 1,650,059 2,231,113 70.5 26.1 35.2

Table continued on next page.

C-3A
Table C-1A--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 2 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. producers' (2):

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (units/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers' (3):

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Excluding data reported for ***.

 (3) ***.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-4A
Table C-1B

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,464,299 6,065,126 6,753,839 51.3 35.9 11.4

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 3 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 3 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 9.1 8.0 -4.3 -3.1 -1.2

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 32.3 41.1 17.4 8.6 8.7

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 35.3 34.0 -3.4 -2.2 -1.2

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 61.2 67.6 75.1 13.9 6.4 7.5

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 23.3 16.9 -9.6 -3.3 -6.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.8 90.9 92.0 4.3 3.1 1.2

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,719 205,592 214,939 16.4 11.3 4.5

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 3 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 3 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.9 54.3 51.9 -10.0 -7.6 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 11.0 14.3 6.8 3.5 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.7 25.7 5.5 3.5 2.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 34.7 40.0 12.3 7.0 5.3

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 10.9 8.1 -2.3 0.6 -2.9

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 45.7 48.1 10.0 7.6 2.5

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,057,497 1,960,114 2,772,961 162.2 85.4 41.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,850 22,565 30,769 122.2 62.9 36.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.10 $11.51 $11.10 -15.3 -12.1 -3.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 555,680 659,966 1,154,400 107.7 18.8 74.9

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,673,469 2,139,437 2,298,931 37.4 27.8 7.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,406 48,821 55,308 47.9 30.5 13.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22.35 $22.82 $24.06 7.6 2.1 5.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 616,878 773,610 969,397 -32.6 -26.3 -2.4

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,730,966 4,099,551 5,071,892 85.7 50.1 23.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,257 71,386 86,077 67.9 39.3 20.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.77 $17.41 $16.97 -9.6 -7.2 -2.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,172,558 1,433,576 2,123,797 81.1 22.3 48.1

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,186,710 1,412,611 1,144,473 -3.6 19.0 -19.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,090 22,473 17,356 -9.1 17.7 -22.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16.09 $15.91 $15.17 -5.7 -1.1 -4.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 136,291 216,483 107,316 -21.3 58.8 -50.4

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,917,676 5,512,162 6,216,365 58.7 40.7 12.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,346 93,859 103,433 47.0 33.4 10.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.96 $17.03 $16.64 -7.3 -5.2 -2.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,308,849 1,650,059 2,231,113 70.5 26.1 35.2

Table continued on next page.

C-3B
Table C-1B--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. producers' (2):

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (units/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers' (3):

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Excluding data reported for ***.

 (3) ***.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-4B
Table C-1C

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 4 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,464,299 6,065,126 6,753,839 51.3 35.9 11.4

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 4 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 4 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 9.1 8.0 -4.3 -3.1 -1.2

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 32.3 41.1 17.4 8.6 8.7

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 35.3 34.0 -3.4 -2.2 -1.2

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 61.2 67.6 75.1 13.9 6.4 7.5

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 23.3 16.9 -9.6 -3.3 -6.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.8 90.9 92.0 4.3 3.1 1.2

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,719 205,592 214,939 16.4 11.3 4.5

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 4 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 4 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.9 54.3 51.9 -10.0 -7.6 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 11.0 14.3 6.8 3.5 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.7 25.7 5.5 3.5 2.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 34.7 40.0 12.3 7.0 5.3

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 10.9 8.1 -2.3 0.6 -2.9

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 45.7 48.1 10.0 7.6 2.5

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,057,497 1,960,114 2,772,961 162.2 85.4 41.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,850 22,565 30,769 122.2 62.9 36.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.10 $11.51 $11.10 -15.3 -12.1 -3.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 555,680 659,966 1,154,400 107.7 18.8 74.9

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,673,469 2,139,437 2,298,931 37.4 27.8 7.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,406 48,821 55,308 47.9 30.5 13.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22.35 $22.82 $24.06 7.6 2.1 5.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 616,878 773,610 969,397 -32.6 -26.3 -2.4

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,730,966 4,099,551 5,071,892 85.7 50.1 23.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,257 71,386 86,077 67.9 39.3 20.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.77 $17.41 $16.97 -9.6 -7.2 -2.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,172,558 1,433,576 2,123,797 81.1 22.3 48.1

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,186,710 1,412,611 1,144,473 -3.6 19.0 -19.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,090 22,473 17,356 -9.1 17.7 -22.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16.09 $15.91 $15.17 -5.7 -1.1 -4.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 136,291 216,483 107,316 -21.3 58.8 -50.4

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,917,676 5,512,162 6,216,365 58.7 40.7 12.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,346 93,859 103,433 47.0 33.4 10.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.96 $17.03 $16.64 -7.3 -5.2 -2.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,308,849 1,650,059 2,231,113 70.5 26.1 35.2

Table continued on next page.

C-3C
Table C-1C--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 4 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. producers' (2):

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (units/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers' (3):

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Excluding data reported for ***.

 (3) ***.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-4C
Table C-2

Diamond sawblade cores: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,882 189,046 208,645 47.1 33.2 10.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,663 2,237 44.7 7.6 34.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.90 $8.80 $10.72 -1.6 -19.3 21.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 50,295 54,529 54,507 8.4 8.4 -0.0

Table continued on next page.

C-5
Contains Business Proprietary Information

Table C-2--Continued

Diamond sawblade cores: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. commercial shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (units/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net commercial sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year ba

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-6
Table C-3

Diamond sawblade segments: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,381,294 1,138,474 1,170,415 -15.3 -17.6 2.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,348 3,675 3,863 15.4 9.7 5.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.42 $3.23 $3.30 36.2 33.2 2.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,132,404 1,039,712 947,409 -16.3 -8.2 -8.9

Table continued on next page.

C-7
Table C-3--Continued

Diamond sawblade segments: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-05

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. commercial shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (units/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net commercial sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

 (4) Not available.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-8
Table C-4

Finished diamond sawblades and parts: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-05

(Value=1,000 dollars; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,173 221,100 231,200 16.1 11.0 4.6

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 62.2 55.1 52.6 -9.6 -7.1 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 10.3 13.6 6.5 3.2 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.6 25.5 5.3 3.4 1.9

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 33.9 39.1 11.8 6.6 5.2

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 11.0 8.3 -2.2 0.5 -2.7

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 44.9 47.4 9.6 7.1 2.5

Value of U.S. shipments

 of imports from:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,048 22,716 31,436 123.8 61.7 38.4

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,341 52,205 58,970 46.2 29.4 13.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . 54,389 74,921 90,406 66.2 37.8 20.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,852 24,276 19,127 -8.3 16.4 -21.2

 All sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,240 99,197 109,534 45.6 31.8 10.4

Value of U.S. producers':

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123,932 121,904 121,666 -1.8 -1.6 -0.2

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,957 5,518 5,555 -6.8 -7.4 0.7

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . 129,889 127,422 127,220 -2.1 -1.9 -0.2

 Net sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129,348 127,714 127,233 -1.6 -1.3 -0.4

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 78,107 78,322 78,761 0.8 0.3 0.6

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 51,241 49,392 48,472 -5.4 -3.6 -1.9

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,508 36,925 36,573 -5.0 -4.1 -1.0

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 12,733 12,467 11,899 -6.6 -2.1 -4.6

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 1,678 3,282 2,917 73.8 95.6 -11.1

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.4 61.3 61.9 1.5 0.9 0.6

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 9.8 9.4 -0.5 -0.1 -0.4

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-9
Table C-4A

Finished diamond sawblades and parts: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 2 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Value=1,000 dollars; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,173 221,100 231,200 16.1 11.0 4.6

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 2 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 2 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 55.1 52.6 -9.6 -7.1 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 10.3 13.6 6.5 3.2 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.6 25.5 5.3 3.4 1.9

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 33.9 39.1 11.8 6.6 5.2

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 11.0 8.3 -2.2 0.5 -2.7

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 44.9 47.4 9.6 7.1 2.5

Value of U.S. shipments

 of imports from:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,048 22,716 31,436 123.8 61.7 38.4

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,341 52,205 58,970 46.2 29.4 13.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . 54,389 74,921 90,406 66.2 37.8 20.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,852 24,276 19,127 -8.3 16.4 -21.2

 All sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,240 99,197 109,534 45.6 31.8 10.4

Value of U.S. producers' (2):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value of U.S. producers' (3):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Excluding data reported for ***.

 (3) ***.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-9A
Table C-4B

Finished diamond sawblades and parts: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Value=1,000 dollars; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,173 221,100 231,200 16.1 11.0 4.6

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 3 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 3 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 55.1 52.6 -9.6 -7.1 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 10.3 13.6 6.5 3.2 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.6 25.5 5.3 3.4 1.9

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 33.9 39.1 11.8 6.6 5.2

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 11.0 8.3 -2.2 0.5 -2.7

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 44.9 47.4 9.6 7.1 2.5

Value of U.S. shipments

 of imports from:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,048 22,716 31,436 123.8 61.7 38.4

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,341 52,205 58,970 46.2 29.4 13.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . 54,389 74,921 90,406 66.2 37.8 20.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,852 24,276 19,127 -8.3 16.4 -21.2

 All sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,240 99,197 109,534 45.6 31.8 10.4

Value of U.S. producers' (2):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value of U.S. producers' (3):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Excluding data reported for ***.

 (3) ***.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-9B
Table C-4C

Finished diamond sawblades and parts: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 4 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Value=1,000 dollars; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,173 221,100 231,200 16.1 11.0 4.6

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 4 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 4 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 55.1 52.6 -9.6 -7.1 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 10.3 13.6 6.5 3.2 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.6 25.5 5.3 3.4 1.9

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 33.9 39.1 11.8 6.6 5.2

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 11.0 8.3 -2.2 0.5 -2.7

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 44.9 47.4 9.6 7.1 2.5

Value of U.S. shipments

 of imports from:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,048 22,716 31,436 123.8 61.7 38.4

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,341 52,205 58,970 46.2 29.4 13.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . 54,389 74,921 90,406 66.2 37.8 20.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,852 24,276 19,127 -8.3 16.4 -21.2

 All sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,240 99,197 109,534 45.6 31.8 10.4

Value of U.S. producers' (2):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value of U.S. producers' (3):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Excluding data reported for ***.

 (3) ***.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-9C
Table C-4D

Finished diamond sawblades and parts: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from domestic industry data), 2003-05

(Value=1,000 dollars; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2003-05 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,173 221,100 231,200 16.1 11.0 4.6

 Producers' share (1):

 Excluding 3 firms (2) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Excluded 3 firms (3) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 55.1 52.6 -9.6 -7.1 -2.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 10.3 13.6 6.5 3.2 3.3

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 23.6 25.5 5.3 3.4 1.9

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 33.9 39.1 11.8 6.6 5.2

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 11.0 8.3 -2.2 0.5 -2.7

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 44.9 47.4 9.6 7.1 2.5

Value of U.S. shipments

 of imports from:

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,048 22,716 31,436 123.8 61.7 38.4

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,341 52,205 58,970 46.2 29.4 13.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . 54,389 74,921 90,406 66.2 37.8 20.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,852 24,276 19,127 -8.3 16.4 -21.2

 All sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,240 99,197 109,534 45.6 31.8 10.4

Value of U.S. producers' (2):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value of U.S. producers' (3):

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Excluding data reported for ***.

 (3) ***.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-9D
C-10

Table C-5

Finished diamond sawblades: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding 3 firms from domestic

industry data), 2003-05

* * * * * * *
D-1

APPENDIX D

TRANSFORMATION OF PARTS INTO FINISHED DIAMOND SAWBLADES

AND VALUE ADDED

D-3

* * * * * * *
 
E-1

APPENDIX E

FINISHED DIAMOND SAWBLADES’ CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Table E-1

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,276 844 2,274 6,697 2,055 2,819 15,963

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,433 1,356 5,249 17,736 5,953 6,709 38,436

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,709 2,200 7,523 24,433 8,008 9,527 54,400

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0 32 38 391 288 251 999

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 4 68 152 187 411

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 32 43 459 439 438 1,411

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0 0 213 677 237 82 1,209

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0 16 42 284 224 294 860

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 16 255 961 461 376 2,069

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1,486 483 3,649 12,032 11,000 18,557 47,208

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4 91 274 212 1,073 1,727

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,559 487 3,740 12,307 11,213 19,630 48,935

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,268 2,735 11,560 38,160 20,121 29,970 106,814

U.S. producers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,267 919 2,039 5,920 1,942 2,794 14,882

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,427 1,260 5,376 17,110 6,263 6,742 38,177

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,694 2,179 7,415 23,030 8,205 9,536 53,059

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0 26 38 466 360 323 1,213

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3 63 187 240 493

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 26 41 529 547 563 1,707

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0 0 118 368 201 126 814

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0 17 35 237 311 207 806

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 17 152 605 512 333 1,620

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1,356 372 3,349 11,850 11,397 17,952 46,277

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 0 90 281 545 1,394 2,382

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,429 372 3,439 12,131 11,941 19,346 48,659

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,123 2,595 11,047 36,295 21,206 29,779 105,045

U.S. producers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,178 874 2,329 5,908 1,830 2,275 14,394

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,465 1,226 4,409 17,130 6,543 7,457 38,230

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,644 2,099 6,738 23,038 8,373 9,732 52,624

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0 23 23 579 684 618 1,927

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1 101 371 326 800

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 23 24 680 1,055 944 2,726

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0 0 71 337 223 46 676

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0 9 29 250 288 184 760

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 9 99 587 511 230 1,436

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1,267 326 2,696 11,815 11,810 18,887 46,801

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 0 86 287 601 1,605 2,656

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,343 326 2,782 12,102 12,411 20,492 49,457

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,987 2,457 9,643 36,407 22,350 31,399 106,243

U.S. producers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,721 2,636 6,642 18,525 5,826 7,888 45,240

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,325 3,842 15,033 51,976 18,759 20,908 114,843

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,046 6,478 21,676 70,501 24,585 28,796 160,083

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0 81 99 1,436 1,332 1,192 4,139

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 9 232 710 753 1,704

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 81 107 1,669 2,042 1,945 5,843

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0 0 401 1,382 661 254 2,698

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0 42 105 771 823 685 2,426

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 42 507 2,153 1,484 939 5,124

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 4,110 1,181 9,694 35,697 34,207 55,397 140,286

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 4 267 842 1,358 4,072 6,766

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,332 1,185 9,961 36,540 35,565 59,468 147,052

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,378 7,786 32,251 110,862 63,677 91,148 318,102

Table continued on next page.

E-3
Table E-1--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.8 2.1 6.3 1.9 2.6 14.9

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 1.3 4.9 16.6 5.6 6.3 36.0

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.1 7.0 22.9 7.5 8.9 50.9

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.9

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.3

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 1.1

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.8

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 1.9

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.5 3.4 11.3 10.3 17.4 44.2

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.6

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.5 3.5 11.5 10.5 18.4 45.8

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 2.6 10.8 35.7 18.8 28.1 100.0

U.S. producers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.9 1.9 5.6 1.8 2.7 14.2

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.2 5.1 16.3 6.0 6.4 36.3

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 2.1 7.1 21.9 7.8 9.1 50.5

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.2

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.6

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.8

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.5

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.4 3.2 11.3 10.8 17.1 44.1

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.3 2.3

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.4 3.3 11.5 11.4 18.4 46.3

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 2.5 10.5 34.6 20.2 28.3 100.0

U.S. producers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.8 2.2 5.6 1.7 2.1 13.5

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.2 4.1 16.1 6.2 7.0 36.0

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.0 6.3 21.7 7.9 9.2 49.5

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.8

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.8

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.9 2.6

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.6

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.4

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.3 2.5 11.1 11.1 17.8 44.1

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.5 2.5

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.3 2.6 11.4 11.7 19.3 46.6

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 2.3 9.1 34.3 21.0 29.6 100.0

U.S. producers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.8 2.1 5.8 1.8 2.5 14.2

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.2 4.7 16.3 5.9 6.6 36.1

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.0 6.8 22.2 7.7 9.1 50.3

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.3

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.8

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.8

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.6

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.4 3.0 11.2 10.8 17.4 44.1

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.3 2.1

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.4 3.1 11.5 11.2 18.7 46.2

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 2.4 10.1 34.9 20.0 28.7 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-4
Table E-2

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Value ($1,000)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,489 825 730 2,349 324 92 6,809

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,424 335 142 499 173 0 2,573

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,912 1,159 873 2,848 497 92 9,381

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 258 263 0 0 0 0 520

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 5 5 38 0 0 231

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 268 5 38 0 0 751

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 475 362 80 366 2 0 1,285

 General purpose sawblade producers . 224 79 0 118 0 0 420

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 440 80 484 2 0 1,705

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 241 16 485 962 195 102 2,002

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3 6008

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 16 488 968 195 102 2,011

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,293 1,883 1,446 4,337 695 195 13,848

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,081 1,659 1,148 3,785 665 150 11,489

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,414 441 326 1,411 179 0 3,771

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,495 2,100 1,474 5,197 844 150 15,260

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 235 140 112 476 84 0 1,047

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 4 9 87 0 0 305

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 144 121 563 84 0 1,352

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 1,120 640 140 557 21 0 2,478

 General purpose sawblade producers . 1,122 128 0 256 0 0 1,506

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,242 768 140 813 21 0 3,984

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 208 13 253 1,045 156 156 1,832

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0000

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 13 253 1,045 156 156 1,832

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,385 3,025 1,989 7,617 1,105 306 22,427

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,301 1,612 1,149 5,366 1,068 285 13,782

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,150 428 492 2,483 201 2 4,755

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,451 2,040 1,641 7,849 1,269 287 18,537

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 1,320 784 207 727 158 0 3,196

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 7 12 125 2 0 426

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,600 792 219 851 160 0 3,622

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 971 730 240 1,019 29 0 2,990

 General purpose sawblade producers . 3,129 146 0 146 0 0 3,420

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,100 876 240 1,165 29 0 6,410

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 197 0 269 1,131 332 250 2,179

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0000

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 0 269 1,131 332 250 2,179

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,347 3,708 2,369 10,996 1,790 537 30,748

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,870 4,096 3,028 11,500 2,057 528 32,079

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,988 1,204 960 4,393 553 2 11,099

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,858 5,299 3,988 15,893 2,610 530 43,178

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 1,813 1,187 319 1,203 242 0 4,764

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 17 26 250 2 0 961

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,480 1,204 345 1,452 244 0 5,725

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 2,566 1,732 461 1,942 52 0 6,753

 General purpose sawblade producers . 4,474 352 0 520 0 0 5,346

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,040 2,085 461 2,461 52 0 12,099

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 646 29 1,008 3,138 683 509 6,013

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3 6009

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646 29 1,010 3,144 683 509 6,022

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,024 8,617 5,804 22,951 3,589 1,038 67,023

Table continued on next page.

E-5
Table E-2--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Share of value (percent)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0 6.0 5.3 17.0 2.3 0.7 49.2

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 2.4 1.0 3.6 1.2 0.0 18.6

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 8.4 6.3 20.6 3.6 0.7 67.7

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.7

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.4

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 3.4 2.6 0.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 9.3

 General purpose sawblade producers . 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.0

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 3.2 0.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 12.3

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.1 3.5 6.9 1.4 0.7 14.5

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.1 3.5 7.0 1.4 0.7 14.5

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.2 13.6 10.4 31.3 5.0 1.4 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 7.4 5.1 16.9 3.0 0.7 51.2

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 2.0 1.5 6.3 0.8 0.0 16.8

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 9.4 6.6 23.2 3.8 0.7 68.0

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.6 0.5 2.1 0.4 0.0 4.7

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.6 0.5 2.5 0.4 0.0 6.0

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 5.0 2.9 0.6 2.5 0.1 0.0 11.1

 General purpose sawblade producers . 5.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 6.7

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 3.4 0.6 3.6 0.1 0.0 17.8

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.1 1.1 4.7 0.7 0.7 8.2

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.1 1.1 4.7 0.7 0.7 8.2

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 13.5 8.9 34.0 4.9 1.4 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 5.2 3.7 17.5 3.5 0.9 44.8

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 1.4 1.6 8.1 0.7 0.0 15.5

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 6.6 5.3 25.5 4.1 0.9 60.3

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 2.6 0.7 2.4 0.5 0.0 10.4

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 2.6 0.7 2.8 0.5 0.0 11.8

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 3.2 2.4 0.8 3.3 0.1 0.0 9.7

 General purpose sawblade producers . 10.2 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 11.1

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 2.8 0.8 3.8 0.1 0.0 20.8

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.0 0.9 3.7 1.1 0.8 7.1

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.0 0.9 3.7 1.1 0.8 7.1

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.9 12.1 7.7 35.8 5.8 1.7 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 6.1 4.5 17.2 3.1 0.8 47.9

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 1.8 1.4 6.6 0.8 0.0 16.6

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 7.9 5.9 23.7 3.9 0.8 64.4

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 1.8 0.5 1.8 0.4 0.0 7.1

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 1.8 0.5 2.2 0.4 0.0 8.5

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 3.8 2.6 0.7 2.9 0.1 0.0 10.1

 General purpose sawblade producers . 6.7 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 8.0

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 3.1 0.7 3.7 0.1 0.0 18.1

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.0 1.5 4.7 1.0 0.8 9.0

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.0 1.5 4.7 1.0 0.8 9.0

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.3 12.9 8.7 34.2 5.4 1.5 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-6
Table E-3

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Korea, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Value ($1,000)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,595 2,324 1,967 5,020 2,350 537 16,793

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,378 1,567 221 1,168 643 299 6,276

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,973 3,891 2,188 6,188 2,993 836 23,069

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 219 30 0 30 30 0 309

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 29 39 147 107 1 438

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 59 39 176 137 1 747

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 1,540 1,869 902 1,887 257 42 6,496

 General purpose sawblade producers . 2,071 140 115 94 0 0 2,419

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,610 2,009 1,016 1,981 257 42 8,915

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 92 70 453 1,766 581 344 3,306

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 8 77 128 39 50 435

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 78 530 1,894 621 393 3,741

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,143 6,037 3,774 10,239 4,007 1,272 36,471

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,603 2,694 2,159 6,595 2,881 579 20,511

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,727 1,612 563 1,948 712 361 7,923

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,331 4,306 2,722 8,543 3,593 940 28,434

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 95 24 0 36 36 0 190

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 39 59 234 131 2 609

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 62 59 270 167 2 799

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 2,738 3,049 1,220 2,891 379 36 10,313

 General purpose sawblade producers . 2,773 189 107 85 0 0 3,155

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,511 3,238 1,327 2,977 379 36 13,467

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 97 61 555 2,248 847 426 4,234

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 4 91 187 52 64 531

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 65 646 2,434 899 490 4,765

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,312 7,671 4,754 14,224 5,038 1,468 47,466

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,272 3,109 2,925 8,355 3,255 737 24,654

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,330 458 634 2,395 1,004 463 7,284

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,602 3,568 3,559 10,750 4,259 1,200 31,938

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 114 65 0 48 44 0 272

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 30 72 360 157 2 787

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 95 72 409 201 2 1,059

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 2,594 3,703 1,569 3,649 486 35 12,037

 General purpose sawblade producers . 2,391 633 89 966 0 0 4,080

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,986 4,336 1,659 4,615 486 35 16,116

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 102 60 504 2,493 854 506 4,521

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 1 90 216 127 76 623

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 61 594 2,710 981 582 5,144

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,083 8,060 5,884 18,484 5,927 1,820 54,258

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,470 8,128 7,051 19,970 8,486 1,853 61,958

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,435 3,637 1,418 5,511 2,359 1,124 21,483

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,905 11,765 8,469 25,481 10,845 2,976 83,441

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 429 119 0 114 109 0 771

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 98 170 741 395 5 1,834

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854 217 170 855 504 5 2,606

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 6,872 8,621 3,691 8,427 1,122 113 28,845

 General purpose sawblade producers . 7,235 961 311 1,146 0 0 9,654

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,107 9,582 4,002 9,573 1,122 113 38,499

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 292 191 1,513 6,507 2,282 1,276 12,060

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 13 258 531 219 190 1,590

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671 204 1,771 7,038 2,501 1,466 13,650

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,538 21,768 14,412 42,946 14,972 4,561 138,196

Table continued on next page.

E-7
Table E-3--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from Korea, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Share of value (percent)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 6.4 5.4 13.8 6.4 1.5 46.0

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 4.3 0.6 3.2 1.8 0.8 17.2

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 10.7 6.0 17.0 8.2 2.3 63.3

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 1.2

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 2.0

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 4.2 5.1 2.5 5.2 0.7 0.1 17.8

 General purpose sawblade producers . 5.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.6

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 5.5 2.8 5.4 0.7 0.1 24.4

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.2 1.2 4.8 1.6 0.9 9.1

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.2

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.2 1.5 5.2 1.7 1.1 10.3

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 16.6 10.3 28.1 11.0 3.5 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 5.7 4.5 13.9 6.1 1.2 43.2

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 3.4 1.2 4.1 1.5 0.8 16.7

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 9.1 5.7 18.0 7.6 2.0 59.9

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.3

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.7

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 5.8 6.4 2.6 6.1 0.8 0.1 21.7

 General purpose sawblade producers . 5.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.6

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 6.8 2.8 6.3 0.8 0.1 28.4

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 1.2 4.7 1.8 0.9 8.9

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.1

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 1.4 5.1 1.9 1.0 10.0

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.2 16.2 10.0 30.0 10.6 3.1 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 5.7 5.4 15.4 6.0 1.4 45.4

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 0.8 1.2 4.4 1.8 0.9 13.4

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.9 6.6 6.6 19.8 7.8 2.2 58.9

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.5

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.0 2.0

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 4.8 6.8 2.9 6.7 0.9 0.1 22.2

 General purpose sawblade producers . 4.4 1.2 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 7.5

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 8.0 3.1 8.5 0.9 0.1 29.7

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.9 4.6 1.6 0.9 8.3

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.1

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 1.1 5.0 1.8 1.1 9.5

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 14.9 10.8 34.1 10.9 3.4 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 5.9 5.1 14.5 6.1 1.3 44.8

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 2.6 1.0 4.0 1.7 0.8 15.5

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 8.5 6.1 18.4 7.8 2.2 60.4

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.3

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.9

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 5.0 6.2 2.7 6.1 0.8 0.1 20.9

 General purpose sawblade producers . 5.2 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 7.0

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 6.9 2.9 6.9 0.8 0.1 27.9

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 1.1 4.7 1.7 0.9 8.7

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.2

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 1.3 5.1 1.8 1.1 9.9

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.6 15.8 10.4 31.1 10.8 3.3 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-8
Table E-4

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from all other sources, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Value ($1,000)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 0 82 56 1 141

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 86 782 3,741 648 231 5,532

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 86 782 3,823 703 232 5,673

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 9,403 345 338 726 105 0 10,917

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,403 345 338 726 105 0 10,917

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0000000

 General purpose sawblade producers . 443 0 300 0 0 0 743

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 0 300 0 0 0 743

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 292 647 83 153 1,176

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 0 41 19 1 64

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 292 688 102 155 1,240

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,895 432 1,712 5,237 910 387 18,574

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 129 0 0 0 129

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 92 1,146 4,343 566 59 6,236

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 92 1,275 4,343 566 59 6,365

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 10,636 277 376 791 61 0 12,141

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,636 277 376 791 61 0 12,141

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0000000

 General purpose sawblade producers . 108 54 0 0 0 0 162

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 54 0 0 0 0 162

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 294 604 78 34 1,009

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1 24 26 1 53

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 294 628 103 35 1,062

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,776 423 1,946 5,762 730 94 19,730

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 91 0 0 0 91

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 66 782 3,660 686 62 5,275

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 66 873 3,660 686 62 5,367

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 6,451 197 51 322 1 0 7,022

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 0 26 30 7 0 393

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,781 197 77 352 8 0 7,415

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0000000

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0 0 0 0000

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 124 474 47 39 684

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 2 25 5 0 33

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 126 500 52 39 717

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,802 262 1,077 4,512 746 100 13,498

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 221 82 56 1 362

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 244 2,710 11,743 1,899 352 17,043

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 244 2,931 11,826 1,955 353 17,405

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 26,491 819 765 1,838 167 0 30,080

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 0 26 30 7 0 393

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,820 819 791 1,869 174 0 30,473

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0000000

 General purpose sawblade producers . 551 54 300 0 0 0 905

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551 54 300 0 0 0 905

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 710 1,726 207 226 2,870

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 3 90 50 2 149

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 713 1,816 257 228 3,019

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,472 1,117 4,735 15,510 2,386 581 51,802

Table continued on next page.

E-9
Table E-4--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from all other sources, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Share of value (percent)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.8

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 4.2 20.1 3.5 1.2 29.8

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 4.2 20.6 3.8 1.2 30.5

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 50.6 1.9 1.8 3.9 0.6 0.0 58.8

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.6 1.9 1.8 3.9 0.6 0.0 58.8

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 General purpose sawblade producers . 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.5 0.4 0.8 6.3

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.7 0.5 0.8 6.7

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.3 2.3 9.2 28.2 4.9 2.1 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 5.8 22.0 2.9 0.3 31.6

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 6.5 22.0 2.9 0.3 32.3

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 53.9 1.4 1.9 4.0 0.3 0.0 61.5

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.9 1.4 1.9 4.0 0.3 0.0 61.5

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.1 0.4 0.2 5.1

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.2 0.5 0.2 5.4

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.6 2.1 9.9 29.2 3.7 0.5 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 5.8 27.1 5.1 0.5 39.1

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 6.5 27.1 5.1 0.5 39.8

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 47.8 1.5 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 52.0

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.9

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.2 1.5 0.6 2.6 0.1 0.0 54.9

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 General purpose sawblade producers . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.5 0.3 0.3 5.1

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.7 0.4 0.3 5.3

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.4 1.9 8.0 33.4 5.5 0.7 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.7

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 5.2 22.7 3.7 0.7 32.9

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 5.7 22.8 3.8 0.7 33.6

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 51.1 1.6 1.5 3.5 0.3 0.0 58.1

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.8 1.6 1.5 3.6 0.3 0.0 58.8

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 General purpose sawblade producers . 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.3 0.4 0.4 5.5

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.5 0.5 0.4 5.8

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.0 2.2 9.1 29.9 4.6 1.1 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-10
Table E-5

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from all sources, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Value ($1,000)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,086 3,149 2,697 7,451 2,730 630 23,743

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,845 1,988 1,146 5,408 1,464 530 14,380

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,930 5,137 3,843 12,859 4,194 1,160 38,123

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 9,880 638 338 756 135 0 11,746

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 34 45 185 107 1 669

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,178 672 383 940 242 1 12,415

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 2,015 2,231 982 2,252 259 42 7,781

 General purpose sawblade producers . 2,738 218 415 212 0 0 3,583

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,753 2,449 1,396 2,465 259 42 11,364

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 334 86 1,231 3,375 859 599 6,484

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 8 80 175 59 51 507

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 94 1,310 3,550 918 650 6,991

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,330 8,352 6,932 19,813 5,612 1,854 68,893

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,685 4,353 3,436 10,381 3,546 729 32,129

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,171 2,145 2,035 7,702 1,456 421 17,930

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,856 6,498 5,471 18,082 5,002 1,150 50,059

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 10,967 441 488 1,302 180 0 13,379

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 43 68 321 131 2 914

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,316 484 556 1,623 312 2 14,293

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 3,858 3,689 1,360 3,448 400 36 12,791

 General purpose sawblade producers . 4,003 370 107 341 0 0 4,822

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,861 4,060 1,467 3,789 400 36 17,613

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 306 74 1,102 3,897 1,081 616 7,075

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 4 92 211 78 65 584

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 78 1,194 4,107 1,159 681 7,659

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,472 11,119 8,688 27,602 6,873 1,868 89,623

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,573 4,722 4,166 13,721 4,323 1,022 38,527

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,501 952 1,907 8,537 1,891 527 17,315

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,074 5,674 6,073 22,259 6,214 1,549 55,842

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 7,886 1,046 259 1,097 203 0 10,490

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775 38 109 515 166 2 1,606

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,660 1,084 368 1,612 369 2 12,096

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 3,565 4,433 1,810 4,668 514 35 15,026

 General purpose sawblade producers . 5,520 778 89 1,112 0 0 7,500

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,086 5,212 1,899 5,780 514 35 22,526

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 299 60 898 4,099 1,233 795 7,384

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 1 92 242 132 76 656

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 61 989 4,341 1,365 871 8,040

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,232 12,031 9,330 33,991 8,463 2,458 98,504

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,343 12,223 10,300 31,552 10,599 2,382 94,399

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,517 5,085 5,088 21,647 4,811 1,478 49,625

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,860 17,308 15,388 53,200 15,410 3,859 144,024

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 28,733 2,125 1,085 3,155 518 0 35,615

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,421 115 221 1,021 404 5 3,189

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,154 2,240 1,307 4,176 922 5 38,804

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 9,438 10,353 4,151 10,368 1,174 113 35,598

 General purpose sawblade producers . 12,261 1,367 611 1,666 0 0 15,905

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,699 11,720 4,762 12,034 1,174 113 51,502

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 939 220 3,230 11,370 3,173 2,011 20,943

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 13 263 628 269 192 1,747

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,322 233 3,494 11,998 3,442 2,203 22,690

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,034 31,502 24,950 81,407 20,947 6,180 257,021

Table continued on next page.

E-11
Table E-5--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from all sources, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Share of value (percent)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 4.6 3.9 10.8 4.0 0.9 34.5

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 2.9 1.7 7.9 2.1 0.8 20.9

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.9 7.5 5.6 18.7 6.1 1.7 55.3

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.0 17.1

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.0

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 1.0 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.0 18.0

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 2.9 3.2 1.4 3.3 0.4 0.1 11.3

 General purpose sawblade producers . 4.0 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.2

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 3.6 2.0 3.6 0.4 0.1 16.5

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 1.8 4.9 1.2 0.9 9.4

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.7

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.1 1.9 5.2 1.3 0.9 10.1

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.2 12.1 10.1 28.8 8.1 2.7 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 4.9 3.8 11.6 4.0 0.8 35.8

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 2.4 2.3 8.6 1.6 0.5 20.0

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 7.3 6.1 20.2 5.6 1.3 55.9

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.2 0.0 14.9

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.0

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 0.5 0.6 1.8 0.3 0.0 15.9

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 4.3 4.1 1.5 3.8 0.4 0.0 14.3

 General purpose sawblade producers . 4.5 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 5.4

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 4.5 1.6 4.2 0.4 0.0 19.7

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 1.2 4.3 1.2 0.7 7.9

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 1.3 4.6 1.3 0.8 8.5

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.3 12.4 9.7 30.8 7.7 2.1 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 4.8 4.2 13.9 4.4 1.0 39.1

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 1.0 1.9 8.7 1.9 0.5 17.6

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 5.8 6.2 22.6 6.3 1.6 56.7

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 1.1 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 10.6

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.6

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 1.1 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.0 12.3

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 3.6 4.5 1.8 4.7 0.5 0.0 15.3

 General purpose sawblade producers . 5.6 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 7.6

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 5.3 1.9 5.9 0.5 0.0 22.9

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.9 4.2 1.3 0.8 7.5

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 1.0 4.4 1.4 0.9 8.2

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.7 12.2 9.5 34.5 8.6 2.5 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 4.8 4.0 12.3 4.1 0.9 36.7

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 2.0 2.0 8.4 1.9 0.6 19.3

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 6.7 6.0 20.7 6.0 1.5 56.0

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.0 13.9

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.2

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 0.9 0.5 1.6 0.4 0.0 15.1

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . . . . 3.7 4.0 1.6 4.0 0.5 0.0 13.9

 General purpose sawblade producers . 4.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.2

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 4.6 1.9 4.7 0.5 0.0 20.0

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 1.3 4.4 1.2 0.8 8.1

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 1.4 4.7 1.3 0.9 8.8

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.8 12.3 9.7 31.7 8.1 2.4 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-12
Table E-6

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China and Korea, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Value ($1,000)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,084 3,149 2,697 7,369 2,674 629 23,602

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,802 1,902 363 1,667 816 299 8,849

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,885 5,050 3,061 9,036 3,490 928 32,450

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . 477 293 0 30 30 0 829

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 34 44 185 107 1 669

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774 327 44 214 137 1 1,498

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . 2,015 2,231 982 2,253 259 42 7,781

 General purpose sawblade producers 2,295 219 115 212 0 0 2,839

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,309 2,449 1,096 2,465 259 42 10,620

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . 333 86 938 2,728 776 446 5,308

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 8 80 134 39 50 443

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 94 1,018 2,862 816 495 5,752

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,436 7,920 5,220 14,576 4,702 1,467 50,319

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,684 4,353 3,307 10,380 3,546 729 32,000

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,141 2,053 889 3,359 891 361 11,694

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,826 6,406 4,196 13,740 4,437 1,090 43,694

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . 330 164 112 512 120 0 1,237

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 43 68 321 131 2 914

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679 206 180 833 251 2 2,151

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . 3,858 3,689 1,360 3,448 400 36 12,791

 General purpose sawblade producers 3,895 317 107 341 0 0 4,661

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,753 4,006 1,467 3,790 400 36 17,451

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . 305 74 808 3,293 1,003 582 6,066

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 4 91 187 52 64 531

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 78 899 3,479 1,055 646 6,597

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,697 10,696 6,743 21,841 6,143 1,774 69,893

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,573 4,721 4,074 13,721 4,323 1,022 38,436

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,480 886 1,126 4,878 1,205 465 12,039

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,053 5,608 5,200 18,599 5,528 1,487 50,475

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . 1,434 849 207 775 202 0 3,468

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 37 84 485 159 2 1,213

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,880 887 291 1,260 361 2 4,681

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . 3,565 4,433 1,809 4,668 515 35 15,027

 General purpose sawblade producers 5,520 779 89 1,112 0 0 7,500

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,086 5,212 1,899 5,780 515 35 22,526

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . 299 60 773 3,624 1,186 756 6,700

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 1 90 216 127 76 623

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 61 863 3,841 1,313 832 7,323

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,430 11,768 8,253 29,480 7,717 2,357 85,006

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,340 12,224 10,079 31,470 10,543 2,381 94,037

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,423 4,841 2,378 9,904 2,912 1,126 32,582

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,763 17,064 12,457 41,374 13,455 3,506 126,619

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . 2,242 1,306 319 1,317 351 0 5,535

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,091 115 196 991 397 5 2,795

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,334 1,421 515 2,307 748 5 8,331

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . 9,438 10,353 4,152 10,369 1,174 113 35,598

 General purpose sawblade producers 11,709 1,313 311 1,666 0 0 15,000

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,147 11,667 4,463 12,034 1,174 113 50,598

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . 938 220 2,521 9,645 2,965 1,785 18,073

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 13 261 537 219 190 1,599

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,317 233 2,781 10,182 3,184 1,975 19,672

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,562 30,385 20,216 65,897 18,561 5,599 205,219

Table continued on next page.

E-13
Table E-6--Continued

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. importers' channels of distribution for U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China and Korea, 2003-05

Blade diameter

Item < 7.0" 7.0" - 10.0" 10.0" - 12.0" 12.0" - 14.0" 14.0" - 20.0" > 20.0" Total

Share of value (percent)

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 6.3 5.4 14.6 5.3 1.3 46.9

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 3.8 0.7 3.3 1.6 0.6 17.6

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 10.0 6.1 18.0 6.9 1.8 64.5

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.6

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.3

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 3.0

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . 4.0 4.4 2.0 4.5 0.5 0.1 15.5

 General purpose sawblade producers 4.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 5.6

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 4.9 2.2 4.9 0.5 0.1 21.1

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.2 1.9 5.4 1.5 0.9 10.5

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.9

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.2 2.0 5.7 1.6 1.0 11.4

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.7 15.7 10.4 29.0 9.3 2.9 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2004 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9 6.2 4.7 14.9 5.1 1.0 45.8

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 2.9 1.3 4.8 1.3 0.5 16.7

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8 9.2 6.0 19.7 6.3 1.6 62.5

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.8

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.3

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.0 3.1

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . 5.5 5.3 1.9 4.9 0.6 0.1 18.3

 General purpose sawblade producers 5.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.7

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 5.7 2.1 5.4 0.6 0.1 25.0

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 1.2 4.7 1.4 0.8 8.7

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.1 1.3 5.0 1.5 0.9 9.4

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 15.3 9.6 31.2 8.8 2.5 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2005 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 5.6 4.8 16.1 5.1 1.2 45.2

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 1.0 1.3 5.7 1.4 0.5 14.2

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 6.6 6.1 21.9 6.5 1.7 59.4

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.0 4.1

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.4

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 1.0 0.3 1.5 0.4 0.0 5.5

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . 4.2 5.2 2.1 5.5 0.6 0.0 17.7

 General purpose sawblade producers 6.5 0.9 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 8.8

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 6.1 2.2 6.8 0.6 0.0 26.5

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 0.9 4.3 1.4 0.9 7.9

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.7

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 1.0 4.5 1.5 1.0 8.6

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 13.8 9.7 34.7 9.1 2.8 100.0

U.S. importers' USCS during 2003-05 to:

 Branded distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 6.0 4.9 15.3 5.1 1.2 45.8

 Other distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 2.4 1.2 4.8 1.4 0.5 15.9

 Total distributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9 8.3 6.1 20.2 6.6 1.7 61.7

 National big box retailers . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 2.7

 Other retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.4

 Total retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.0 4.1

 Diamond saw/sawblade producers . 4.6 5.0 2.0 5.1 0.6 0.1 17.3

 General purpose sawblade producers 5.7 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 7.3

 Total OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 5.7 2.2 5.9 0.6 0.1 24.7

 Professional construction . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 1.2 4.7 1.4 0.9 8.8

 All other end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8

 Total end users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.1 1.4 5.0 1.6 1.0 9.6

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 14.8 9.9 32.1 9.0 2.7 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-14
F-1

APPENDIX F

VALUE OF U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

OF DIAMOND SAWBLADES AND PARTS

F-3

Table F-1

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. producers’ shipments, purchases, of imports, and imports, by

value, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

Table F-2

Finished diamond sawblades and parts: U.S. producers’ shipments, purchases, of imports, and

imports, by value, 2003-05

* * * * * * *
 
G-1

APPENDIX G

NET U.S. F.O.B SELLING PRICE DATA FOR THE SPECIFIED

DIAMOND SAWBLADE PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM

BOTH SUBJECT COUNTRIES COMBINED 
 
G-3

Table G-1

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

specified products imported from both subject countries combined and sold to U.S. branded

distributors, by products and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table G-2

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

specified products imported from both subject countries combined and sold to U.S. other

distributors, by products and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *

Table G-3

Finished diamond sawblades: U.S. weighted-average net f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of the

specified products imported from both subject countries combined and sold to U.S. professional

construction firms, by products and by quarters, January 2003-December 2005

* * * * * * *