NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURERS 

COALITION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

BEIJING GANG YAN DIAMOND PRODUCTS 

COMPANY, GANG YAN DIAMOND PRODUCTS, 

INC.,

Defendants-Cross-Appellants

CLIFF INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,

Defendant

HUSQVARNA CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS 

NORTH AMERICA, INC., HEBEI HUSQVARNAJIKAI DIAMOND TOOLS CO., LTD., WEIHAI 

XIANGGUANG MECHANICAL INDUSTRIAL CO., 

LTD., BOSUN TOOLS CO., LTD., BOSUN TOOLS, 

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2016-1254, 2016-1255

______________________ 
2 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

Appeals from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:13-cv-00241-RKM, Senior Judge R. Kenton 

Musgrave.

______________________ 

Decided: August 7, 2017

______________________ 

DANIEL B. PICKARD, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

USHA NEELAKANTAN, MAUREEN E. THORSON. 

JOHN JACOB TODOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United 

States. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, JEANNE 

E. DAVIDSON, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.; AMANDA T. LEE, 

Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

JEFFREY S. NEELEY, Husch Blackwell LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-cross-appellants. Also 

represented by MICHAEL SCOTT HOLTON. 

THOMAS M. BELINE, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees 

Husqvarna Construction Products North America, Inc., 

Hebei Husqvarna-Jikai Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. Also 

represented by JENNIFER HILLMAN. 

MAX FRED SCHUTZMAN, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, 

Silverman & Klestadt LLP, New York, NY, argued for 

defendant-appellee Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical 

Industrial Co., Ltd. Also represented by BRUCE M.

MITCHELL; DHARMENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY, KAVITA 

MOHAN, Washington, DC; ANDREW SCHROTH, Hong Kong, 

China.
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 3

GREGORY S. MENEGAZ, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Bosun 

Tools Co., Ltd., Bosun Tools, Inc. Also represented by 

JAMES KEVIN HORGAN, ALEXANDRA H. SALZMAN. 

DANIEL L. PORTER, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & 

Mosle LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Shanghai 

Huayi Group Corporation Limited, China Manufacturers 

Alliance. Also represented by JAMES P. DURLING, CLAUDIA 

DENISE HARTLEBEN; GENE C. SCHAERR, Schaerr Duncan, 

Washington, DC. 

WILLIAM ALFRED FENNELL, Stewart & Stewart, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Titan Tire Corporation, 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Also represented by 

NICHOLAS J. BIRCH, LANE S. HUREWITZ, TERENCE PATRICK 

STEWART. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition 

(“DSMC”) appeals from a decision of the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) upholding the Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) determination that a targeted 

dumping allegation made by DSMC was untimely. See

Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States (CIT 

Decision), 2015 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 116 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

Oct. 21, 2015).1 Commerce concluded that DSMC’s alle-

 

1 Targeted dumping involves situations in which 

sales of comparable merchandise exhibit a pattern of 

export prices that “differ significantly among purchasers, 

regions, or periods of time.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-
4 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

gation was untimely because it was filed after Commerce 

issued its preliminary results in the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order for diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China (“PRC”). See Diamond Sawblades and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Admin. Review: 2010-2011 (Final 

Results), 78 Fed. Reg. 36,166 (Dep’t of Commerce June 17, 

2013); Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Admin. Review (Amended Final Results), 78 Fed. Reg. 42,930 (Dep’t of Commerce July 18, 

2013).

Advanced Technology & Materials entity (“ATM”), 

comprised of Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company, Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc., and other affiliated companies, cross-appeals to challenge the CIT’s 

decision affirming Commerce’s determination to apply the 

PRC-wide entity rate to ATM in this administrative 

review. See CIT Decision, 2015 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 

116, at *4–5; Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States (Final Remand Redetermination), Court No. 

13-00241, slip op. 14-112 (Dep’t of Commerce May 18, 

2015), http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-112.pdf. 

ATM’s cross-appeal is related to an appeal in Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 

States (Diamond Sawblades I), Case No. 2016-1253, also

decided today. Both opinions involve administrative 

reviews of the antidumping duty order Commerce issued 

after its initial investigation into the potential dumping of 

diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China (“PRC”). This opinion addresses Commerce’s second administrative review of the antidumping 

 

1(d)(1)(B)(i); see also U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 

F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 5

duty rate, covering the period 2010–2011, and the companion opinion in Diamond Sawblades I addresses the 

first administrative review, covering the period 2009–

2010. Because the facts and procedural history in the two 

cases are closely related, we will not repeat here our 

discussion of those issues, except to the extent the facts 

and procedural history relevant to this administrative 

review extend beyond what we cover in Diamond Sawblades I. 

Because Commerce erred in rejecting DSMC’s targeted dumping allegation as untimely, we vacate the CIT’s 

decision on that question and remand for further proceedings regarding those allegations. Because we vacate 

Commerce’s decision on the targeted dumping allegation, 

we also vacate the CIT’s decision affirming Commerce’s 

determination of the margin for the non-selected separate 

rate respondents and remand for further proceedings in 

conjunction with the consideration of the targeted dumping allegations. For the reasons explained in our opinion 

in Diamond Sawblades I, we affirm the CIT’s decision 

upholding Commerce’s final remand redetermination 

applying the recalculated PRC-wide entity rate to ATM.

I. BACKGROUND

A. DSMC’s Targeted Dumping Allegation

Commerce conducted a second administrative review, 

covering the period from November 1, 2010 through 

October 31, 2011, of an antidumping duty order previously imposed on imports of diamond sawblades from the 

PRC. Commerce issued the preliminary results of the 

second administrative review of the antidumping duty 

order with an effective date of December 10, 2012. See

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Admin. Review: 2010-2011 (Preliminary Results), 77 

Fed. Reg. 73,417 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 10, 2012). 

Before the preliminary results, DSMC had not made any 
6 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

allegations in the proceedings regarding targeted dumping.

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.309, Commerce permits 

interested parties to file case briefs commenting on the 

preliminary results. On February 19, 2013, 71 days after 

the effective date of the preliminary results, DSMC filed 

its case brief. See CIT Decision, 2015 Ct. Int’l Trade 

LEXIS 116, at *12. In its case brief, DSMC asked Commerce to initiate a targeted dumping inquiry regarding

sales of Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co. 

(“Weihai”). On February 25, 2013, Weihai presented 

comments and arguments in opposition to DSMC’s allegations, as authorized by 19 C.F.R. § 351.309.

On June 17, 2013, Commerce issued the final results 

of the second administrative review. See Final Results, 78 

Fed. Reg. at 36,166–68. In the Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum accompanying the final results, Commerce 

found DSMC’s targeted dumping allegation untimely and 

refused to consider it on the merits. In the Memorandum, 

Commerce acknowledged that it “has not established 

specific deadlines for when the Department will accept 

targeted dumping allegations in administrative reviews.” 

J.A. 101. But Commerce found that DSMC had “ample 

opportunity to have filed its targeted dumping allegation 

prior to December 3, 2012, and certainly prior to its case 

brief” given the “elapsed time between the issuance of the 

respondent’s questionnaire responses and the issuance of 

the Preliminary Results.” Id.

Commerce also explained that the timing of DSMC’s 

targeted dumping allegation did not provide sufficient 

time for Commerce to complete its analysis while giving 

interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 

analysis. Id. Commerce pointed to an administrative 

review in another case in which the petitioner had submitted its targeted dumping allegation prior to the issuance of the preliminary results, which gave Commerce 
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 7

time to analyze the allegation, issue a post-preliminary 

analysis for comment, and complete the analysis before 

issuing its final results. Id. Commerce stated that 

DSMC’s timing of its targeted dumping allegation “did not 

provide Weihai or other interested parties with sufficient 

time to adequately review and comment on such an 

allegation” and “raise[d] due process concerns.” Id.

DSMC appealed Commerce’s finding of untimeliness. 

DSMC argued that Commerce had not established deadlines outside of the requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 

for submitting a targeted dumping allegation. While the 

appeal to the CIT in this administrative review was 

pending, the CIT issued its decision in the investigation 

proceedings, finding that ATM did not qualify for a separate rate because it failed to rebut Commerce’s presumption of government control applicable to non-market 

economy countries. See J.A. 12; see also Advanced Tech. 

& Materials Co. v. United States, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1342 

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2013). Commerce requested a voluntary 

remand to reconsider its separate rate determination in 

this administrative review. J.A. 12. In its order remanding the case to Commerce, the CIT also requested that 

Commerce provide additional explanation as to its statutory authority to decline to consider targeted dumping 

issues. J.A. 16–17.

On remand, Commerce further explained its decision 

not to consider DSMC’s targeted dumping allegation. See

Final Remand Redetermination, slip op. 14-112, at 30–32. 

Commerce explained that, unlike for initial investigations, the relevant statutes did not mandate the consideration of an alternative comparison method in 

administrative reviews; instead, Commerce said it undertakes such a consideration as an agency practice, using 19 

U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) as guidance. Id. at 10–11, 30–

32. Commerce also explained that it had “established the

practice” of initiating a targeted dumping analysis when a 

party presented an allegation “at a reasonable time before 
8 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

the preliminary determinations in investigations and 

preliminary results in reviews.” Id. at 11; see also id. at

31–32. 

The CIT affirmed Commerce’s determination regarding the targeted dumping allegation. See CIT Decision, 

2015 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 116, at *6–14. It reasoned 

that Commerce correctly rejected DSMC’s targeted dumping allegation because Commerce’s “Final Modification” 

regarding the calculation of dumping margins noted that 

a new policy would apply to reviews in which “preliminary 

determinations” were not due for at least 60 days from the 

date of publication of the new policy, such as in this case. 

Id. at *11–12 (citing Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; 

Final Modification (Final Modification), 77 Fed. Reg. 

8101, 8101 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 14, 2012)). The CIT 

also reasoned that, although “there were no established or 

articulated deadlines for the filing of targeted dumping 

allegations for administrative reviews, the DSMC were 

not, apparently, unaware of Commerce’s apparent targeted dumping practice, in particular with respect to investigations, which requires an allegation thereof prior to the 

preliminary determination.” Id. at *12. The CIT found

Commerce’s explanation that interested parties needed an 

opportunity to comment on the results of a targeted 

dumping analysis “not inherently unreasonable.” Id. at 

*12–13.

B. ATM Receives the PRC-Wide Entity Rate

During this second administrative review, Commerce 

initially found that ATM had demonstrated sufficient 

independence from state control to qualify for a separate 

rate. After Commerce rendered its decision, however, the 

CIT issued a decision in Advanced Technology & Materials Co., affirming Commerce’s determination in the initial

investigation proceedings that ATM did not qualify for a 
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 9

separate rate because it failed to rebut the presumption of 

state control. 938 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1345–53 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade 2013).

Based on the decision in Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Commerce asked for a voluntary remand to 

reconsider its analysis of ATM’s rate in the second administrative review. On remand, Commerce determined that 

ATM was not entitled to a separate rate, but should 

instead receive the PRC-wide entity rate. Commerce also 

determined that the additional information it had received from ATM made it appropriate for Commerce to 

recalculate the PRC-wide entity rate to 82.05%, down 

from 164.09%. 

On appeal to the CIT, ATM argued that Commerce’s 

decision to use the PRC-wide entity rate was unreasonable. The CIT relied on the same reasoning it employed in 

the first administrative review and sustained the application of the PRC-wide entity rate to ATM.

II. DISCUSSION

We apply the same standard of review used by the 

CIT in reviewing determinations made by Commerce. 

AMS Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 737 F.3d 1338, 1342 

(Fed. Cir. 2013). We will uphold Commerce’s determination unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on 

the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 

U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Dupont Teijin Films 

USA, LP v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 

2005).

A. Dumping Margins in Administrative Reviews

Commerce calculates a foreign exporter’s dumping 

margin by comparing its export price to the normal value 

of the relevant merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A). 

When performing the comparison, Commerce can use one 

of three methods: average-to-average, transaction-totransaction, or average-to-transaction. See Union Steel v. 
10 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

United States, 713 F.3d 1101, 1103 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Since 

1995, Commerce has defaulted to using the average-toaverage or transaction-to-transaction methods in initial

investigation proceedings, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677f1(d)(1)(A). Union Steel, 713 F.3d at 1104. But 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) specifies an exception for those proceedings that allows Commerce to use the average-totransaction methodology when analyzing targeted dumping. Union Steel, 713 F.3d at 1104 n.3.

Although the relevant statutory framework establishes which comparison method should be used in initial

antidumping duty investigations, the statute does not 

specify which methodology Commerce should use in an 

administrative review. In 2012, Commerce published the 

Final Modification, stating that it would use the averageto-average method as the default method for annual 

administrative reviews. Final Modification, 77 Fed. Reg. 

at 8104, 8106–07. Although the average-to-average 

method became the default method, Commerce reserved 

the right to use an alternative comparison method on a 

case-by-case basis. Id. at 8104. Commerce indicated that 

the changes specified in the notice would go into effect for 

all ongoing reviews with at least 60 days remaining until 

the scheduled issuance of the preliminary results. Id. at 

8111.

When Commerce published the notice regarding the 

default comparison method for annual administrative 

reviews, Commerce did not specify a deadline for a party 

to request that Commerce consider the use of an alternative comparison methodology, such as the average-totransaction method, for targeted dumping. Commerce 

also did not issue any memoranda or notices providing a 

separate deadline for such requests.
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 11

During the pendency of this case,2 Commerce did not 

have any regulations specifying the time period for making targeted dumping allegations in antidumping duty 

investigations or administrative reviews thereof. While

parties once were required to make targeted dumping 

allegations at least 30 days before the preliminary determination in investigations, see Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing Targeted Dumping in 

Antidumping Duty Investigations (Targeted Dumping 

Regulation 2008), 73 Fed. Reg. 74,930, 74,930 (Dep’t of 

Commerce Dec. 10, 2008), Commerce withdrew that rule 

in 2008. Id. at 74,930–31. Commerce explained that it 

promulgated the rule at a time when it “had never performed a targeted dumping analysis,” and, thus, had

promulgated the regulation “without the benefit of any 

departmental experience on the issue of targeted dumping.” Id. at 74,930. Commerce noted, however, that it 

had seen very few allegations or findings of targeted 

dumping by 2008, leading Commerce to question whether 

it had established an impractical deadline for submitting 

such allegations. Id. It determined that a “withdrawal of 

 

2 As the government explains, Commerce changed 

its methodology in 2013 for determining whether an 

alternative comparison methodology is appropriate. See

Xantham Gum from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 78 Fed. 

Reg. 33,351, 33,352 (Dep’t of Commerce June 4, 2013). 

Rather than employ a targeted dumping analysis, Commerce now uses a differential pricing analysis to determine whether an alternative comparison methodology is 

appropriate. Commerce also conducts a differential 

pricing analysis in every segment of a proceeding, thereby 

negating the need for a party such as DSMC to make a 

targeted dumping allegation before Commerce will consider whether to apply an alternative comparison methodology. 
12 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

the provisions will provide the agency with an opportunity to analyze extensively the concept of targeted dumping 

and develop a meaningful practice in this area as it gains 

experience in evaluating such allegations.” Id. at 74,930–

31. It also clarified that Commerce was “not replacing 

these provisions with new provisions” but instead “returning to a case-by-case adjudication, until additional experience allows the Department to gain a greater 

understanding of the issue.” Id. at 74,931.

After 2008, Commerce specified when targeted dumping allegations were due in some initial investigations, 

but did not establish a policy applying to all investigations and reviews. No deadlines were ever specified in 

this case, and Commerce points to no rule or order which 

DSMC allegedly violated.

B. Timeliness of DSMC’s Targeted Dumping Allegation

DSMC argues that the CIT erred in sustaining Commerce’s decision rejecting DSMC’s targeted dumping 

allegation as untimely. DSMC asserts that, because it 

had no notice of a deadline for filing a targeted dumping 

allegation, it properly filed its allegation in its case brief, 

which, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.309, must 

present all arguments that a party believes are relevant 

to Commerce’s final determination. Because its case brief 

complied with 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 and included the 

targeted dumping allegation, DSMC argues that Commerce’s decision to reject the targeted dumping allegation 

as untimely was unsupported by substantial evidence and 

contrary to law. We agree.

The parties dispute whether Commerce had established a regular practice of requiring the submission of 

targeted dumping allegations prior to the issuance of 

preliminary results on three grounds. First, the parties 

dispute whether the Final Modification, explaining that 

the new policy outlined there would become effective for 

reviews in which the preliminary results would issue at 
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 13

least 60 days after the policy’s publication, directed parties to submit targeted dumping allegations sufficiently in 

advance of the preliminary results. Second, the parties 

dispute whether Commerce’s decisions in previous administrative reviews, particularly Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland; Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 Fed. Reg. 

47,036 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 7, 2012), and Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes from Turkey: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 Fed. Reg. 

72,818 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 6, 2012), put parties on 

notice of an obligation to submit targeted dumping allegations prior to Commerce’s preliminary results. And third, 

the parties dispute whether Commerce’s regular practice 

in initial antidumping investigations constituted notice 

that Commerce required parties to submit targeted dumping allegations in administrative reviews before Commerce issued its preliminary results.

As explained in more detail below, we agree with 

DSMC that none of the actions to which Appellees point 

in support of the decision in this case established a requirement that targeted dumping allegations be made

prior to Commerce’s preliminary results. As DSMC 

contends, Commerce and the CIT pointed to “no single 

regulation, Federal Register notice, prior precedent or 

other communication made to the bar in general or the 

DSMC in particular that provides actual or constructive 

notice of any deadline for filing targeted dumping allegations in administrative reviews, much less a prepreliminary deadline.” Appellant’s Resp./Reply Br. 43. 

Indeed, Commerce even admitted in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the final results of this 

administrative review that it “has not established specific 

deadlines for when the Department will accept targeted 

dumping allegations in administrative reviews.” J.A. 101. 

We conclude that Commerce’s decision to reject the allegations as untimely because DSMC submitted the allega-
14 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

tions after Commerce released the preliminary results—

despite DSMC having no notice of such a requirement—is 

not supported by substantial evidence and is not in accordance with law. 

1. The Final Modification

The Final Modification did not indicate that Commerce was adopting a practice that parties were to submit 

targeted dumping allegations prior to the release of 

preliminary results. The Final Modification ended Commerce’s historical default practice of using “zeroing” 

methodologies and instead made the average-to-average 

methodology the default methodology, while reserving to

Commerce the right to use an alternative methodology on 

a case-by-case basis if the criteria of 19 U.S.C. § 1677f1(d)(1) were met.

While considering the effective date of implementation for the changes laid out in the Final Modification, 

Commerce reviewed submissions from “[a] number of 

commentators” that supported a wide range of implementation deadlines. Final Modification, at 8110. Many 

proposed that Commerce should implement a 60-day 

delay because the new method might “confuse interested 

parties in several different ways” when applied to pending 

matters. Id. Others proposed that it would be unfair for 

Commerce to apply the new policy to any administrative 

reviews already under consideration. Id. Still others 

proposed shorter or longer time frames. Id.

After considering the comments, Commerce decided to 

apply the changes to all reviews in which the scheduled 

date for the preliminary results was at least 60 days after 

the publication date of the Final Modification. Id. at 

8111. Commerce determined that this timing was appropriate so that parties could submit any new data and 

provide comment on the changes that it would render to 

the individual administrative review at issue. Id. Commerce’s review of the effective date for implementation, 
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 15

however, did not include any discussion regarding the 

timeline required for a party to request the application of 

a targeted dumping methodology. Instead, the policy

described the methodology that Commerce would apply in

administrative reviews, and Commerce provided time for 

parties to consider the changes.

Commerce’s decision in Circular Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes from Turkey further refutes Appellees’ argument

that the Final Modification supports Commerce’s reasoning in this case. In the final results of that administrative 

review, Commerce stated, “when the Department recently 

announced that it would consider whether to use an 

alternative comparison method in administrative reviews 

on a case-by-case basis, the announcement contained no 

guidelines on the filing of a request to apply an alternative comparison method.” Circular Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes from Turkey, 77 Fed. Reg. at 72,820. Contrary to 

assertions by the Appellees, the Final Modification did 

not establish, or even hint at, any requirement that 

parties submit targeted dumping allegations prior to the 

issuance of preliminary results.

2. Commerce’s Decisions in Previous Administrative 

Reviews 

The two administrative review decisions identified by 

the parties did not establish a requirement by Commerce 

that parties submit targeted dumping allegations before 

the preliminary results. In Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, Commerce stated that it “has not 

established a deadline for targeted dumping allegations in 

administrative reviews, and so it would be unreasonable 

to reject this allegation as ‘untimely’ where no such time 

limit was established.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 47,038. Although

the petitioner in that administrative review filed targeted 

dumping allegations 45 days before the scheduled date for 

the preliminary results, Commerce clearly stated that it 

would have been unreasonable to reject the allegation as 
16 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

untimely because Commerce “ha[d] not established a 

deadline for targeted dumping allegations in administrative reviews.” Id. (emphasis added). While Commerce 

also noted that the petitioner’s submission of the targeted 

dumping allegations in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose 

From Finland would have met the “typical” investigation 

timeline for submitting targeted dumping allegations, it

did not specify that timeline as a precondition to considering the allegation. See id.

Commerce’s decision in Circular Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes from Turkey is similar. When deciding that the 

targeted dumping allegations in that review were timely, 

Commerce provided this reasoning:

Importantly, neither section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the 

Act nor the SAA provide any deadline as to when 

an interested party must file a targeted dumping 

allegation in either an investigation or an administrative review. Similarly, the Department’s 

regulations do not provide for such a deadline in 

an investigation or an administrative review. 

Moreover, when the Department recently announced that it would consider whether to use an 

alternative comparison method in administrative 

reviews on a case-by-case basis, the announcement contained no guidelines on the filing of a request to apply an alternative comparison method. 

Further, the Department’s current practice regarding the submission of a targeted dumping allegation in the initiation notice for an 

antidumping investigation is limited to antidumping investigations and not administrative reviews. 

Finally, by permitting Borusan to comment on the 

Post-Preliminary Analysis and to submit additional factual information in support of its comments, the Department has preserved Borusan’s 

right to comment on the targeted dumping allega-
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 17

tion. For these reasons, the Department finds 

that U.S. Steel’s allegation was timely filed.

Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, A-489-

501, at cmt. 1 (footnotes omitted).

Commerce made no mention of a pre-preliminary results deadline for targeted dumping allegations. Commerce instead noted that (1) there is no deadline provided 

by statute or regulation for administrative reviews; 

(2) even to the extent it employed a regular practice for 

targeted dumping requests, that practice was not employed in administrative reviews; and (3) there is no 

unfairness to allowing targeted dumping allegations 

where the opposing party has an opportunity to comment 

on the merits of those allegations. The same reasoning 

applies here.

In addition to Commerce’s express recognition that it 

had no established deadline for submitting targeted 

dumping allegations, the fact that it did consider targeted 

dumping allegations after the preliminary results in these

other administrative reviews further undercuts the Appellees’ argument that these reviews somehow put DSMC on 

notice that it was required to submit targeted dumping 

allegations before the preliminary results. For example, 

in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, Commerce stated that it had “not conducted a targeted dumping analysis” for the preliminary results. 77 Fed. Reg. at 

47,038. The government acknowledged in its brief that 

Commerce did not complete the targeted dumping analysis in that administrative review until after the release of 

the preliminary results. U.S. Br. 27–28. And in Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes from Turkey, Commerce explained that it provided a “Post-Preliminary Analysis” of 

the targeted dumping allegations. 77 Fed. Reg. at 72,820. 

Commerce also “preserved” the parties’ “right to comment 
18 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

on the targeted dumping allegation” despite issuing its 

analysis after the preliminary results. Id.

Commerce’s willingness to release its review of targeted dumping allegations after the preliminary results, 

and to allow for a separate comment period after that 

relating to the preliminary results, shows that Commerce 

could have done the same thing in this case, and that 

DSMC was not on notice that Commerce would refuse to 

do so. Indeed, Commerce even stated in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland that it would continue to 

consider “whether another method is appropriate in this 

administrative review in light of the parties’ prepreliminary comments and any comments on the issue 

that parties may include in their case and rebuttal briefs.” 

77 Fed. Reg. at 47,038 (emphasis added). Commerce’s 

willingness to consider comments related to another 

methodology in the case briefs filed by the parties in 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland while 

refusing to do so here indicates that Commerce’s decision 

in this case is not in accordance either with its own practices or with law. 

3. Commerce’s Practice in Investigation Proceedings

Commerce’s practice in investigations similarly did 

not establish a pre-preliminary results deadline for targeted dumping allegations that would apply to administrative reviews. As discussed above, the history of 

regulations in the investigation context shows that Commerce withdrew the regulations relating to a deadline for 

targeted dumping allegations in 2008 because it needed to 

conduct further analysis. Targeted Dumping Regulation 

2008, 73 Fed. Reg. at 74,930–31. Commerce also explained that it was “not replacing these provisions with 

new provisions” but instead “returning to a case-by-case 

adjudication, until additional experience allows the Department to gain a greater understanding of the issue.” 

Id.
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 19

As Appellees note, Commerce includes a deadline in 

initiation notices for initial investigations that requires 

parties to submit targeted dumping allegations 45 days 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary results. Commerce’s failure to include a similar deadline for administrative reviews shows that Commerce treated 

administrative reviews differently. Indeed, Commerce 

even broke from the typical 45-day requirement in initial 

investigations when it accepted targeted dumping allegations filed about 15 days prior to the preliminary results 

date in Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes from Turkey. 

See 77 Fed. Reg. at 72,818. DSMC therefore had notice

both that Commerce did not apply the same deadlines it 

used for investigations to administrative reviews, and 

that, even in initial investigations, those deadlines were 

not hard-and-fast rules. DSMC simply had no reason to 

believe that it needed to satisfy any timing requirements 

established by Commerce for investigations in this administrative review. 

4. Remaining Arguments and Other Considerations

We find the remaining arguments set forth by Appellees similarly unpersuasive. Appellees acknowledge that 

Commerce extended the deadline for the final results in 

this case because of a need to address other methodology 

calculation issues, and they provide no reason why Commerce likewise could not have extended the deadline for 

the final results to consider the targeted dumping allegation while allowing time for comments. This argument

seems particularly weak given that Commerce did not 

complete its antidumping analysis in Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland until after the issuance of 

the preliminary results, thereby requiring Commerce to

undertake some comment process after the preliminary 

results had been issued, just as it could have done in this 

case. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 47,038. Appellees’ reliance on 

cases decided after this administrative review is equally 

unpersuasive. Commerce’s actions after this case could 
20 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES

not have provided DSMC with notice of a deadline by 

which it would need to file a targeted dumping allegation 

here. 

Because Commerce never established regulations or 

guidelines creating a deadline for filing targeted dumping 

allegations and because DSMC never had any other notice 

of a deadline for filing targeted dumping allegations, 

Commerce’s rejection of DSMC’s argument as untimely 

when it was raised as an argument in DSMC’s case brief, 

as authorized by 19 C.F.R. § 351.309, is unsupported by 

law. We therefore vacate the CIT’s decision affirming

Commerce’s decision regarding DSMC’s targeted dumping 

allegations and remand for further consideration. We 

express no opinion on the merits of the targeted dumping 

allegation, particularly given that Weihai’s merits arguments were not considered below.

C. Margin for Non-Selected Separate Rate Respondents

Commerce’s calculation of the dumping margin for 

non-selected separate rate respondents in this second 

administrative review was based entirely on Weihai’s 

final margin. See Final Remand Redetermination, slip op. 

14-112, at 9–10. DSMC asserts that Commerce’s failure 

to consider the targeted dumping allegation calls Weihai’s 

dumping margin into question, thereby undermining the 

dumping margin of the non-selected separate rate respondents. DSMC requests that we vacate and remand 

this issue for further consideration consistent with any 

future analysis of the targeted dumping allegation. All 

parties agree that this issue depends entirely on our 

decision with respect to the targeted dumping allegation, 

and Appellees provide no separate argument for affirming 

the margin for the non-selected separate rate respondents. Because we vacate Commerce’s decision regarding 

the timeliness of DSMC’s targeted dumping allegation, we 

similarly vacate and remand this issue for further consid-
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 21

eration in light of any analysis performed with respect to 

DSMC’s targeted dumping allegation against Weihai.

D. ATM’s Receipt of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate

ATM challenges Commerce’s application of the PRCwide entity rate to ATM in the second administrative 

review and the CIT’s decision affirming Commerce’s order 

doing that. ATM’s arguments in this administrative 

review mirror its arguments from the first administrative 

review, which we have considered and decided in Diamond Sawblades I. Because the substance of ATM’s 

arguments on this issue do not extend beyond those 

considered in our opinion relating to the first administrative review, we affirm for the same reasons provided in 

that opinion.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in 

part, and remand for further consideration in light of this 

opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND

REMANDED IN PART

COSTS

No costs.