{"id":2839,"date":"2026-10-31T16:34:36","date_gmt":"2026-10-31T16:34:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hscodematch.com\/news\/us-keeps-anti-dumping-duty-on-chinese-diamond-sawblades-after-third\/"},"modified":"2026-10-31T16:34:37","modified_gmt":"2026-10-31T16:34:37","slug":"us-keeps-anti-dumping-duty-on-chinese-diamond-sawblades-after-third","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hscodematch.com\/news\/us-keeps-anti-dumping-duty-on-chinese-diamond-sawblades-after-third\/","title":{"rendered":"US Keeps Anti-Dumping Duty on Chinese Diamond Sawblades After Third Review"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

United States trade commission voted Oct. 21, 2026 to keep the extra import duty on Chinese diamond sawblades.<\/p>\n

The U.S. International Trade Commission voted on Oct. 21, 2026, to keep the anti-dumping duty on diamond sawblades and their parts from China.<\/p>\n

The decision follows the third five-year review of a duty order first issued on Nov. 4, 20091<\/a><\/sup>. The Commission published its determination in the Federal Register on Oct. 30, 20262<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

In short, nothing changes at the border for Chinese diamond sawblades. Importers keep paying the extra duty, and the order now stays in place for another review cycle.<\/p>\n

Who decided to keep the sawblade duty?<\/h2>\n

Two U.S. agencies share this kind of review. The Department of Commerce looks at whether Chinese makers would sell below fair prices if the duty ended. The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), an independent agency that judges harm to U.S. industry, looks at whether U.S. makers would be hurt3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

An anti-dumping duty<\/strong> is an extra import tax on goods sold abroad below their normal price. U.S. law says such an order must end after five years. It stays only if both agencies find that ending it would likely bring back dumping and harm3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Both agencies have now made that finding. Commerce published its result on July 6, 20264<\/a><\/sup>. The USITC made its vote on Oct. 21, 2026, and filed its determination on Oct. 28, 20262<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

What did the Commission find?<\/h2>\n

The USITC found that removing the duty would likely lead to the "continuation or recurrence of material injury"<\/strong> to U.S. makers2<\/a><\/sup>. In plain words, it expects Chinese imports to hurt U.S. producers again within a reasonably foreseeable time2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

As a result, the existing anti-dumping duty order on these products from China will remain in place3<\/a><\/sup>. Five commissioners voted in favour: Chairman Brett W. Doyle and Commissioners Jason E. Kearns, Peter-Anthony Pappas, Bart Thanhauser and David Foley Jr.3<\/a><\/sup>. Commissioner Samuel T. Negatu did not take part3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

The vote was unanimous among those taking part. No commissioner voted to end the order3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

What did Commerce say about prices?<\/h2>\n

Commerce reviewed the dumping side of the case first. It found that ending the order would likely lead to more dumping4<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Commerce also estimated how deep that dumping could go. It said dumping margins, the gap between the export price and the normal price, could reach up to 164.09%<\/strong> for China4<\/a><\/sup>. That figure shows the price gap Commerce expects if the duty disappears.<\/p>\n

Commerce based this on a short, fast review. It received a full response from a coalition of U.S. producers. It received no response from any Chinese producer or exporter4<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Why was the review so short?<\/h2>\n

Each agency can run a full review or an expedited one. A full review includes a public hearing and questionnaires sent to companies3<\/a><\/sup>. An expedited review<\/strong> skips the hearing and relies on facts already on file3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

The USITC opened its review on March 2, 20261<\/a><\/sup>. It asked interested companies to reply by April 1, 20261<\/a><\/sup>. On June 5, 2026, it decided to run an expedited review3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

The reason was the replies it received. U.S. producers gave an adequate response, but the Chinese side did not3<\/a><\/sup>. Commerce also ran an expedited 120-day review for the same reason4<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

In an expedited review, the Commission bases its decision on the facts available3<\/a><\/sup>. These include its earlier decisions, replies to its notice, staff data and information from Commerce3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Which sawblades does the duty cover?<\/h2>\n

The order covers finished circular sawblades with diamond segments<\/strong>, slotted or not, of any size5<\/a><\/sup>. A segment is the cutting piece made of diamonds and metal powders pressed into a solid shape5<\/a><\/sup>. The diamonds may be natural or synthetic5<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

What the diamond sawblade order covers<\/h4>\n
\n \n \n
Item<\/th>Covered or not<\/th><\/tr>\n <\/thead>\n
Finished blades with diamond segments<\/th>Covered, any size<\/td><\/tr>\n
Cores and segments<\/th>Covered as unfinished parts<\/td><\/tr>\n
Resin or electroplated blades<\/th>Not covered<\/td><\/tr>\n
Thickness<\/th>Not covered under 0.025 or over 1.1 inches<\/td><\/tr>\n
Soft cores<\/th>Not covered below Rockwell C 25<\/td><\/tr>\n
Fine diamonds<\/th>Not covered above mesh size 240<\/td><\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n <\/table><\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Unfinished parts are also covered. These include diamond sawblade cores, which are slotted circular steel plates, and the diamond segments themselves5<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Several products are left out of the order5<\/a><\/sup>:<\/p>\n