Opinion ID: 1255706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Decision of the Court of International Trade in DSMC I

Text: DSMC challenged the Commission's Original Determination at the Court of International Trade arguing that it was not supported by substantial evidence and otherwise was not in accordance with law pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). DSMC I, slip op. at 10. The ITC and Appellants opposed. On review, the Court of International Trade found problems with the logic and evidentiary underpinnings of the Commission's Original Determination. First, the court found that the Commission's conclusion of attenuated competition based on sawblade diameter is not supported by substantial evidence of record in any of the three defined categoriesblade size, manufacturing process, and channels of distribution. Id. at 13. The court noted that, in focusing on the fact that nearly half of the subject imports comprised sawblades under 10 inches while nearly half of domestic shipments were of sawblades over 14 inches, the Commission did not appear to take into account that the other half of all subject and domestic diamond sawblades were sold in the mid-range sizes and therefore were possibly competing. The court also found that almost all of these mid-size diamond sawblades were laser-welded and segmented. Finally, the court found that the Commission had not provided adequate explanation of its decision to divide the distributor channels into branded and other and its conclusion that those distributor channels serve different end users. In light of its determination that the Commission's finding of limited competition could not be supported as explained, the court concluded that the related findings dealing with volume, price effects, impact, and threat analysis, along with the finding on limited competition, all need to be remanded for reconsideration. The court also found that the Commission had not provided adequate explanation of its finding that the price/volume tradeoff counteracted any negative price effects because it had not pointed to any data indicating that the volume increase was an adequate tradeoff for the lowered prices. The court ordered that [o]n remand, the Commission must provide a more thorough explanation for this finding, as well as an explanation as to how the purported price/volume tradeoffs would indicate competition among domestic producers. DSMC I, slip. op. at 23. Finally, the court found that the Commission's refusal to investigate allegations of lost sales and lost revenues because they were incomplete was not a remandable error because it was within the Commission's discretion. However, the court cautioned that the information contained in the lost sales allegations may be of greater importance on remand, and that some investigation of the incomplete allegations may then be appropriate. Id. at 21. In addition, the court remanded the agency's volume, impact, and threat findings since they relied on the flawed limited competition finding.