Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge. Before the court are two applications for relief in the nature of writs of mandamus instituted by the plaintiff Diamond Saw-blades Manufacturers Coalition (“DSMC”), one of which (Court No. 06-00247) seeks to compel the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) to publish notice of its affirmative remand determination in the Federal Register as a legal consequence of this court’s judgment in Diamond Sawblades Mfr’s Coalition v. United States, Slip Op. 09-5, 2009 WL 289606 (CIT Jan. 13, 2009) (“Slip Op. 09-5”) (sustaining the ITC’s affirmative remand determination), and the other (Court.No.09-00110) seeking to compel the International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) to issue antidumping duty orders and order the collection of cash deposits. Both matters concern the question of whether, absent a stay, the ITC and Commerce are legally obligated to effectuate the decisions of this Court if the case has been appealed. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that they must. The court will grant the plaintiffs requested relief as to Commerce, but will deny the request, on the ground of mootness, as to the ITC. I. Background A. Statement of Facts Some familiarity with Court No. 06-00247 is presumed. In July 2006, the ITC published its final determination that a domestic industry was not materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of diamond sawblades from China and Korea. Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From China and Korea, 71 Fed.Reg. 39,128 (ITC) (July 11, 2006) (“Original Determination”). DSMC, a domestic industry coalition of diamondsawblade manufacturers, challenged the ITC’s final negative injury determination in this Court. In reviewing the determination, the court found that the ITC had failed to provide an adequate explanation or substantial evidentiary support for certain findings. The court remanded the matter to the ITC and instructed the Commission to reconsider and explain more fully its negative-injury determination in light of the court’s opinion. Diamond Sawblades Mfr’s Coalition v. United States, Slip Op. 08-18 2008 WL 576988 (Feb. 6, 2008). On remand, the Commission considered the court’s instructions and reopened the record for the purpose of collecting additional information. It then considered the new information it gathered and issued a new decision on May 14, 2008. In that decision, the Commission again found that the domestic industry was not materially injured by reason of subject imports but reversed its position on the issue of threat-of-material-injury. Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China and Korea, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Final) (Remand), USITC Pub. 4007 (May 2008) (“Remand Determination”). The court sustained the Remand Determination on January 13, 2009. Diamond Sawblades, Slip Op. 09-5. On January 22, 2009, the ITC notified Commerce that this court had issued a final decision sustaining the ITC’s affirmative Remand Determination and that the court’s decision was “ ‘not in harmony with’ the Commission’s original negative injury determination.” Pub. Doc. No. 3 at 1 (Court No. 09-110). As directed by 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(1) and Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.Cir.1990), Commerce published notice of the court’s decision in the Federal Register on February 10, 2009. See Diamond Saw-blades and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China and the People’s Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not In Harmony With Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigations (Commerce Dept.) 74 Fed.Reg. 6570 (Feb. 10, 2009) (“Timken Notice”). In the Timken Notice, Commerce stated that liquidation of subject import entries would be suspended within ten days of that notice, and that an antidumping duty order would be issued if notified by the ITC that Slip Op. 09-5 “is not appealed or is affirmed on appeal.” Id. Shortly after publication of the Timken Notice, DSMC submitted a letter to Commerce suggesting that, in addition to suspension of liquidation, Commerce should order the collection of cash deposits. Pub. Doc. 2 (Court No. 09-110). The Department responded that it would not order the collection of cash deposits until issuance of a final and conclusive court decision and that “[t]he Department interprets Timken to require suspension of liquidation, but not to direct the Department to require cash deposits on or after the date of the notice.” Department of Commerce (“DOC”) Mem. at 4. In a similar correspondence with the ITC, DSMC requested that the Commission publish notice of the affirmative Remand Determination in the Federal Register. DSMC noted that although the ITC had, in a similar case, delayed notice publication until all appeals had been exhausted, delay was not appropriate in the current matter. DSMC asserted that 19 U.S.C. § 1673(d) “requires the Commission to also publish a notice in the Federal Register regarding the remand determination[; therefore] ... we ask that the Commission publish such a notice in order to dispel serious confusion that has arisen with respect to the relief due to the domestic industry in this case.... ” DSMC Letter, ITC Mem. at Attach. B. On March 13, 2009, the defendant-intervenors Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd., and Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., filed notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). The ITC did not appeal. As promised in the Timken Notice, Commerce did not publish an antidumping duty order and did not direct the collection of cash deposits. Further, in a letter dated April 9, 2009, the Commission informed DSMC that, inter alia, it disagreed with DSMC’s interpretation of section 1673d(d) and that it would not publish notice of its Remand Determination at that point in time. ITC Mem. at Attach D. Thereafter, DSMC filed in this court a petition for a writ of mandamus (Court No. 09-00110) to compel the Department of Commerce to issue antidumping duty orders and to require the collection of cash deposits in the respective investigations. One week later DSMC filed in this court a second application for a writ of mandamus (Court No. 06-00247) to compel the ITC to publish notice of the affirmative Remand Determination in the Federal Register. B. Arguments of the Parties 1. ITC Action (Court No. 06-00217) Before the court DSMC argues that it is clearly and indisputably entitled to the relief it seeks because “[t]he Tariff Act of 1930 states that whenever the ITC makes a final threat of material injury determination under [section] 1673d(b), it ‘shall publish notice of its determination in the Federal Register.’ ” DSMC (No. 06-00247) Mem. at 3-4 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(d)). DSMC contends that it has no other means to obtain relief because publication of notice of the affirmative determination is “necessary to effectuate this court’s judgment.” Id. at 1. This is so, DSMC contends (and the defendant-intervenors concur), because 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(b)(2) specifies that when the ITC’s determination is affirmative for threat-of-material-injury only, antidumping duties may not be assessed for any time period prior to the date of publication. Under this scheme, argues DSMC, the ITC’s refusal to publish notice of the affirmative Remand Determination until after all appeals have been decided (which may take almost two years) fundamentally diminishes the relief to which it is legally entitled. The ITC presents two central arguments as to why it does not have a current duty to publish notice of the Remand Determination. First, the ITC contends that delaying publication of remand determinations is consistent with the requirements of the statutory scheme. According to the Commission, “two separate sets of statutory provisions govern the publication of Commission and Commerce determinations, depending on whether the determinations were issued during an antidumping investigation or a court action.” ITC Mem. at 9. The Commission maintains that section 1673d, which provides many of the procedural requirements governing investigations at the administrative level (e.g., time limits, consequences of preliminary and final determinations), only governs procedures in the context of the original investigation. Accordingly, says the ITC, the publication requirement provided in section 1673d is, likewise, a procedure that applies only to the original final determination that resulted from the administrative-level investigation. ITC Mem. at 11. On the other hand, the ITC explains, publication in the context of judicial review is governed by sections 1516a(e) and (e). Those provisions “specify” that when the ITC issues a remand determination adverse to the original determination that is subsequently affirmed by the Court of International Trade (“CIT”), the only publication required at that point is governed by section 1516a(c)(l). Consequently, notes the ITC, section 1516a(c)(l) provides that Commerce, not the ITC, must publish notice of a court decision “not in harmony” with the original determination. ITC Mem. at 12. Second, the ITC argues that DSMC is simply not entitled to the relief it seeks because the type of publication it requests is tantamount to treating the court’s decision as “final and conclusive” and that, contrary to DSMC’s allegations, “the Federal Circuit has consistently stated that a remand determination ... is not to be given full and final effect until the end of [] all appellate proceedings, even if the Court of International Trade has affirmed the determination.” ITC Mem. at 14-15 (citing Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed.Cir.1990)). The Commission argues further that section 1516a(c)(3) states expressly that the agencies (involved) may not take action to effectuate an adverse court decision until the matter has been remanded to the agency pursuant to a final and conclusive court decision. According to the ITC, section 1516a(c)(3) provides “that the courts may only remand the matter to the Commission for ‘disposition consistent with the final disposition of the court’ only after there has been a ‘final disposition of {the} action ... {that} is not in harmony with the published {original} determination of ... the Commission.’ ” ITC Mem. at 13 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(3)) (ITC’s alterations). In other words, the ITC maintains that because the court’s decision in Slip Op. 09-5 is pending appeal before the Federal Circuit, the ITC has no duty to effectuate that decision (by publishing notice of the affirmative Remand Determination) until the matter has been remanded pursuant to a final and conclusive decision on the appeal. Finally, the ITC argues that, even if this court disagrees with the ITC’s interpretation of the statutory scheme, the court must defer to that interpretation because it is reasonable. The Commission notes that, pursuant to the doctrine set forth in Chevron, “a reviewing court must accord substantial weight to the Commission’s reasonable interpretation of the statute it administers.” ITC Mem. at 19 (referencing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)); see also Def.-Int.’s (Court No. 06-00247) Joint Opp. at 13. 2. Commerce Action (Court No. 09-00110) DSMC asserts that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673d(c)(2) and 1673e(a), Commerce’s obligation to issue and publish antidumping duty orders and collect cash deposits was triggered when it received the ITC’s notice that this court had issued a final decision sustaining the affirmative Remand Determination. DSMC No. 09-00110 Mem. at 5-6. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(e)(2) (requiring Commerce to issue an antidumping duty order if the ITC and Commerce both issue affirmative final determinations) and 1673e(a) (requiring Commerce to publish an antidumping duty order “[w]ithin seven days after being notified by the Commission of an affirmative determination under 1673d(b)”). DSMC contends further that in Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 30 CIT 357, 427 F.Supp.2d 1249 (2006), the Court established that a remand determination legally replaces the original determination, and that Commerce is obligated to take action in accordance with a final determination regardless of whether it was issued in the original investigation or pursuant to a court-ordered remand. DSMC thus asserts that the Department’s failure to issue antidumping duty orders and collect cash deposits contravenes its statutory obligation under § 1673e(a), fails to give full effect to the judgment of this court, “and denies [DSMC] relief to which it has an indisputable right.” DSMC No. 09-00110 Mem. at 3. Commerce argues that it presently has no authority to publish antidumping duty orders or to require the posting of cash deposits in this case. Commerce asserts that it “derives its statutory authority to publish an antidumping duty order from its receipt of notice from the ITC of its final affirmative injury determination,” and that, although it had received the ITC’s notice that the affirmative Remand Determination had been sustained by a final court decision, that notice was issued for the “sole purpose” of enabling Commerce to publish the Timken Notice. DOC Mem. at 10. “Nowhere in the letter,” states Commerce, “does the ITC state that the Remand Determination constitutes a section 1673d(b) ‘final determination’ of affirmative injury, as required by section 1673e(a) before Commerce may publish an order.” Id. Commerce further notes that, other than Decca, DSMC is unable to provide any support for its position that the Department has a duty to instruct the collection of cash deposits prior to a conclusive court decision. DOC Mem. at 11. The Department contends that “the holding in Decca — that Commerce was required to adjust the cash deposit rate to the rate determined in an involuntary remand determination relating to a case that had been appealed to the Federal Circuit — was erroneously based upon a misreading of Timken ” and should be disregarded. It asserts further that, contrary to DSMC’s arguments and the “aberrant” Decca opinion, “[t]he Timken court explicitly stated” that when a CIT decision that is “adverse” to the original agency determination is appealed, the sole effect of the CIT’s decision is the suspension of liquidation. DOC Mem. at 13 (citations omitted). Commerce claims to be [unjaware of any case in which any court has held that Commerce has a clear duty to treat a decision of this Court as a “final” and “conclusive” decision during the pendency of an appeal to the Federal Circuit. As Timken made clear, a decision of this Court not in harmony with the agency determination merely removes the agency’s presumption of correctness. Id. Finally, Commerce asserts that denying the writ of mandamus would be “the right outcome because suspension of liquidation preserves the status quo and parties’ substantive rights to the eventual outcome while the agency’s determination is no longer presumed correct and the conclusive outcome is uncertain.” DOC Mem. at 21. For the most part, the defendant-intervenors echo the arguments set forth by the Commission and Commerce, adding that DSMC does not have a clear and indisputable right to the relief it seeks from either agency because the ITC’s Remand Determination is not a “final decision.” The defendant-intervenors further echo that DSMC’s arguments are essentially unsupported because they are premised upon the “aberrant Decca case.” Def.Int’s (Court No. 06-00247) Joint Opp. at 15-16. They assert that the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Timken and Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Manufacturers of America, 85 F.3d 589 (Fed.Cir.1996) clearly establish that Decca was based upon a misreading of Timken and that, contrary to the observations set forth in that opinion, “the Commission’s remand determination does not replace the original determination until the end of all appellate proceedings.” Def.-Int’s (Court No. 09-00110) Joint Resp. at 16. II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review This court has “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced under section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930.” 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Because the court has jurisdiction to determine the effect of, and enforce its own judgments, the court retains jurisdiction over the action to decide the current mandamus actions. Without the power to enforce its judgments, “[t]he judicial power would be incomplete, and entirely inadequate to the purposes for which it was intended.” Bank of the United States v. Halstead, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 51, 53, 6 L.Ed. 264 (1825). This court possesses all the powers in law and equity of, or as conferred by statute upon, a district court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1585. The powers conferred by statute upon the district courts include supplemental jurisdiction provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and mandamus jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (providing that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”). Section 1367 further provides that in any civil action where district courts have original jurisdiction, those courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within its original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). III. Discussion The common-law writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 1651(a) (2006), is a drastic remedy, “to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Because a writ of mandamus is “one of the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal,” Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004), three conditions must be met before the court may issue a writ. First, the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ. Second, the petitioner must demonstrate that he or she lacks adequate alternative means to obtain the desired relief. And third, “even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576. A. DSMC’s Clear and Indisputable Right to the Writ The defendants contend that DSMC does not have a “clear and indisputable” right to the writs because neither the ITC nor Commerce has a duty to perform the actions that DSMC seeks. The defendants assert that, except for suspension of liquidation, the decisions of this court are to be given no effect if the case has been appealed to the Federal Circuit. For the reasons set forth below, this proposition must be rejected. 1. Disposition of Judicial Decisions Pending Appeal “We begin with the basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly.” Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975). If a litigant believes the judgment is incorrect, “the remedy is to appeal, but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with the order pending appeal.” Id. (emphasis added). The principle that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly is fundamental to the expeditious and efficient administration of justice by the courts. United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 293, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). See also Smith Corona v. United States, 915 F.2d 683, 688 (Fed.Cir.1990). In enacting the Customs Courts Act of 1980, Congress confirmed the status of this Court as one “established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States,” and empowered the Court with the same plenary powers in law and equity as those possessed by the United States district courts. 28 U.S.C. §§ 251, 1585, 2643(c)(1). It is without debate that liquidation must await a final and conclusive decision on the matter, and that, as a result, the filing of an appeal essentially stays the effect of the court’s decision as far as liquidation is concerned. But the defendants here advocate that the relevant statutes and caselaw should be interpreted to expand this “stay” to encompass all other legal consequences of the court’s final decision. The practical effect of this interpretation (which defendants do not dispute) would mean that the filing of an appeal by any party essentially nullifies the judgments of this Court to the status of advisory opinions rendered for the purpose of nondeferential Federal Circuit review. On its face, such an interpretation appears contrary to the express intent of Congress to expand the powers of this Court and to provide expeditious judicial review in anti-dumping cases. In the absence of clear and express statutory language, it cannot be accepted that Congress intended that appealed decisions of this Court would not demand the same fundamental compliance that is to be accorded decisions rendered by the district courts. Accord Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 779, 783, 72 S.Ct. 1011, 96 L.Ed. 1294 (1952) (holding that “[statutes which invade the common law ... are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.”). 2. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c) & (e): Effects of Judicial Review The defendants’ arguments focus primarily on 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(c) and (e), which provide, in pertinent part: (c) Liquidation of entries. (1) Liquidation in accordance with determination. Unless such liquidation is enjoined by the court under paragraph (2) of this subsection, entries of merchandise of the character covered by a determination of the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission contested under subsection (a) shall be liquidated in accordance with the determination of the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission, if they are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or before the date of publication in the Federal Register by the Secretary or the administering authority of a notice of a decision of the United States Court of International Trade, or of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, not in harmony with that determination. Such notice of a decision shall be published within ten days from the date of the issuance of the court decision. (2) Injunctive relief. In the case of a determination described in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) by the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission, the United States Court of International Trade may enjoin the liquidation of some or all entries of merchandise covered by a determination of the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission, upon a request by an interested party for such relief and a proper showing that the requested relief should be granted under the circumstances. (3) Remand for final disposition. If the final disposition of an action brought under this section is not in harmony with the published determination of the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission, the matter shall be remanded to the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission, as appropriate, for disposition consistent with the final disposition of the court. * * sis * * (e) Liquidation in accordance with final decision. If the cause of action is sustained in whole or in part by a decision of the United States Court of International Trade or of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit— (1) entries of merchandise of the character covered by the published determination of the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission, which is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after the date of publication in the Federal Register by the Secretary or the administering authority of a notice of the court decision, and (2) entries, the liquidation of which was enjoined under subsection (c)(2) of this section, shall be liquidated in accordance with the final court decision in the action. Such notice of the court decision shall be published within ten days from the date of the issuance of the court decision. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(c), (e). The Commission asserts that it owes no duty to the plaintiff because “the Federal Circuit has consistently stated that, under [sections] 1516a(c) [and] (e), a remand determination is not to be given final and conclusive effect until the end of the entire appellate process, even if the Court of International Trade has sustained that determination.” ITC Mem. at 22. The Commission’s assertions are beside the point, however, because contrary to the implications of this argument, requiring prompt compliance with the court’s judgment is not synonymous with “treatment of that judgment as final and conclusive.” As noted above, it is well established that under section 1516a(e), liquidation must await a final and conclusive decision on the matter. The defendants, however, and with little support, intentionally conflate liquidation with any and all other effects that flow as a consequence of the court’s decision. The fact that liquidation must await a final and conclusive court decision does not imply that all other legal obligations resulting from the court’s decision must likewise await a conclusive decision. Liquidation for customs duty purposes is the “final computation or ascertainment of duties ... accruing upon entry” of goods from abroad into the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1500(d). See Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2006). Final liquidation occurs only once for each entry of goods, and as a general principle may not be subsequently undone. See Cambridge Lee Indus. v. United States, 916 F.2d at 1579 (Fed.Cir.1990) (holding that “[o]nce an entry has been liquidated, the duties paid cannot be recovered even if the payor subsequently prevails in its challenge to the antidumping order.”); Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 810 (Fed.Cir.1983). Liquidation is not the same as the collection of cash deposits, nor is it the same as issuance of an antidumping duty order, and has little to do with the publication notice of an affirmative-injury determination. The statutes refer to each concept distinctly. Compare 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(d), 1673d(c)(l)(B)(ii), 1673e(a), 1673e(c)(3), 1675, 1673f(b)(2) and 1677g (referring to cash deposits) with 19 U.S.C. §§ 1500, 1504, 1505, 1514, 1516a and 1520 (referring to liquidations) and 1673 (referring to antidumping duty orders) and 1673d(b) (referring to publication). Accordingly, it is inappropriate to presume that Congress used the term “liquidation” in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a to refer to cash deposits or issuance of an antidumping duty order. See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 263 F.3d 1369, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2001) (noting that “where Congress has included specific language in one section of a statute but has omitted it from another, related section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress intended the omission.”). Accordingly, the fact that liquidation must await a final and conclusive court decision has no bearing on Commerce’s duty to issue antidumping duty orders or instruct the collection of cash deposits, or on the ITC’s obligations to publish notice of an affirmative determination. 3. Precedential Interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1516a The most detailed analysis of sections 1516a(c)(l) and (e) is set forth in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed.Cir.1990), to which all parties reference as supportive of their positions. In Timken, this Court, after having previously issued a final decision sustaining the Department’s remand determination, ordered Commerce to publish (under § 1516a(c)(1)) notice of a court decision “not in harmony” with the original determination. Prior to the mandamus action, Commerce had refused to publish the notice because it had interpreted section 1516a(c)(1) publication to require a final and conclusive decision, and the CIT decision — which was pending appeal — was not. Hence, when the mandamus order was appealed, the only question to be resolved by the Federal Circuit was when (or whether) Commerce was required to publish a Federal Register notice of an adverse court decision, regardless of the fact that the case had been appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s issuance of mandamus and noted its disagreement with Commerce’s interpretation, stating: Unless the agency is required to publish notice of a CIT decision not in harmony within 10 days of the issuance of the decision (regardless of the time for appeal or of whether an appeal is taken), § 1516a(c)(l) would require that the agency’s determination continue to govern entries even after the CIT’s decision. However, the House Committee report, in discussing § 1516(a), states that the agency’s determination will govern only that merchandise which is “entered prior to the first decision of a court which is adverse” to that determination. Timken, 893 F.2d at 340. The Federal Circuit’s analysis of the term “final” as it is used in section 1516a(e)(1) and (e) was central to its holding in Timken. The Court distinguished between the finality that occurs when the district court “is done with the matter,” and issues final judgment, and the finality that is achieved when the appellate process has run its course and the decision is no longer subject to appeal or collateral attack (i.e., for purposes of this opinion, “final and conclusive,” see note 2). See 893 F.2d at 339. Although Commerce in that case had taken the position that the latter definition applied to its duty to publish notice of a court decision not in harmony with an agency determination under the judicial review provisions of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(c)(l) and (e), the Federal Circuit concluded otherwise: [T]he terms “decision” and “court decision” are used in § 1516a(c)(l) and (e) to denote a decision which is final as far as the rendering court is concerned, even though that decision may be subject to appeal. In support of this interpretation, we merely point to the last sentence of § 1516a(c)(1), which states: “Such notice of a decision shall be published within ten days from the date of the issuance of the court decision.” It is nonsensical to say that a court decision issues only when the time for appeal expires; a decision issues when judgment is entered. Nor do we find it credible to say that a CIT decision does not exist until the time for appeal expires; such an interpretation is contrary to both the common meaning of the term and its use in statutes such as 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5) and 28 U.S.C. § 2645.[FN]6 [FN]6. We do, however, agree that a decision must be “final” in the sense that the CIT has entered final judgment in order to require publication of notice under § 1516a(c)(1) and (e). This is the strict holding of Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 732 F.2d 924 (Fed.Cir.1984).... Timken, 893 F.2d at 340. In sum, the Timken Court determined that, although the section 1516a(e) liquidation directive required a final and conclusive court decision, the publication directed by section 1516a(c)(1) did not: Publication was required if the CIT had issued a final judgment on the matter — regardless of whether that judgment had been appealed. This case gave rise to the term “Timken Notice,” because it established the parameters of section 1516a(e)(l) notice-publication. See Timken, 893 F.2d at 340. However, other than a footnote in Timken that is arguably dictum, the Federal Circuit has never addressed directly the question of whether filing of an appeal suspends any other legal consequence of a CIT decision sustaining a remand determination, such as those at issue here. That footnote, which discusses cash deposits, appears to be the only clear indication of the Federal Circuit’s position on the matter: The timing of publication of notice is of great importance to the parties. Under section 1516a(e), unless liquidation is enjoined by the CIT, liquidation continues under the original Commerce determination until publication of a CIT or Federal Circuit decision not in harmony with Commerce’s determination. Thus, in the present case, liquidation of CMEC’s entries is currently taking place without assessment of antidumping duties, but would be suspended and made subject to collection of estimated antidumping duties of j. 69% upon publication of notice of the March 22, 1989 CIT decision. Id. (emphasis added). Even if dictum, the above-quoted passage is persuasive evidence that the Federal Circuit, at least in the context of Timken, assumed that (1) the collection of cash deposits would commence upon publication of the Timken Notice and that (2) publication was of “great importance” to the litigants precisely because of its effect on cash deposits. At a minimum, this passage significantly undermines the defendants’ contention that Timken “forbids” the collection of cash deposits (or any other action beyond suspension of liquidation) prior to a conclusive court decision. The ITC also points to Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Manufacturers of America, 85 F.3d 589 (Fed.Cir.1996) as support for its position; the defendantintervenors echo this assertion with force, asserting that the Hosiden Court “ruled explicitly on the issue of cash deposits and found that a change in cash deposits is not required as a result of a decision of this Court that is not yet ‘conclusive.’ ” Def.Int’s No. 09-00110 Resp. at 18. The court is unable to agree that Hosiden stands for the proposition the defendants advocate. This Court has never interpreted Hosiden to be more than a reaffirmation of the proposition that, regardless of the circumstances, this Court may not order liquidation of any of the affected merchandise prior to a final and conclusive court decision. It is worth noting that the CIT action on appeal in Hosiden was a writ of mandamus that contained five separate decretal paragraphs, and that the majority of these paragraphs contained more than one specific order. Hence, the Court’s directive ordering Commerce to modify cash deposits and revoke the existing antidumping duty order, and the Court’s directive ordering Commerce to revoke the suspension of liquidation and return previously collected cash deposits, were only two orders among many; however, only the latter order was discussed in the opinion. See Hosiden Corp. v. United States, 861 F.Supp. 115, 120-21 (1994). While it is true that the Federal Circuit subsequently vacated the writ of mandamus as contrary to law, the sole focus of that rather brief opinion was that section 1516a(e) and relevant precedent precluded this Court from ordering liquidation prior to the issuance of the final decision on appeal. Specifically, the Court stated: Statute and precedent are clear that the decision of the Court of International Trade is not a “final court decision” when appeal has been taken to the Federal Circuit. The Court of International Trade does not have discretion to require liquidation before the final decision on appeal. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e) requires that liquidation, once enjoined, remains suspended until there is a “conclusive court decision which decides the matter, so that subsequent entries can be liquidated in accordance with that conclusive decision.” Hosiden, 85 F.3d at 591 (Fed.Cir.1996) (quoting Timken, 893 F.2d at 342). Although Hosiden contains the very broad language quoted by the defendants (in the first sentence of the passage quoted above), the sentence that follows limits the holding to matters regarding liquidation and section 1516a(e). At best, Hosiden might be construed to prohibit the return of previously collected cash deposits (which may only be returned upon liquidation, see 19 U.S.C. § 1505), but defendant-intervenors assertion that the Hosiden Court “ruled explicitly on the issue of cash deposits,” is simply not credible. 4. Chevron Deference and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a Before addressing further the ITC’s interpretation of section 1516a, the court must clarify that the ITC’s interpretation of that statute is not entitled to Chevron deference. The familiar two-part analysis set forth in Chevron guides the court’s analysis when determining the lawfulness of an agency’s construction of a statute it administers, and in the first part of the analysis, the court must look to “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778. If the court finds that Congress has clearly spoken to the question at issue, the analysis is at an end, “for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. However, if the court finds the statute to be silent or ambiguous, it reaches the second step of the analysis, where it must determine whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable; the court must defer to that interpretation if it “reflects a plausible construction of the plain language of the statute and does not otherwise conflict with Congress’ express intent.” Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 184, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991); Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 36 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed.Cir.1994). Implicit in the first step of the Chevron analysis, however, is a third question, which must be answered in the affirmative before proceeding: Has Congress truly delegated to the agency the task of administering the statute in question? That is, if there is an interpretive “gap” in the statute, is it reasonable to conclude that the “gap” is one that Congress expected the agency to fill? The Supreme Court touched upon the issue in Smiley v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A, explaining: We accord deference to agencies under Chevron, not because of a presumption that they drafted the provisions in question, or were present at the hearings, or spoke to the principal sponsors; but rather because of a presumption that Congress, when it left ambiguity in a statute meant for implementation by an agency, understood that the ambiguity would be resolved, first and foremost, by the agency, and desired the agency (rather than the courts) to possess whatever degree of discretion the ambiguity allows. Smiley, 517 U.S. 735, 740-741, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 135 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996) (italics added). In brief, the two-step Chevron analysis is warranted only when (a) Congress appears to have delegated authority to the agency; and (b) the agency interpretation in question “was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-227, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). See also Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 255-256, 126 S.Ct. 904, 163 L.Ed.2d 748 (2006); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). The particular statute the ITC would interpret, however, is unlike the provision accorded interpretive deference in Chevron (the definition of “point source”) or United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 119 S.Ct. 1392, 143 L.Ed.2d 480 (1999) (interpreting a particular exemption in HTSUS), and a multitude of other cases. Here, the ITC and the defendant-intervenors contend that the court should accord deference to the ITC’s interpretation of section 1516a of Title 19 of the United States Code, which the ITC itself describes as governing “[j]udicial review in countervailing duty and antidumping duty proceedings.” In other words, the ITC contends it is entitled to deference on its interpretation of the very statutes governing aspects of the judicial proceedings to which it is a party. Such a proposition is patently unreasonable and must be rejected. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Accordingly, the court affords no deference to the ITC’s interpretation of section 1516a. 5. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(3): Remand for Final Disposition In proceedings before this Court, references to section 1516a(c)(3) have been used almost universally as support for the Court’s ability to issue remands. See, e.g., United States Steel Group v. United States, 24 CIT 1326, 1332, 123 F.Supp.2d 1365, 1372 (2000); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 827 (1995). However, the ITC proposes that section 1516a(c)(3) means something entirely different. The Commission asserts that, based upon the analysis set forth in Timken, the term “final” used in section 1516a(c)(3) clearly means “final and conclusive.” Hence, says the Commission, section 1516a(c)(3) is, in reality a provision that “instructs that the courts may only remand the matter to the Commission for disposition consistent with the final disposition of the court” after there has been a “final disposition of {the} action ... {that} is not in harmony with the {original} published determination ... of the Commission.” ITC Mem. at 13 (ITC’s alterations). In other words, the Commission states that it has no duty to take action “consistent with the final disposition of the court” unless the matter has been remanded pursuant to a final and conclusive decision, which has not yet occurred in this case. As noted above, the ITC’s interpretation of section 1516a(c)(3) is derived, in part, from the Timken Court’s conclusion that the term “final” in section 1516a(e) referred to a final and conclusive decision. Specifically, where that Court notes: Most persuasive is the fact that the term “final court decision” must be read together with the words that follow, specifically, “in the action.” An “action” does not end when one court renders a decision, but continues through the appeal process. Thus, an appealed CIT decision is not the final court decision in the action. In this context, the word “final” is used as it is used in 28 U.S.C. § 2645(c), ie., to mean “conclusive.” Thus, § 1516a(e) does not require liquidation in accordance with an appealed CIT decision, since that section requires that liquidation take place in accordance with the final court decision in the action. Timken, 893 F.2d at 339-40. According to the ITC, the above analysis combines with the “canons of statutory construction” to demonstrate that the term “final” as it is used in section 1516a(c)(3) must likewise refer only to a final and conclusive court decision: Congress used the word “final” to describe court action only in these two subsections of section 1516a. The canons of statutory construction instruct that use of an identical term within various provisions of a statute should normally be given the same meaning. By using the term “final” to refer to court action in subsection 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(3) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e), while omitting that modifier in other sections, Congress made clear that these sections were intended to cover only “final” appellate action.... As a result, the references in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(3) to the “final disposition of an action” and “the final disposition of the court” refer to the court decision that finally and conclusively disposes of the action. ITC Mem. at 21-22, n.21 (citations omitted). Thus, the Commission argues essentially that the Timken Court’s conclusion as to the meaning of the term “final” in section 1516a(e) must also be applied to that term as it is used in section 1516a(c)(3). The court finds this analysis flawed in several respects. First, the analysis igñores that it is also a basic canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute “must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989). The Timken court’s conclusion that the term “final” as it is used in section 1516(e) means “final and conclusive” was not simply the result of applying a single canon of statutory construction. On the contrary, that conclusion resulted from an observation as to the plain meaning of the text, an analysis as to whether that meaning was consistent with the statutory scheme, and confirmation that the proposed meaning of the term was supported by legislative history and could be harmonized with existing caselaw. See Timken, 893 F.2d at 339-40. Second, the ITC focuses on the term “final” at the expense of ignoring the rest of the statute — particularly the term “remand.” Unlike the term “final,” the definition of a remand is rarely subject to ambiguity or debate. A remand is a type of court order; it means “[t]o send (a case or claim) back to the court or tribunal from which it came for some further action.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1407 (9th ed.2009). See Ford Motor Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 364, 374, 59 S.Ct. 301, 83 L.Ed. 221 (1939) (noting that a remand “means simply that the case is returned to the administrative body in order that it may take further action in accordance with the applicable law.”). A remand order is generally considered to be “an interlocutory order that does not divest a court of jurisdiction.” Avery v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 762 F.2d 158 (1st Cir.1985). However, when combined with the ITC’s definition of “finality,” the ordering of a remand makes no sense. Under the ITC’s interpretation, the conclusive finality of a judgment — and the alleged duty to issue a remand — ripens at a point in time when “remand” (as the term is used in American jurisprudence) is no longer possible. That is, once a case has achieved the “conclusive” finality that the ITC asserts is a prerequisite for a 1516a(c)(3) remand, no further action may be taken on that case. Although a court may enforce its judgments, that is not the same as a remand. A court remands a matter for action on the case, which cannot occur subsequent to a final and conclusive decision. The ITC’s interpretation of section 1516a(c)(3) would require the court, inter alia, to expand the definition of a thoroughly-understood term to mean something entirely different. This the court is unwilling to do. It is perhaps worth noting that the Commission’s proposed interpretation attempts to fashion section 1516a(c)(3) in the likeness section 1514(a). Section 1514(a) provides that “[w]hen a judgment or order of the United States Court of International Trade has become final, the papers transmitted shall be returned, together with a copy of the judgment or order to the Customs Service, which shall take action accordingly.” 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a). In this provision, Congress expressly provided that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) — directly, and without remand — is to effectuate the Court’s decision upon receipt of a judgment or order that “has become final.” Because a judgment of this Court is final and appealable on the date it is issued, a judgment can only “become final” in the sense that it is no longer subject to appeal or collateral attack, i.e., final and conclusive. See Heraeus-Amersil v. United States, 10 CIT 438, 638 F.Supp. 342 (1986). Accordingly, the existence of such a clear statutory directive demonstrates that when Congress intended to delay the enforcement of this Court’s decisions, it did so explicitly. In any event, the court is not persuaded that the Timken Court’s interpretation of “the final court decision in the action” as it is used in section 1516a(e) may be so readily applied to section 1516a(c)(3), because the language of that latter provision is slightly different. The Timken Court focused on the phrase “in the action” as persuasive evidence that “the final court decision in the action ” referred to a final and conclusive court decision, as opposed to the finality that occurs from this Court’s entry of judgment. By contrast, section 1516a(c)(3) refers to “the final disposition of an action brought under this section,” which, arguably, means something entirely different. The phrase “an action brought under this section” (or “this subsection” or “paragraph”) is used several times in section 1516a simply to describe which causes of action are governed by the particular provision. Moreover, the Commission overlooks that a “final disposition” is not necessarily the same as a “final court decision.” Under CIT Rule 16, a matter is submitted “for final disposition” when the deadline for the submission of pleadings or evidence has passed and the matter is submitted to the Court so that it may render a decision. See CIT Rule 16(e); see also CIT Rules 16(a)(4), 16(e), 16(b)(3)(B)(v), 30(f)(1), 84(h). Hence, under the Court’s Rules (which were adopted in the Customs Courts Act of 1980, shortly after the Trade Agreements Act of 1979), a “final disposition” would include not only judgments that are “final and appealable,” but interlocutory decisions as well, such as a remand. Moreover, as noted above, the vast majority of judicial references to section 1516a(c)(3) do not support the ITC’s interpretation. In one of the few (perhaps only) judicial discussions of that specific provision, the Federal Circuit interpreted section 1516a(e)(3) as curtailing this Court’s ability to reverse or modify the agency decision, stating: Section 1516a limits the Court of International Trade to affirmances and remand orders; an outright reversal without a remand does not appear to be contemplated by the statute: “If the [Court of International Trade’s] final disposition of an action brought under this section is not in harmony with the published determination [of] the Commission, the matter shall be remanded to ... the Commission, as appropriate, for disposition consistent with the final disposition of the [Court of International Trade].” Altx v. United States, 370 F.3d at 1108, 1111 n. 2 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting 1516a(c)(3)) (alterations in original). By contrast, the ITC’s interpretation implies that the Court is not so restricted. Case law suggests that, prior to the enactment of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the powers of the Court were viewed in a manner that might charitably be described as the exact opposite of how they are viewed today. During that time, this Court’s predecessor voided the agency decision and ordered liquidation in accordance with its own opinion, eschewing remands in all but the most unusual circumstances. See, e.g., ASG Industries, Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct. 101, 149-52, 467 F.Supp. 1200, 1239-41 (1979). Finally, the court cannot agree with the ITC’s assertion that its interpretation is supported by legislative history. The “support” to which the Commission refers is a single comment found in the Senate Finance Committee Report on H.R. 4537 (signed into law as the Trade Agreements Act of 1979). That comment describes the new section 1516a(c)(3) as providing “that if the final disposition of an action instituted under the section is not in harmony with the challenged decision, the matter shall be remanded to the decision-maker for disposition consistent with the court’s decision.” S. Rep. No. 96-249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 249. The court finds this statement profoundly unilluminating as to the issue here; this comment simply repeats the language of the statute with no indication of a deliberate effort to interpret it. However, three pages later the same Senate Report contains the following statement: It is ... unclear under the current law whether the Customs Court can or should remand a matter to an administrative agency when it holds that the agency’s decision is erroneous. Section [1516a] will make it clear that the court has the power to remand the matter to the agency. Id. at 252. This statement is clearly inconsistent with the interpretation advocated by the ITC, and, unlike the previous comment, it reflects a deliberate effort to interpret the provision. In toto, the Senate Report comments are, at best, in equipoise; though more accurately, the Senate Report appears to contravene the ITC’s position. 6. Consequences of An Affirmative Determination Commerce takes the position that because it has not received “formal” notice of an affirmative ITC decision issued under section 1673d(b), it therefore cannot lawfully issue antidumping duty orders or collect cash deposits. See, e.g., DOC Mem. at 9-10. More specifically, Commerce argues: Although the January 22 letter briefly recounts the history of DSMC Slip Op. 09-5, and includes a copy of the administrative remand determination, the letter does not provide notice “of an affirmative determination under section 1673d(b).” The sole purpose of the January 22, 2009 letter was “to inform [Commerce] of the final decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade ... regarding the Commission’s [original negative injury] determinations.” The letter explains that the ITC made an affirmative determination upon remand, and that this Court’s opinion in DSMC Slip Op. 09-5 affirming that remand constitutes a decision not in harmony.... Nowhere in the letter does the ITC state that the remand determination constitutes a section 1673d(b) “final determination” of affirmative injury, as required by section 1673e(a) before Commerce may publish an order. DOC Mem. at 10 (citations omitted) (DOC’s alterations). Under Commerce’s logic, the ITC’s Remand Determination was reached only pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. A remand determination is not so insulated. The third branch of government does not “take over” an antidumping matter from the executive branch; the role of the Court is statutorily confined to deciding whether or not there is substantial evidence on the record to support the executive determination reached. Further, section 1516a(c)(3) provides that “[i]f the final disposition of an action brought under this section is not in harmony with the published determination of the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission, the matter shall be remanded to the Secretary, the administering authority, or the Commission, as appropriate, for disposition consistent with the final disposition of the court.” The matter in this instance was, of course, the ITC’s final negative determination that it made pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673d, see 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(2)(B)(ii), which this court found “unlawful” in accordance with 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The ITC does not comment directly on the legal implications of its notice to the Department. Instead, it argues that section 1673 publication does not apply to determinations that result from judicial review. The ITC contends that separate statutory provisions govern the publication of agency determinations “depending on whether the determinations were issued during an antidumping investigation or a court action” (ITC Mem. at 9), a contention that is apparently based only on an observation of the overall statutory scheme. More specifically, the ITC reasons that because the provisions contained in section 1673d govern procedure undertaken “within the specific time frames during an investigation specified in sections 1673d(b)(2) & (3), it is clear that the publication requirement in section 1673d(d) is ... directly applicable only to final determinations issued by the Commission during the course of an injury investigation.” Id. at 10. Conversely, says the ITC, section 1516a governs publication during judicial review and section 1516a(e) supports the Commission’s practice of not publishing notice of a remand determination until a final and conclusive decision in the matter. Id. at 17. The main problem with the ITC’s argument, of course, is that nowhere in the text of section 1673 d(d) or the related subsections is there any indication that those provisions do not apply to determinations issued pursuant to a court-ordered remand. Further, even if the court were to accept such a premise, ITC’s interpretation is not entirely consistent with its own argument. That is, because a final and conclusive decision is, by definition, still a product of judicial review, it would still not constitute the section 1673d(b) determination that Commerce argues is strictly required, and, seemingly, would not trigger the section 1673d(d) notice-publication requirement. 7. Legal Replacement of the Original Determination In Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States, the court observed that “Commerce’s own remand determination, as a matter of law, replaces Commerce’s original, final determination.” 30 CIT 357, 363, 427 F.Supp.2d 1249, 1255 n. 11 (2006). The defendants roundly attack that proposition as “unsupported,” but, ironically, provide no support to the contrary. Whatever the reasons for this lack of support, the court is compelled to agree with Decca. That a remand determination replaces the original determination is a notion so basic to administrative law that few courts have found the need to articulate it expressly. If the remand determination did not legally replace the original determination (which the court has, by definition deemed unlawful or inadequate), orders of remand would be pointless; the court would have no reason (and likely no jurisdiction) to review remand determinations. Furthermore, because a judicial holding that an agency decision is unlawful essentially constitutes a vacatur of that decision, a new determination is logically necessary to fill the void. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (providing that the reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside” agency actions unsupported by substantial evidence); Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2005) (holding that an agency’s “failure to provide the necessary clarity for judicial review requires that the action be vacated”) (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142-43, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973)); Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (D.C.Cir.2002) (stating that “[n]ormally, when an agency so clearly violates the APA we would vacate its action ... and simply remand for the agency to start again.”). Even without vacatur, the entire purpose of a remand is to allow the lower tribunal to rectify or replace a decision that a court has found to be deficient. Although the practical effect of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Melamine Chemicals essentially operates to stay the legal effects of the vacatur until the Court’s issuance of judgment (which may only occur when the court sustains a (remand) determination), that fact is irrelevant here because the court has rendered the requisite final decision and issued the judgment necessary to give that decision legal effect. Tembec, Inc. v. United States, 31 CIT -, 475 F.Supp.2d 1393, n. 2 (2007) (noting that “judgment is the legal pronouncement of [the] decision and the act that gives the decision legal effect.”). Accordingly, the contention that the original vacated or unlawful determination continues to “govern” after issuance of judgment is simply a legal impossibility. Cf. Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 357 F.3d 1294, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2004) (dissent) (observing that “[i]ndeed, once the Commission issued its remand determination, the negative preliminary determination ceased to exist and the current posture of the case was that the Commission had issued an affirmative preliminary determination, with continuing administrative proceedings to come”). The process of judicial review reveals no distinction between original determinations and remand determinations and lends no support to the inference that remand determinations do not have the same legal status as the original determination. The court’s review of agency determinations issued pursuant to a court-ordered remand is governed by the same standard of review used in reviewing the original determination. The statutory “presumption of correctness” afforded to agency decisions contains no distinction between