Slip Op. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

DIAMOND TOOLS TECHNOLOGY LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant, 

and 

DIAMOND SAWBLADES 

MANUFACTURERS’ COALITION, 

Defendant-Intervenor. 

Before: Timothy M. Reif, Judge 

Court No. 20-00060 

JUDGMENT 

Before the court is the second remand redetermination of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (“Customs”), issued pursuant to the court’s order in Diamond Tools 

Tech. LLC v. United States (“Diamond II”), 46 CIT __, 609 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2022). 

Final Remand Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, ECF No. 92 (“Remand 

Results”). 

On April 17, 2023, plaintiff Diamond Tools Technology LLC (“DTT USA” or 

“plaintiff”) filed comments in response to the Remand Results. Pl.’s Cmts. Opp’n to 

Final Results of Second Redetermination, ECF No. 97. On April 17, 2023, defendantintervenor Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition filed comments in response to 

the Remand Results. Def.-Intervenor’s Cmts. Opp’n to Second Redetermination, ECF 

No. 96. On May 26, 2023, defendant United States filed a reply to plaintiff’s and 
Consol. Court No. 20-00060 Page 2 

defendant-intervenor’s comments on the Remand Results. Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s and 

Def.-Intervenor’s Cmts. on Second Redetermination, ECF No. 98. On May 26, 2023, 

plaintiff filed further comments in support of the Remand Results. Pl.’s Resp. Cmts. 

Supp. of Final Results of Second Redetermination, ECF No. 99. The court reviewed 

parties’ filings and responses thereto. 

In Diamond I, the court remanded in part Customs’ affirmative finding of evasion 

of the antidumping duty order in Customs’ Final Determination as to Evasion and Final 

Administrative Decision on Certain Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China (“China”). Diamond Tools Tech. LLC v. United States 

(“Diamond I”), 45 CIT __, 545 F. Supp. 3d 1324 (2021) (citing Customs’ Trade Remedy 

& Law Enforcement Directorate Final Determination as to Evasion, EAPA Case No. 

7184 (Sept. 17, 2019), CR 199, PR 220; and Customs’ Office of Regulations & Rulings 

Decision on Request for Admin. Review, EAPA Case No. 7184 (Jan. 29, 2020), PR 

232). The court ordered Customs to make a finding and explain its reasoning as to 

whether DTT USA “enter[ed] covered merchandise . . . by means of any . . . act that is 

material and false, or any omission that is material,” pursuant to the second statutory 

requirement set forth in the Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”), section 517(a)(5)(A) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1517(a)(5)(A) (2018). See Diamond I, 

45 CIT at __, 545 F Supp. 3d at 1356. In Diamond II, the court concluded that Customs 

did not explain how DTT USA’s statement was material and false when DTT USA relied 

on the directive issued by Commerce and remanded: 

Customs’ Remand Results to Customs for reconsideration in conformity 

with this court’s opinion. The court direct[ed] Customs to reconsider its 

conclusion consistent with this decision and the facts of this case and, in 
Consol. Court No. 20-00060 Page 3 

particular, the applicability of the EAPA in the confined circumstance of an 

importer’s reliance on Commerce’s clear directive. 

Diamond II, 46 CIT at __, 609 F. Supp. 3d at 1391. In the Remand Results, Customs 

determined “under respectful protest” that plaintiff DTT USA “did not evade the AD 

Order when it imported diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand with Chinese cores 

and segments, prior to December 2017.” Remand Results at 2. Customs stated: 

Consistent with the Court's reasoning in Diamond Tools II, under respectful 

protest, we find that, in light of the Court's interpretation of Commerce's 

2006 IDM, DTT did not make false statements with respect to its preDecember 1, 2017 entries, and thus did not engage in evasion when it 

entered diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand with Chinese 

components into the United States without declaring such merchandise as 

subject to the AD Order. 

Id. at 7. 

Upon consideration of the Remand Results, the parties’ submissions and the 

papers and proceedings had herein, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Remand Results are sustained. 

/s/ Timothy M. Reif 

Timothy M. Reif, Judge 

Dated: 

New York, New York 

-XO\