[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59721-59738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8622]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-904]


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Activated Carbon From the 
People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2006.

[[Page 59722]]

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain activated carbon from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as 
provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the 
``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Anya Naschak, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3207 
or 202-482-6375, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History

    On March 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition on imports of certain activated carbon from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') from Calgon Carbon Corporation and 
Norit Americas Inc. (``Petitioners''). This investigation was initiated 
on March 28, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
16757 (April 4, 2006) (``Initiation Notice'').
    Since the initiation of this investigation, the following events 
have occurred. On April 4, 2006, the Department requested quantity and 
value (``Q&V'') information from the producers and exporters of certain 
activated carbon that Petitioners identified in the petition. Also, on 
April 4, 2006, the Department sent a letter requesting Q&V information 
to the China Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports (``BOFT'') of 
the Ministry of Commerce (``MOFCOM'') requesting that BOFT transmit the 
letter to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise 
to the United States, or produce the subject merchandise for the 
companies who were engaged in exporting the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the period of investigation (``POI'').
    The Q&V information was due on April 19, 2006. The Department 
received twenty-three responses. The Department did not receive any 
type of communication from BOFT regarding its request for Q&V 
information. For a complete list of all parties from which the 
Department requested Q&V information, see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Carrie Blozy, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior 
Case Analyst, Office 9: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping 
Investigation of Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of 
China, dated May 3, 2006 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
    On April 21, 2006, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there 
is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports from the PRC of certain activated carbon. The ITC's 
determination was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2006. See 
Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Preliminary), Certain Activated Carbon 
From China, 71 FR 25858 (May 2, 2006).
    On May 3, 2006, the Department selected Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) 
Co., Ltd. (``CCT''), Tianjin Jacobi Int'l Trading Co., Ltd. (``Jacobi 
Tianjin''), and Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd and its 
affiliated company Beijing Hibridge Trading Co., Ltd. (``Huibao/
Hibridge''), as mandatory respondents in this investigation. See 
Respondent Selection Memo. On May 4, 2006, the Department issued the 
full antidumping questionnaire to the selected mandatory respondents.
    On May 15, 2006, the Department received a letter from Huibao/
Hibridge, informing the Department that Huibao/Hibridge was withdrawing 
from this investigation. See Memorandum to the File from Catherine 
Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, dated May 15, 2006. Additionally, as 
described below, although Huibao/Hibridge filed a separate rate 
application, we have not considered its request for a separate rate in 
this investigation given its failure to participate as a mandatory 
respondent. Any references to the separate rate applicants in this 
notice specifically exclude Huibao/Hibridge.
    On May 19, 2006, the Department selected an additional mandatory 
respondent, Jilin Province Bright Future Chemicals Co. Ltd. (``JBF 
Chemical'') and its affiliated company Jilin Province Bright Future 
Industry & Commerce Co. Ltd. (``JBF Industry'') (collectively, ``Jilin 
Bright Future''). See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, through Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, 
Office 9: Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent, dated May 19, 
2006, (``Additional Respondent Selection Memo''). On May 19, 2006, the 
Department issued the full antidumping questionnaire to Jilin Bright 
Future.
    On April 20, 2006, the Department requested comments from all 
interested parties on proposed product characteristics to be used in 
the designation of control numbers (``CONNUMs'') to be assigned to the 
subject merchandise. The Department received comments from Petitioners. 
On May 10, 2006, the Department released the product characteristics to 
be used in the designation of CONNUMs to be assigned the subject 
merchandise.
    On June 1, 2006, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, 
Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the 
PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron 
Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to James C. Doyle, Office 
Director, Office 9: Antidumping Investigation of Certain Activated 
Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries, dated June 1, 2006. (``Office of Policy Surrogate 
Countries Memorandum'').
    On June 6, 2006, the Department invited interested parties to 
comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and/or 
significant production in the potential surrogate countries and to 
submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production. On July 25, 2006, we received comments from Petitioners on 
the selection of a surrogate country. No other party to the proceeding 
submitted information or comments concerning the selection of a 
surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the selection of the 
surrogate country, See ``Surrogate Country'' section below, and the 
Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
from Anya Naschak, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated 
October 4, 2006 (``Surrogate Country Memo'').
    On July 25, 2006, Jacobi Tianjin submitted comments on information 
with which to value the factors of production in this investigation. 
Petitioners and Jilin Bright Future submitted comments on information 
with which to value the factors of production in this investigation on 
August 10, 2006. Petitioners submitted additional comments on August 
21, 2006.
    We received questionnaire responses from the mandatory respondents 
in June and July 2006, and we issued supplemental questionnaires and 
received responses in July, August, and September 2006. We received 
separate rate applications from 20 companies.

[[Page 59723]]

We issued deficiency questionnaires to all applicants. See ``Separate 
Rates'' section below, and the Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Anya Naschak, Senior Case Analyst, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates 
Memorandum, dated October 4, 2006 (``Separate Rates Memo'').
    On July 21, 2006, Petitioners made a timely request pursuant to 
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day 
postponement of the preliminary determination, until October 4, 2006. 
On August 2, 2006, the Department published a postponement of the 
preliminary antidumping duty determination on certain activated carbon 
from the PRC. See Postponement of Preliminary Determination of 
Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 43714 (August 2, 2006).

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until no later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise or, in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the Petitioners. The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months.
    On September 26, 2006, CCT requested the Department postpone its 
final determination by 60 days until 135 days after the publication of 
the preliminary determination. Additionally, CCT requested that the 
Department extend the provisional measures under Section 733(d) of the 
Act. Accordingly, because we have made an affirmative preliminary 
determination and the requesting parties account for a significant 
proportion of the exports of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 
735(a)(2) of the Act, we have postponed the final determination until 
no later than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination and are extending the provisional measures accordingly.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2005, through 
December 31, 2005.
    This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters 
prior to the month of the filing of the petition (March 8, 2006). See 
19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain activated 
carbon. Certain activated carbon is a powdered, granular, or pelletized 
carbon product obtained by ``activating'' with heat and steam various 
materials containing carbon, including but not limited to coal 
(including bituminous, lignite, and anthracite), wood, coconut shells, 
olive stones, and peat. The thermal and steam treatments remove organic 
materials and create an internal pore structure in the carbon material. 
The producer can also use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place 
of steam in this process. The vast majority of the internal porosity 
developed during the high temperature steam (or CO2 gas) 
activated process is a direct result of oxidation of a portion of the 
solid carbon atoms in the raw material, converting them into a gaseous 
form of carbon.
    The scope of this investigation covers all forms of activated 
carbon that are activated by steam or CO2, regardless of the 
raw material, grade, mixture, additives, further washing or post-
activation chemical treatment (chemical or water washing, chemical 
impregnation or other treatment), or product form. Unless specifically 
excluded, the scope of this investigation covers all physical forms of 
certain activated carbon, including powdered activated carbon 
(``PAC''), granular activated carbon (``GAC''), and pelletized 
activated carbon.
    Excluded from the scope of the investigation are chemically-
activated carbons. The carbon-based raw material used in the chemical 
activation process is treated with a strong chemical agent, including 
but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc chloride sulfuric acid or 
potassium hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in the raw material, and 
results in the formation of water that is removed from the raw material 
by moderate heat treatment. The activated carbon created by chemical 
activation has internal porosity developed primarily due to the action 
of the chemical dehydration agent. Chemically activated carbons are 
typically used to activate raw materials with a lignocellulosic 
component such as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, paper mill waste 
and peat.
    To the extent that an imported activated carbon product is a blend 
of steam and chemically activated carbons, products containing 50 
percent or more steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are 
within this scope, and those containing more than 50 percent chemically 
activated carbons are outside this scope.
    Also excluded from the scope are reactivated carbons. Reactivated 
carbons are previously used activated carbons that have had adsorbed 
materials removed from their pore structure after use through the 
application of heat, steam and/or chemicals.
    Also excluded from the scope is activated carbon cloth. Activated 
carbon cloth is a woven textile fabric made of or containing activated 
carbon fibers. It is used in masks and filters and clothing of various 
types where a woven format is required.
    Any activated carbon meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise provided above that is not expressly excluded from the 
scope is included within this scope. The products under investigation 
are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') subheading 3802.10.00. Although HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), in 
our initiation notice we set aside a period of time for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the 
initiation notice. See Initiation Notice 71 FR at 16758.
    On May 4, 2006, Carbochem Inc. (``Carbochem'') submitted timely 
scope comments in which it argued that the Department should issue a 
ruling that the scope of these investigations does not cover certain 
grades of Carbochem[supreg] activated carbon. Carbochem argued that 
these certain grades are not manufactured in the United States by the 
Petitioners. Carbochem further argued that it has developed a number of 
unique and proprietary grades of activated carbon that exceed the 
performance capabilities of the products produced by Petitioners.
    On August 24, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments on Carbochem's 
scope request. Petitioners argued that

[[Page 59724]]

the domestic industry does manufacture products with the same or 
competitive properties and performance characteristics as the products 
for which Carbochem proposed an exclusion. Petitioners further argued 
that the domestic industry is not required to produce every product 
that is within the scope of the investigation but simply has to be able 
to produce the class or kind of products covered by the scope, which 
Petitioners argue that they do. Petitioners assert that there is no 
basis on which to exclude the products requested by Carbochem. On 
September 14, 2006, Carbochem filed rebuttal comments in response to 
Petitioners' August 24, 2006 submission stating that its products are 
not comparable to those produced by Petitioners.
    The Department has analyzed the comments received by Carbochem and 
Petitioners. For this preliminary determination, the Department has 
determined to deny the request by Carbochem. For a detailed discussion 
of this issue, see the Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Comments 
on the Scope of the Investigation, dated October 4, 2006 (``Scope 
Memorandum''). We will afford interested parties an opportunity to 
provide comments on our preliminary finding on this issue in their case 
and rebuttal briefs, and, if any are provided, we will revisit this 
issue in our final determination.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual weighted-average dumping margins for each known exporter and 
producer of the subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act 
gives the Department discretion, when faced with a large number of 
exporters/producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of 
such companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where 
it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of 
subject merchandise, this provision permits the Department to 
investigate either (A) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of 
products that is statistically valid based on the information available 
to the Department at the time of selection or (B) exporters/producers 
accounting for the largest volume of the merchandise under 
investigation that can reasonably be examined. After consideration of 
the complexities expected to arise in this proceeding and the available 
resources, the Department determined that it was not practicable in 
this investigation to examine all known producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise. Instead, we limited our examination to the three exporters 
accounting for the largest volume of shipments of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. We selected CCT, Jacobi Tianjin, and Huibao/
Hibridge to be mandatory respondents, as they are the exporters 
accounting for the largest volume of exports to the United States 
during the POI of subject merchandise from the PRC. After Huibao/
Hibridge informed the Department that it was withdrawing from this 
investigation, the Department selected Jilin Bright Future as a 
mandatory respondent. Jilin Bright Future was the next largest 
producer/exporter of those companies that submitted quantity and value 
responses. See Respondent Selection Memo and Additional Respondent 
Selection Memo.

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME''). See Initiation Notice. In 
every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has 
been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). No party has 
challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this 
investigation. Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for 
purposes of this preliminary determination.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a 
surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the normal value section below.
    On July 25, 2006, the Department received comments from Petitioners 
on the appropriate surrogate country for valuing the factors of 
production (``FOP''). Petitioners argue that India is the most 
appropriate surrogate country in this investigation because India is at 
a comparable level of economic development with the PRC based on the 
Department's repeated use of India as a surrogate. Petitioners also 
provided evidence demonstrating that India is a significant producer of 
identical and comparable merchandise. Additionally, Petitioners contend 
that India provides publicly available information on which to base 
surrogate values. See Surrogate Country Memo for a complete description 
of Petitioners' surrogate country arguments.
    As detailed in the Surrogate Country Memo, the Department has 
preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country on the basis 
that: (1) It is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) 
it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) 
of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to 
value the FOP. See Surrogate Country Memo. Thus, we have calculated 
normal value using Indian prices, when available and appropriate, to 
value the FOP of the certain activated carbon producers. We have 
obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever 
possible. See Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak, Senior Case 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 
Determination, dated October 4, 2006 (``Surrogate Value Memo'').
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the FOP within forty 
days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.

[[Page 59725]]

Affiliation

    Based on the evidence on the record of this investigation, we 
preliminarily find that Jacobi Tianjin, Jacobi Carbons AB (``Jacobi 
AB''), and Jacobi Carbons Inc. (``Jacobi US'') (collectively, 
``Jacobi'') are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(D), (E), and 
(G) of the Act. Due to the proprietary nature of this issue, for a 
detailed discussion of our analysis, see Memorandum to the File from 
Anya Naschak, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, to James C. 
Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations: Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Treatment of Sales of 
Jacobi Tianjin International Trading Co., Ltd., Jacobi Carbons AB, and 
Jacobi Carbons, Inc., dated October 4, 2006 (``Jacobi Affiliation and 
Treatment of Sales Memo'').
    With respect to Jilin Bright Future, JBF Chemical and JBF Industry 
submitted separate rate applications on May 4, 2006. In their 
applications, JBF Chemical and JBF Industry certified that they were 
affiliated with each other. See JBF Chemical and JBF Industry's 
separate rate applications dated May 4, 2006. In their Section A 
questionnaire responses, dated June 9, 2006, JBF Chemical and JBF 
Industry stated that both companies are under common ownership. See JBF 
Chemical's Section A questionnaire response dated June 9, 2006, at 2 
and Exhibit A-3; JBF Industry's Section A questionnaire response dated 
June 9, 2006, at 2 and Exhibit A-3. Based on the evidence on the record 
of this investigation, we preliminarily find that JBF Chemical and JBF 
Industry are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act.

Separate Rates

    CCT has reported that it is wholly foreign-owned. CCT reported that 
100 percent of its shares are held by Calgon Carbon Corporation, which 
is located in the United States. Therefore, there is no PRC ownership 
of CCT, and because we have no evidence indicating that it is under the 
control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to 
determine whether it is independent from government control. See Brake 
Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of 
the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 
(January 8, 2001), unchanged in the final determination; Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 
Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104 (December 
20, 1999). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate rate 
for CCT.
    As discussed in detail in the Jacobi Affiliation and Treatment of 
Sales Memo, the Department has preliminarily determined that Jacobi 
Tianjin should not be considered the mandatory respondent in this 
investigation. The Department has preliminarily determined that Jacobi 
Tianjin's affiliated company, Jacobi AB, conducted all sales-related 
activities with respect to exports made by Jacobi Tianjin of the 
merchandise under investigation and sold to unaffiliated U.S. customers 
through Jacobi US. See Jacobi Affiliation and Treatment of Sales Memo. 
All exports made by Jacobi Tianjin were negotiated and sold by Jacobi 
AB and Jacobi Tianjin made no sales during the POI; therefore, Jacobi 
Tianjin has not demonstrated that it qualifies for a separate rate.\1\ 
However, because the Department has preliminarily determined that 
Jacobi AB is the respondent in this investigation, because Jacobi AB is 
a market economy company located in Sweden (see Jacobi's Section A 
questionnaire response dated June 1, 2006 at page 14), and consistent 
with the Department's practice where the seller is located in a market 
economy country, we have preliminarily granted Jacobi AB its own rate. 
See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicomanganese From Kazakhstan, 66 FR 56639, 56641 (November 9, 
2001), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Silicomanganese From Kazakhstan, 67 FR 15535 (April 2, 
2002). Further, where Jacobi Tianjin acted as an export facilitator for 
Jacobi AB, those exports are also eligible for Jacobi AB's antidumping 
duty cash deposit rate. See 19 CFR 351.107(b)(2); Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. See also 
Jacobi Affiliation and Treatment of Sales Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department notes that although Jacobi Tianjin submitted 
a separate rate application and complete information in its Section 
A questionnaire response, all documents contained therein 
demonstrate that Jacobi AB was the seller of the merchandise. See 
Jacobi Affiliation and Treatment of Sales Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. As 
explained below, Jilin Bright Future and certain companies who 
submitted separate rate applications have provided company-specific 
information in order to demonstrate that they operate independently of 
de jure and de facto government control, and, therefore, satisfy the 
standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    The separate rate application issued in this investigation (see 
http://www.trade.gov/ia/) explained that all applications are due sixty 
calendar days after publication of the Initiation Notice, and the 
Department will not consider applications that remain incomplete by 
that deadline. We received 20 applications by the deadline. On June 14, 
2006, the Department received a request from Ningxia Fengyuan Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd. (``NFAC'') to extend the time limits with which to 
submit a response to the Department's quantity and value information, 
and to submit a separate rate application, until June 28, 2006. On June 
27, 2006, the Department noted that NFAC had received notice of the 
deadlines with respect to the quantity and value questionnaire and the 
separate rates application in the Initiation Notice, and that the 
deadline had passed for submitting a separate rate application. The 
Department informed NFAC that it would be unable to grant NFAC's 
request for an extension of time to file the quantity and value 
questionnaire and the separate rate application. See Letter from Carrie 
Blozy, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, dated June 27, 
2006.
    We have considered whether each mandatory respondent and each 
separate rate applicant \2\ is eligible for a separate rate. The 
Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in

[[Page 59726]]

general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export 
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these 
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on 
controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making 
process at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We received separate rate applications from the following: 
Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant; Hebei Foreign Trade & Advertising 
Corp.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. Ltd.; 
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co. Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical 
Ltd.; Shanxi DMD Corp; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co. Ltd.; 
Shanxi Newtime Co. Ltd.; Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corp.; Shanxi 
Sincere Industrial Co. Ltd.; Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co. 
Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; United Manufacturing Int'l 
(Beijing) Ltd. Xi'an Shuntong Int'l Trade & Industries Co. Ltd.; 
Panshan Import and Export Corp; and, Tianjin Maijin Industries Co. 
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic 
of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 
(``Silicon Carbide''), 59 FR at 22586-87. In accordance with the 
separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure 
and de facto governmental control over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The information provided by Jilin Bright Future and the separate 
rate applicants supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of 
governmental control based on the following: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) the applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Separate Rates Memo.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    As noted above, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions. In the instant case, we determine that, with 
regard to Jilin Bright Future and the separate rate applicants, except 
for Panshan Import and Export Corporation (``Panshan'') (hereinafter 
referred to as the Separate Rate Companies), the evidence on the record 
supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental 
control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing 
the following: (1) Each exporter sets its own export prices independent 
of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 
(2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses; (3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; and (4) each exporter has autonomy from 
the government regarding the selection of management.
    With regard to Panshan, it failed to provide any evidence that it 
had autonomy in making decisions regarding the selection of management. 
The separate rate application requires that the applicant provide 
specific documentation that evidences independence in the selection of 
management. Panshan did not provide any evidence of independent 
selection of management in its application nor in its supplemental 
response in regard to a specific question from the Department asking 
for this documentation. See Separate Rates Memo. Therefore, as the 
application requires the applicant to provide proof of the independent 
selection of management, Panshan has not met the basic requirements of 
the application. The Department finds that Panshan's application is 
deficient and therefore finds that Panshan is not eligible for a 
separate rate.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Jilin 
Bright Future and the separate rate applicants, except for Panshan, 
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with 
respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under 
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers 
and Silicon Carbide. CCT is wholly-owned by a market economy entity and 
has therefore been granted a separate rate. Jacobi AB is a market 
economy entity and has therefore been granted its own rate. As a 
result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have 
granted separate, company-specific rates to CCT, Jacobi AB, Jilin 
Bright Future, and to the Separate Rate Companies, a weight-averaged 
margin of the mandatory respondents. For a full discussion of this 
issue, see Separate Rates Memo.

Use of Adverse Facts Available and the PRC-Wide Rate

    CCT, Jacobi, Jilin Bright Future, and Huibao/Hibridge were given 
the opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. As 
explained above, we received complete separate rates information from 
CCT, Jacobi, and Jilin Bright Future, and these entities will receive 
their own rate. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject 
merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have 
their own calculated rate. See ``Separate Rates'' section above. As 
discussed in the Separate Rates Memo, Huibao/Hibridge is appropriately 
considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity because it failed to 
establish its eligibility for a separate rate.
    We note that Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the 
Department use the facts available if necessary information is not 
available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, 
section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party or 
any other person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by

[[Page 59727]]

the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by 
the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject to section 
782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title. Where the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of 
the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, 
provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the 
deficiency. Section 782(d) further states that if the party submits 
further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the 
administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all 
or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the 
Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority if (1) the information is 
submitted by the deadline established for its submission, (2) the 
information can be verified, (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination, (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the 
requirements established by the administering authority with respect to 
the information, and (5) the information can be used without undue 
difficulties.
    As addressed below separately for each company, we find that the 
PRC-wide entity, Huibao/Hibridge, and certain suppliers of CCT, did not 
respond to our request for information, and necessary information 
either was not provided, or the information provided cannot be verified 
and is not sufficiently complete to enable the Department to use it for 
this preliminary determination. Therefore, we find it necessary, under 
section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the 
basis for the preliminary determination of this review for the PRC-wide 
entity, Huibao/Hibridge, and certain suppliers of CCT.
    In their pre-preliminary determination comments, Petitioners have 
argued for the application of total adverse facts available (``AFA'') 
with respect to Huibao/Hibridge, Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., 
Ltd. (``Datong Huibao'') as a supplier to CCT and Jacobi, as well as 
for total AFA for Jacobi and Jilin Bright Future. As discussed below, 
we find that total AFA is warranted for Huibao/Hibridge, but AFA is 
unwarranted for Datong Huibao as a supplier to CCT and Jacobi, and 
total AFA is unwarranted for Jacobi and Jilin Bright Future.

Jacobi

    Petitioners argue that the Department should apply total AFA to 
Jacobi, as the U.S. sales and factors of production data provided are 
unreliable. Petitioners allege the information on the record 
demonstrates a lack of cooperation and that the data is of poor quality 
and is inconsistent. Petitioners argue that Jacobi's data are based on 
unsubstantiated estimates and certain documentation has been destroyed, 
and that, though Jacobi has been given an opportunity to remedy its 
mistakes, the mistakes still exist. Petitioners also assert that the 
application of partial AFA is not practicable due to the cumulative 
effect of the errors, which renders the data unusable. Specifically, 
Petitioners argue that the omissions and errors include: Failure to 
identify the composition of carbonized materials and coal inputs for 
appropriate surrogate valuation; failure to report factors of 
production for sales of powdered activated carbon; unsubstantiated 
electricity and water consumption; refusal to report product-specific 
consumption of impregnation inputs; and its use of standard consumption 
amounts without appropriate documentation. See Petitioners' September 
8, 2006, submission for a detailed discussion of their allegations. 
Petitioners further argue the use of undocumented standards creates 
distortions of a degree that the application of AFA is necessary.
    The Department disagrees with Petitioners that the use of AFA is 
appropriate with respect to Jacobi. As noted above, Jacobi responded to 
the Department's original questionnaire, and several supplemental 
questionnaires. See Jacobi's Section A response dated June 1, 2006 
(``Section A''), Jacobi's Section C and D response dated July 10, 2006 
(``Section C&D''), Jacobi's Supplemental Section A, C and D response 
dated August 23, 2006 (``Jacobi's Supplemental''), Jacobi's Second 
Supplemental response dated September 15, 2006 (``Jacobi's Second 
Supplemental'').
    Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, Jacobi has provided detailed 
and potentially verifiable information on its allocation methodologies 
(see, e.g., Jacobi's Supplemental at Exhibit 52), and for each of its 
suppliers, reconciled the information reported to the financial 
statements of the respective suppliers. See Jacobi's Section C&D at 
Exhibits II-5, III-5, IV-5, V-5, and Jacobi's Supplemental at Exhibit 
49. Because Jacobi's suppliers do not maintain CONNUM-specific records, 
Jacobi has constructed an allocation methodology based on records 
maintained by each of its suppliers. In addition, Petitioners' 
allegation that Jacobi's data are based on unsubstantiated estimates is 
unfounded. Jacobi has provided detailed and potentially verifiable 
information on the standards used in the ordinary course of business by 
certain suppliers for raw materials including coal and carbonized 
material. See Jacobi's Supplemental at Exhibits 48 and 48b. In 
addition, Jacobi has provided samples of daily production reports, 
demonstrating that estimated and actual yields are used in the ordinary 
course of business by its suppliers. See Jacobi's Supplemental at 
Exhibit 99b. Further, Jacobi has explained that each of its suppliers 
maintains records on the consumption of all raw materials. Jacobi notes 
that certain suppliers do not have complete POI records, but claims 
that it has acted to the best of its ability in providing the 
information requested by the Department and used the information 
maintained by the suppliers in providing the requested information, 
from production records, raw material consumption records, etc. See 
Jacobi's Second Supplemental at 11. With respect to the U.S. sales 
information, except where indicated, we have determined to rely on the 
information provided. Therefore, on the basis of the data submitted by 
Jacobi, which the Department intends to carefully scrutinize at 
verification, the Department determines that the use of total adverse 
facts available is not warranted for the preliminary determination. 
However, as discussed in the ``Normal Value'' section below, the 
Department has applied facts available with respect to the unreported 
factors of production for one control number of powdered activated 
carbon.

CCT

    For certain of its suppliers, CCT did not report the factors of 
production used to produce the subject merchandise. Therefore, in 
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, the

[[Page 59728]]

Department must use the facts otherwise available in determining the 
normal value for these sales because CCT withheld the factors 
information and otherwise failed to provide the information in a timely 
manner and in the form requested. For the reasons described below, the 
Department has determined to apply an adverse inference to the 
unreported factors of production. CCT stated that one of its suppliers, 
Nuclear Ningxia Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``NC''), ceased production 
after the POI. CCT stated that NC refused to provide the data necessary 
to prepare an FOP response. See CCT's August 7, 2006, response at page 
2. CCT stated that another of its suppliers, Ningxia Luyuanheng 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``HD'') also ceased production after the 
POI and also refused to provide data necessary to prepare an FOP 
response. See id. CCT provided documentation of its attempts to obtain 
the necessary data from these two companies. See June 29, 2006, letter 
at Exhibits 2 and 3, and CCT's August 7, 2006, supplemental response at 
Exhibit M. On September 8, 2006, HD submitted a letter to the 
Department stating that, due to restructuring, HD temporarily suspended 
production of activated carbon but resumed production in August 2006. 
See September 8, 2006 Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand, 
Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9.
    The Department preliminarily finds that, in accordance with 
sections 776 (a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, CCT did not cooperate to the 
best of its ability regarding its suppliers HD and NC and has 
determined to use adverse facts available for the preliminary 
determination with regard to these suppliers and will apply the highest 
calculated normal value for CCT to the sales of merchandise supplied by 
HD and NC. See CCT's Prelim Analysis Memo. Due to the proprietary 
nature of the factual information concerning these suppliers, these 
issues are addressed in a separate business proprietary memorandum. See 
Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9: Application of Adverse Facts Available for Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) 
Co., Ltd., in the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of 
China, dated October 4, 2006.
    Further, CCT also informed the Department that certain of its 
suppliers purchased activated carbon from other producers which was 
then sold to CCT. CCT did not provide the FOP information for these 
ultimate suppliers. On August 18, 2006, a full month after CCT's 
original Section D response was due, CCT informed the Department that 
certain of the companies that it had previously identified as 
producers, had in fact sourced activated carbon from upstream 
producers, which was then sold to CCT. CCT specifically identified 
suppliers Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (``SXZ''), 
Huairen Jinbei Chemical Co. Ltd. (``JB'') and Jiaocheng Xinxin 
Purification Material Co., Ltd. (``XX'') as having sourced activated 
carbon from upstream producers. In CCT's September 12, 2006 response, 
CCT identified SXZ's suppliers as Datong Changtai Activated Carbon Co., 
Ltd. (``DCA''), and Yuyang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``YAC'') and 
XX's suppliers as Datong Kangda Activated Carbon Factory (``DKA'') and 
Datong Runmei Activated Carbon Factory (``DRA''). See CCT's September 
12, 2006 response at 4. While CCT noted that JB's supplier was Fangyuan 
Carbonization Co., Ltd., it also noted that all activated carbon sold 
to the United States from that supply chain was further manufactured in 
the United States and would be subject to the exclusion under the 
Department's application of the special rule. For SXZ, and its 
suppliers, and XX's suppliers, CCT stated that it attempted to obtain 
the FOP information but was unable to do so. See CCT's September 12, 
2006, response.
    CCT provided documentation of its attempts to obtain the data from 
the companies, and also argued that alternative data is available to 
the Department because certain products are also produced by other 
suppliers from whom we have FOP information. CCT provided declarations 
from officials from DCA, DKA, and DRA which stated that these are small 
companies that do not have the time and labor to provide the requested 
data. See September 12, 2006, supplemental response at Exhibit D-42.
    As stated above, CCT stated that its supplier XX purchased 
activated carbon produced by DKA and DRA which was then sold to CCT. 
See CCT's September 12, 2006 response at 4. Further, CCT stated that 
``{d{time} uring the POI most of the merchandise under consideration 
that XX produced for CCT was made from activated carbon that XX 
purchased from unaffiliated suppliers.'' See July 11, 2006, Section D 
response at D-H. XX reported that the merchandise it purchased from DKA 
and DRA underwent a second activation at XX's facilities before being 
sold to CCT. The Department finds that XX should have reported the 
factors of production for its suppliers, as instructed, because the 
material it purchased from DKA and DRA was already steam activated 
carbon. See Id. at 2. Therefore, although XX did provide a FOP 
database, the Department is applying the highest normal value for CCT 
to the sales of XX's merchandise by CCT because XX purchased the 
activated carbon from the ultimate producers and that FOP information 
was not reported.
    On September 19, 2006, CCT informed the Department that it was also 
supplied by Ningxia Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 
(``LQY''), and that sales of merchandise produced by LQY were made by 
CCT pursuant to municipal contracts awarded during the POI. As 
discussed below in the ``Date of Sale'' Section, CCT reported that the 
appropriate date of sale for municipal contracts is the date of the 
contract award, which is the date when the price and quantity are 
fixed. Therefore, although certain sales of LQY were invoiced in 2006, 
which is after the POI, they were made pursuant to municipal contracts 
from the POI and the appropriate date of sale for these sales is the 
date the municipal contract was awarded. CCT did include these sales in 
its U.S. sales database, but did report the FOP information for these 
sales.
    On September 28, 2006, CCT also informed the Department that it was 
also supplied by Dushanzi Chemical Factory (``DSZ''). See September 28, 
2006, supplemental response at page 2. On September 29, 2006, CCT 
indicated that another supplier, Xingtai Coal Chemical Co., Ltd. 
(``TX'') also supplied CCT. See September 29, 2006, supplemental 
response.
    The Department's original questionnaire asked CCT to report the 
factors of production for the ultimate producer of the merchandise 
under consideration. The original questionnaire states, ``If your 
company did not produce the merchandise under consideration, we request 
that this section be immediately forwarded to the company that produces 
the merchandise and supplies it to you or to your customers.'' See May 
4, 2006 Questionnaire to CCT at page D-2. Further, on August 21, 2006, 
the Department sent CCT a letter which stated, in part,

    We are also requiring CCT to report the FOP information for the 
ultimate producer of the merchandise under consideration. Therefore, 
for those suppliers of CCT who purchased merchandise under 
consideration from another supplier, whether affiliated or 
unaffiliated, which was then sold to CCT, we

[[Page 59729]]

are requiring CCT to report the FOP information of these ultimate 
suppliers for the products sold during the POI. This includes, but 
is not limited to, reporting the FOP information for Shanxi 
Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (``SXZ'') and the unnamed 
suppliers of Huairen Jinbei Chemical Co. Ltd. (``JB'') which CCT 
identified on page 8 of its August 18, 2006 extension request.

    See August 21, 2006, letter to CCT.
    CCT did not provide any FOP data from SXZ, DCA, YAC, DSZ, TX, LQY, 
DRA, or DKA. Furthermore, XX purchased most of the activated carbon it 
sold to CCT from DRA and DKA. As such, since CCT did not provide the 
FOP data from these suppliers after being given two opportunities to do 
so, the Department finds that the application of adverse facts 
available is warranted because CCT did not act to the best of its 
ability. It is the Department's practice to obtain the FOP data from 
the actual producer of the merchandise under consideration. CCT was 
therefore required to provide this FOP information and did not do so. 
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use 
information that is adverse to the interest of that party when the 
party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability in 
responding to the Department's request for information. See Nippon 
Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 
Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination from 
the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts 
available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 
``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998) 
(``Semiconductors'').
    In order for the Department to fulfill its obligation to calculate 
dumping margins as accurately as possible, it is essential that 
respondents provide the Department with accurate, complete, and 
verifiable information. In striving to obtain this information, the 
Department has discretion to modify its reporting requirements when an 
interested party explains why it is unable to submit the information in 
the requested form and manner and suggests alternative reporting forms. 
However, if the necessary information is not on the record, section 
776(a)(1) of the Act provides for the use of facts available.
    Moreover, if an interested party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information, the Department may apply adverse inferences where the use 
of facts available is appropriate. See section 776(b) of the Act. We 
have determined that these ultimate producers have failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with a request for 
information and thus an adverse inference is warranted. This position 
is consistent with that taken by the Department in Certain Cased 
Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 48612 (July 
25, 2002), and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
10, which cited Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium From the Russian 
Federation: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 65656, 65658 (December 15, 1997) (``Ferrovanadium and 
Nitrided Vanadium''). In Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium, the 
Department stated that ``by failing to respond Chusovoy {the 
producer{time}  is an interested party which has not cooperated to the 
best of its ability under section 776 (b) of the Act. Therefore, we 
have continued to use an adverse inference in selecting from the facts 
available to determine the margins for Galt's sales of Chusovoy-
produced merchandise * * *''.
    In the instant investigation, as partial AFA, we have assigned the 
highest calculated normal value for CCT to the sales of the following 
suppliers for which CCT did not provide FOP information: SXZ (which 
includes its ultimate suppliers DCA and YAC); DSZ; TX; LQY; and, XX 
(which includes its ultimate suppliers DKA and DRA). It was not 
necessary to apply the highest calculated normal value for CCT to JB's 
supplier, Fangyuan Carbonization Co., Ltd., because all activated 
carbon sold in that supply chain was further manufactured in the United 
States and was subject to exclusion pursuant to the special rule.

Jilin Bright Future

    Petitioners also argue in their pre-preliminary comments on Jilin 
Bright Future, dated September 13, 2006, that total AFA is warranted 
with respect to Jilin Bright Future because Jilin Bright Future has 
failed to provide reliable factors of production data. Petitioners 
assert that Jilin Bright Future's submissions to date demonstrate a 
lack of cooperation due to the low quality and internal inconsistency 
of the data. Petitioners allege that the information submitted is based 
on unsubstantiated and unexplained estimates based on aggregate 
allocations irrespective of product characteristics. Petitioners argue 
that despite an opportunity to remedy its errors, Jilin Bright Future 
failed to do so. Therefore, Petitioners argue, the totality of the 
deficiencies support the application of total AFA. Petitioners assert 
that the range of the problems with Jilin Bright Future's response 
precludes the application of partial AFA. Further, Petitioners argue 
that some of the information with respect to normal value is not 
available on the record making the data unusable, and AFA is warranted. 
Petitioners argue that Jilin Bright Future does not warrant a separate 
rate due to unexplained connections with its predecessor companies. 
Further, Petitioners assert that it has provided no support for the 
reported FOPs of Zuoyun Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant (``ZBF''), 
one of Jilin Bright Future's suppliers of subject merchandise during 
the POI. Petitioners discuss in detail claimed deficiencies with ZBF's 
reported FOPs in their September 13, 2006, submission, a proprietary 
discussion that cannot be summarized here. In addition, Petitioners 
assert that Jilin Bright Future's reported standard consumption amounts 
for ZBF are based on a value-based allocation methodology rather than 
the physical amounts actually consumed, an allocation methodology that 
Jilin Bright Future has not supported. Petitioners also argue that the 
basis for this value-based allocation, that granular activated carbon 
has higher costs than powdered activated carbon, is unsupported by 
Jilin Bright Future's own statements that the production process for 
these products is the same prior to the screening process. See 
Petitioners' September 13, 2006, submission for a detailed discussion 
of this issue. Therefore, Petitioners argue, the application of total 
AFA is warranted.
    The Department disagrees with Petitioners that the use of total AFA 
is appropriate with respect to Jilin Bright Future. As noted above, 
Jilin Bright Future responded to the Department's original 
questionnaire, and several supplemental questionnaires. See JBF Chem 
and JBF Industry's separate rate application and Section A, dated May 
4, 2006, and June 9, 2006, respectively (``JBF Section As''), Jilin 
Bright Future's Section C and D response dated June 24, 2006 (``JBF 
Section C&D''), Jilin Bright Future's Supplemental Section C and D

[[Page 59730]]

response dated August 25, 2006 (``JBF Supplemental''), Jilin Bright 
Future's Second Supplemental response dated September 21, 2006 (``JBF 
Second Supplemental''). Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, Jilin 
Bright Future has provided detailed and potentially verifiable 
information on its allocation methodologies (see, e.g., JBF's 
Supplemental at Exhibits S2-D-33 and S2-D-70; JBF's Second Supplemental 
at Exhibit S3-5), and for each of its suppliers, reconciled the 
information reported to the financial statements of the respective 
suppliers. See JBF's Section C&D at Exhibits D-ZY-10, D-TH-6, and D-XH-
6. Because Jilin Bright Future's suppliers do not maintain CONNUM-
specific records, Jilin Bright Future has constructed an allocation 
methodology based on records maintained by each of its suppliers.
    In addition, Petitioners' allegation that Jilin Bright Future's 
data are based on unsubstantiated estimates is unfounded. Jilin Bright 
Future has provided potentially verifiable information on the standards 
used in the ordinary course of business by its suppliers for raw 
materials, including coal, and constructed a reasonable allocation when 
Jilin Bright Future's suppliers' normal books and records do not 
maintain the information requested by the Department. In addition, 
Jilin Bright Future has provided samples of daily production reports 
that were used by ZBF and standards that were used by Shanxi Xinhua 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Xinhua'') to report utilization 
quantities to the Department, demonstrating that actual yields are used 
in the ordinary course of business by its suppliers. See JBF's 
Supplemental at Exhibits S2-D-33 and S2-D-70. Further, Jilin Bright 
Future has explained that its suppliers maintain records on the total 
POI consumption of raw materials. Jilin Bright Future notes that 
certain suppliers do not have complete, product-specific POI records, 
but the Department finds that its allocations are reasonable, given the 
records maintained by Jilin Bright Future's suppliers. Therefore, on 
the basis of the data submitted by Jilin Bright Future, which the 
Department intends to carefully scrutinize at verification, the 
Department preliminarily determines that the use of total adverse facts 
available is not warranted for the preliminary determination.

Datong Huibao and Huibao/Hibridge

    Petitioners argue that Datong Huibao should receive total AFA, 
consistent with the law and past practice because it withdrew from the 
proceeding as a mandatory respondent (a.k.a., mandatory respondent 
Huibao/Hibridge). See section 776 of the Act; Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances of the Antidumping 
Investigation: Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia, 71 FR 47171 
(August 9, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at 
Comments 1 through 11. Petitioners also argue that the Department 
should apply AFA to sales made by Jacobi and CCT that were supplied by 
Datong Huibao. See Petitioners' September 8, 2006, submission. 
Petitioners argue that Datong Huibao's withdrawal from the proceeding 
makes its information unverifiable, which should apply to Datong Huibao 
as both a mandatory respondent and a supplier to Jacobi and CCT. 
Petitioners contend that Datong Huibao should receive the highest rate 
in the petition, 333.66 percent, as a mandatory respondent (a.k.a. 
Huibao/Hibridge), and should not qualify for a potentially lower rate 
through a different export channel. Petitioners assert that Datong 
Huibao's factors of production information should be deemed 
unverifiable as a mandatory respondent, and, thus, should also be 
considered unverifiable as a supplier. Therefore, Petitioners argue, 
the Department should assign a margin of 333.66 percent to all U.S. 
sales of products which were produced by Datong Huibao as AFA.
    The Department does not find that Petitioners' allegation, that 
U.S. sales made by cooperating mandatory respondents Jacobi and CCT 
should be assigned an adverse rate simply because these respondents 
sourced some of their activated carbon from Datong Huibao (a.k.a., 
mandatory respondent Huibao/Hibridge), is consistent with the statute 
and regulations. Further, the Department's practice on combination 
rates as explained in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/, is to calculate one rate for the exporter and all of 
the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the POI. 
Specifically, the Policy Bulletin 05.1 states if ``an exporter 
receiving a separate rate sourced from multiple producers (including 
itself) during the period of investigation, and provided the Department 
with the required information about each of these producers, the 
exporter's cash-deposit rate will be applied to merchandise it sourced 
from any combination of its identified producers without restriction. 
In other words, the Department will not assign combination rates to an 
exporter and individual producers, but rather to an exporter and its 
producers as a group'' (emphasis added). Therefore, for purposes of a 
combination rate, because the exporter provided the requested 
information (as discussed further below), the Department should apply 
the cash-deposit rate for all combinations of its identified producers 
``without restriction.''
    Jacobi and CCT are mandatory respondents that have responded to the 
Department's requests for information, except where noted above. Jacobi 
reported that it sourced a portion of its U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise from Datong Huibao, and reported the factors of production 
for Datong Huibao. See Jacobi's Section A; Jacobi's Section C&D 
Jacobi's Supplemental; and Jacobi's Second Supplemental. Also, Jacobi 
responded to detailed supplemental questions with respect to the data 
submitted by Jacobi for Datong Huibao in Jacobi's Supplemental and 
Jacobi's Second Supplemental. With respect to CCT, although CCT 
reported that one of its suppliers of the merchandise under 
investigation during the POI was Datong Huibao, the Department excused 
CCT from reporting the factors information from several suppliers, 
including Datong Huibao, due to the large numbers of producers that 
supplied CCT during the investigation. See Letter to CCT dated July 19, 
2006.
    The Department does not find that failure to participate as a 
mandatory respondent should affect the inclusion in a combination rate 
for another participating mandatory respondent. Section 776(a)(2) of 
the Act does not provide for the application of adverse facts available 
for an exporter, in this case Jacobi and CCT, where the information on 
the record demonstrates that it has provided the information requested 
by the Department in a timely manner, irrespective of the separate 
status of any of its suppliers. Therefore, the Department preliminarily 
determines that sales made by Jacobi and CCT, sourced from merchandise 
produced by Datong Huibao, should be considered verifiable and the 
Department will include, for this preliminary determination, these 
sales in its calculation of a margin for Jacobi and CCT. Further, the 
Department will, as discussed below under ``Combination Rates,'' 
include Datong Huibao in Jacobi and CCT's combination rates.
    However, the record of this investigation demonstrates that the 
mandatory respondent Huibao/Hibridge failed to provide information 
specifically requested by the Department during the course of this 
investigation. Huibao/Hibridge was

[[Page 59731]]

selected as a mandatory respondent in this investigation and was issued 
the Department's full questionnaire on May 10, 2006. On May 15, 2006, 
after submission of its separate-rate application and receiving the 
Department's full sections A, C, and D questionnaire, Huibao/Hibridge 
submitted a letter stating that it was withdrawing as a mandatory 
respondent in this investigation and would not be participating 
further. Although Huibao/Hibridge submitted a separate rate 
application, it did not submit a response to any portion of the 
Department's questionnaire, which it is required to do as a mandatory 
respondent; therefore, Huibao/Hibridge cannot be considered as a 
separate rate applicant and is considered part of the PRC-entity. The 
mandatory respondent Huibao/Hibridge is appropriately considered to be 
part of the PRC-wide entity because it failed to establish its 
eligibility for a separate rate.

PRC-Wide Entity

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. Information on the record of this investigation 
indicates that the PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Huibao/Hibridge 
did not respond to our questionnaire. As a result, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is 
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986, 4991 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of 
Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). 
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian 
Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also ``Statement 
of Administrative Action''(''SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 vol. 1, at 870 (1994). 
We find that because the PRC-wide entity, including Huibao/Hibridge, 
failed to participate in the investigation, failed to respond to the 
Department's requests for information, and none of the information 
submitted can be verified, the PRC-wide entity, including Huibao/
Hibridge, has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and will 
be subject to the PRC-wide rate. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, 
an adverse inference is appropriate.
    Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use 
as AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination 
from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any 
other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for adverse 
facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently 
adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to 
induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Semiconductors 63 FR at 8932. It 
is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) 
highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated 
rate of any respondent in the investigation. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 
Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 
(May 31, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 
``Facts Available.'' In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have 
assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin based on information in the 
petition.
    As there were three margins from the petition, we have used the 
highest one of the three that is corroborated by the individual margins 
for the mandatory respondents; this margin is 228.11 percent. 
Therefore, we have applied the highest corroborated rate of 228.11 
percent to the PRC-wide entity.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal.\3\ The SAA also states that the independent 
sources may include published price lists, official import statistics 
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation. See id. The SAA also clarifies 
that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 
870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997), to 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used. Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and 
normal value in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. See 
Initiation Notice. To corroborate the AFA margin selected, we compared 
that margin to the margins we found for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Secondary information is described in the SAA as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the 
subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Memorandum to the File regarding the 
corroboration of the AFA rate, dated October 4, 2006, we found that the 
margin of 228.11 percent has probative value. See Memorandum to the 
File from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9: Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the 
Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, dated 
October 4, 2006, (``Corroboration Memo''). Accordingly, we find that 
the rate of 228.11 percent is corroborated

[[Page 59732]]

within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Consequently, we are 
applying 228.11 as the single antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity.
    The Department will consider all margins on the record at the time 
of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most 
appropriate AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 79049, 79053-79054 (December 27, 
2002), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 27530 
(May 20, 2003) (``Saccharin'').

Margin for the Separate Rate Applicants

    The Department received timely and complete separate rates 
applications from the Separate Rates Companies, who are all exporters 
of certain activated carbon from the PRC, which were not selected as 
mandatory respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in 
their applications, these companies have demonstrated their eligibility 
for a separate rate, as discussed above in the ``Separate Rates'' 
section and in the Separate Rates Memo. Consistent with the 
Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have established a 
weight-averaged margin for the Separate Rates Companies based on the 
rates we calculated for the mandatory respondents, the companies for 
which the Department calculated an antidumping duty margin for this 
preliminary determination, excluding any rates that are zero, de 
minimis, or based entirely on AFA. See Memorandum to the File from Anya 
Naschak, Preliminary Weight-Averaged Margin for Separate Rate 
Applicants, dated October 4, 2006. Companies receiving this rate are 
identified by name in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations state that,

    In identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or 
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of 
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in 
the normal course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date 
other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a 
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or 
producer establishes the material terms of sale.

    See 19 CFR 351.401(i); See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. 
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (``Allied 
Tube''). The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties 
agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes 
the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. In order to 
simplify the determination of date of sale for both the respondent and 
the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of 
sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the 
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter 
or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. 
In other words, the date of the invoice is the presumptive date of 
sale, although this presumption may be overcome. For instance, in 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14067 (March 29, 1996), the 
Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale 
because the terms of sale were established at that point.
    After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales 
documentation that Jacobi and Jilin Bright Future provided, we 
preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date 
of sale for Jacobi and Jilin Bright Future. Jacobi and Jilin Bright 
Future do not dispute that invoice date is the appropriate date of 
sale, and the information on the record supports this contention. CCT, 
however, reported that the appropriate date of sale for spot sales and 
sales pursuant to framework agreements is the date of invoice while the 
appropriate date of sale for municipal contracts is the date of the 
contract award, which is the date when the price and quantity are 
fixed. The Department finds that, based on the information on the 
record, CCT has rebutted the presumption that invoice date is the 
appropriate date of sale for municipal contract sales and the award 
contract date is the most appropriate date of sale for these types of 
sales. See Saccharin 68 FR at 27531. This conclusion is based on the 
information on the record demonstrating that the quantity and value of 
sales pursuant to the municipal contacts were fixed at the date the 
contract was awarded.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain activated carbon to the 
United States by CCT, Jacobi, and Jilin were made at less than fair 
value, we compared either export price (``EP'') or constructed export 
price (``CEP'') to normal value (``NV''), as described in the ``U.S. 
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. We compared NV 
to weighted-average EPs and CEPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) 
of the Act.

U.S. Price

Export Price
    For Jilin Bright Future, we based U.S. price on EP in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based 
on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign 
movement expenses and foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the 
starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) 
of the Act. Where foreign movement services were provided by PRC 
service providers or paid for in Renminbi (``RMB''), we valued these 
services using surrogate values (see ``Factors of Production'' section 
below for further discussion).
    Jilin Bright Future reported that it made U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise in November 2005, which it characterized as ``sample 
sales'' and reported these sales in its Section C database. Jilin 
Bright Future argues that these samples should be ``excluded from the 
Section C database as an abnormal sale, based on the fact that the 
amount of sample was comparably small and the production for that 
certain sample was specially from the laboratory.'' See JBF's Section 
C&D response at 2. The Department notes that these samples, far from 
being an out-of-ordinary transaction, appear on an invoice containing 
several other types of merchandise and were paid for by the U.S. 
customer. See JBF Chem's Separate Rate Application dated May 4, 2006, 
at Exhibit 1. Further, the Department notes that these claimed samples 
appear on the same purchase order as other non-sample merchandise, and 
the order summary notes a price for these samples. See JBF Chem's 
Separate Rate Application dated May 4, 2006, at Exhibit 8.
    The Federal Circuit has not required the Department to exclude 
zero-priced or de minimis sales from its analysis, but rather, has 
defined a sale as requiring ``both a transfer of ownership to an 
unrelated party and consideration.'' See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 
F.3d 965, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Courts have consistently ruled that 
the burden rests with a respondent with respect to its own data. See, 
e.g., Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1583 
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the

[[Page 59733]]

burden of evidentiary production belongs ``to the party in possession 
of the necessary information''). See also Tianjin Machinery Import & 
Export Corp. v. United States, 806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) 
(``The burden of creating an adequate record lies with respondents and 
not with {the Department{time} .'') (citation omitted). Moreover, 
``{e{time} ven where the Department does not ask a respondent for 
specific information that would enable it to make an exclusion 
determination in the respondent's favor, the respondent has the burden 
of proof to present the information in the first place with its request 
for exclusion.'' See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12 
(citing NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United States, 997 F. 2d 1453, 
1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). In this case, though Jilin Bright Future has 
requested that it be excluded from reporting the purported samples, 
Jilin Bright Future has not demonstrated that these samples were sold 
in a manner inconsistent with its normal sales process.
    As noted above, an analysis of Jilin Bright Future's Section C 
computer sales listings reveals that it provided these ``samples'' to 
the same customers to whom it was selling or had sold products in 
commercial quantities, and, in this case, on the same invoice. See JBF 
Chem's Separate Rate Application dated May 4, 2006, at Exhibit 8. 
Therefore, based on the information on the record, we have for this 
preliminary determination not excluded these samples from the margin 
calculation of Jilin Bright Future.
Constructed Export Price
    For CCT and Jacobi, we based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act, because sales were made on behalf of the 
PRC-based company by its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers. For 
CCT and Jacobi's sales, we based CEP on packed, delivered or ex-
warehouse prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for foreign movement expenses, international 
movement expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling 
adjustments, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted 
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in 
the United States. We deducted, where appropriate, commissions, 
inventory carrying costs, interest revenue, credit expenses, warranty 
expenses, and indirect selling expenses. Where foreign movement 
expenses, international movement expenses, or U.S. movement expenses 
were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in Renminbi, we 
valued these services using surrogate values (see ``Factors of 
Production'' section below for further discussion). For those expenses 
that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid for in market-
economy currency, we used the reported expense. Due to the proprietary 
nature of certain adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed description 
of all adjustments made to U.S. price for each company, see the company 
specific analysis memorandums, dated October 4, 2006.
    CCT also requested that the Department apply the ``special rule'' 
for merchandise with value added after importation and excuse CCT from 
reporting U.S. resales of subject merchandise further processed by 
Calgon Carbon Corporation (``CCC''), CCT's U.S. parent company, in the 
United States and the U.S. further-processing cost information 
associated with the resales. CCT made this request with respect to all 
categories of U.S. sales with further manufacturing. See CCT's August 
8, 2006 Letter. Petitioner NORIT submitted a letter on August 2, 2006 
requesting that the Department deny CCT's request. The Department 
analyzed the information on the record with regard to this issue from 
both CCT and Petitioner. The Department determined that the valued 
added by CCC in the United States to the further manufactured sales 
would exceed 65 percent. Also, the quantity of sales not further 
manufactured was sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for 
comparison. Moreover, analyzing the further manufactured sales and the 
further manufacturing costs would impose an unnecessary burden on the 
Department. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, through Carrie Blozy, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, 
Office 9: Special Rule for Merchandise with Value Added after 
Importation for the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Activated 
Carbon from the People's Republic of China, dated September 1, 2006 
(``Special Rule Memo''). For those reasons, the Department decided to 
apply the ``special rule'' to merchandise with value added after 
importation to CCT's U.S. resales of subject merchandise further 
processed by CCC in the United States and excuse CCT from reporting 
these U.S. sales and the U.S. further-processing cost information 
associated with the resales. The ``Special Rule for Merchandise with 
Value Added After Importation'' is defined by Section 772(e) the Act 
as:

    Where the subject merchandise is imported by a person affiliated 
with the exporter or producer, and the value added in the United 
States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially 
the value of the subject merchandise, the administering authority 
shall determine the constructed export price for such merchandise by 
using one of the following prices if there is a sufficient quantity 
of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, and the 
administering authority determines that the use of such sales is 
appropriate:
    (1) The price of identical subject merchandise sold by the 
exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person.
    (2) The price of other subject merchandise sold by the exporter 
or producer to an unaffiliated person.
    If there is not sufficient quantity of sales to provide a 
reasonable basis for comparison under paragraph (1) and (2), or the 
administering authority determines that neither of the prices 
described in such paragraphs is appropriate, then the constructed 
export price may be determined on any other reasonable basis.

    Also, the Department's regulation, 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2), states 
that the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is 
likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise 
when the value added is estimated to be at least 65 percent of the 
price charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise 
as sold in the United States. For a full discussion of the issue, see 
the Special Rule Memo. For purposes of the preliminary determination, 
we have applied the weighted-average margin from CCT's other U.S. sales 
to the quantity of U.S. further manufactures sales. See CCT Prelim 
Analysis Memo.
    The Department's original questionnaire defines ``other direct 
selling expenses'' to be ``the unit cost of other direct selling 
expenses you incurred on sales of the subject merchandise which are not 
reported in other fields.'' See the Department's questionnaire dated 
May 4, 2006. The Department notes that direct selling expenses are 
expenses that can be tied to specific sales transactions and related 
directly to the sales reported, and salaries for sales personnel are 
normally considered an indirect selling expense. As a result, the 
Department requested that Jacobi reclassify its reported sales personal 
salaries from direct selling

[[Page 59734]]

expenses to be part of its indirect selling expense calculation. As 
Jacobi has continued to report these expenses as a direct selling 
expense, the Department has re-classified these expenses as part of 
total CEP selling expenses for purposes of the margin calculation. See 
Jacobi's Analysis Memo.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 
bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and 
the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's 
normal methodologies.

Factor Methodology

    During the POI, CCT did not have production of all types of 
merchandise for which it had POI sales. Consequently, CCT requested 
that it be allowed to report the factors-of-production data for the 
most similar products produced during the POI as a surrogate for 
products sold during the POI, but produced prior to the POI. However, 
the Department denied this request and requested that CCT expand the 
FOP reporting for certain suppliers to report the FOP data based on 
twelve months from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. See August 9, 
2005 Letter to CCT. For the CONNUMs for which FOPs are still not 
included in the expanded FOP database, the Department has assigned FOPs 
for similar subject merchandise that was produced by CCT, as facts 
available. The Department then calculated an average of the FOPs for 
each product grouping and assigned the product-group average FOPs to 
CONNUMs where no FOPs were reported by CCT. See CCT Prelim Analysis 
Memo.
    On June 29, 2006, CCT requested to be excused from reporting 
factors of production data for certain of its suppliers due to the 
large number of suppliers from which CCT purchased certain activated 
carbon during the POI. Due to the large numbers of producers that 
supplied CCT during the POI, the Department excused CCT from reporting 
the factors of production data for certain suppliers and also the 
quantity relating to the unknown suppliers for which CCT had been 
unable to identify the actual suppliers. See June 29, 2006, letter from 
CCT. The Department determined that CCT was not required to report the 
factors of production data for the following suppliers: Datong Fuping 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``FP''); Datong Huibao Activated Carbon 
Co., Ltd. (``HB''); Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``HT''); 
Ningxia Honghua Carbon Industrial Corp. (``HA''); Honke Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd. (``HK''); and Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., 
Ltd. (``TF''). See Letters to CCT dated July 19, 2006, and August 10, 
2006. As the corresponding U.S. sales from the material supplied by the 
above producers were reported in the U.S. sales listing, we have 
assigned FOPs for similar subject merchandise that was produced by CCT, 
as facts available, using the same methodology described above for 
products that were not produced during the expanded POI. See CCT Prelim 
Analysis Memo.
    Jacobi has reported certain U.S. sales of powdered activated 
carbon, sourced from Datong Huibao, that Jacobi considers a byproduct 
of the production process. Jacobi states on page 12 of its Second 
Supplemental that it is unable to determine appropriate FOPs for this 
CONNUM, because Datong Huibao has no way of determining the products 
from which it was generated. Jacobi argues that all material inputs 
have been reported in the other products produced during the POI by 
this supplier, and Datong Huibao has no basis by which to make an 
allocation to this product. Based on the information on the record, the 
Department has preliminarily determined that Jacobi acted to the best 
of its ability, and that to apply an allocation which would increase 
the quantity of input and output on Datong Huibao's factors of 
production worksheets would make any reconciliation of Datong Huibao's 
factors of production impossible. Therefore, the Department has 
preliminarily determined to apply neutral facts available and apply the 
average of the usage rates reported by Datong Huibao to the unreported 
factors for this CONNUM. See Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak, 
Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Program Analysis for 
the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin Jacobi 
International Trading Co., Ltd. and Jacobi Carbons, Inc., dated October 
4 2006 (``Jacobi Analysis Memo'') for a detailed discussion of the 
methodology.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POI, 
except as noted above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-
unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian surrogate 
values. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a 
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the distance from 
the nearest seaport to the factory of production where appropriate. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not use Indian Import 
Statistics, we calculated freight based on the reported distance from 
the supplier to the factory.
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' 
material inputs, except where noted below. In selecting the best 
available information for valuing FOP in accordance with section 
773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the 
extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average 
values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen 
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 
FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 
2004). The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics 
represent import data that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. Where we could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value 
factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the 
Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the 
International Financial

[[Page 59735]]

Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate 
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to 
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764, 74773 (December 
16, 2005), unchanged in Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006); see also Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative 
Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke 
Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We are also directed by the 
legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure 
that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 
(1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision 
on information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries 
in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values.
    We valued certain factors based on price data obtained from the 
Indian publication Chemical Weekly. These prices represent prices 
available in the Indian domestic market. In all cases, we assumed the 
chemical concentration to be 100 percent since we had no information to 
the contrary. Where multiple prices were available, we used the average 
of all prices with effective dates during the POI. We adjusted the 
average value to exclude excise and sales tax in each case where the 
price was specifically identified as being inclusive of excise and 
sales tax or solely inclusive of excise tax, as appropriate. Based on 
the 16 percent excise tax identified in Central Excise Tariff 1998-99 
(as published by Cen-Cus Publications, New Delhi), we calculated tax-
exclusive prices. We then calculated a weighted-average POI price for 
each material. This methodology was applied for the following inputs: 
Hydrochloric acid; potassium iodide; and, potassium permanganate.
    To value electricity, the Department used rates from Key World 
Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency. 
Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for 
inflation using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memo.
    Jacobi has reported that it purchased plastic bags during the POI 
from a market economy country and paid for these bags in a market 
economy currency. However, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that certain of these bags should more appropriately be valued using 
surrogate values because they were purchased from countries that 
maintain subsidies or were purchased prior to the POI. See Surrogate 
Value Memo and Jacobi Analysis Memo.
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data on 
the Import Administration's Web site is the Yearbook of Labour 
Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by the respondent. See Surrogate Value Memo.
    Because water is essential to the production process of the subject 
merchandise, the Department is considering water to be a direct 
material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a surrogate 
value according to our practice. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron 
Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 
28, 2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
11. Although some suppliers have reported that they obtain water from a 
well, we find that whether the producer pays for water is irrelevant in 
determining whether it should be considered a direct material input. 
Further, there is no evidence on the record that the Indian producer of 
activated carbon from which we are obtaining an overhead financial 
ratio accounts for water as an overhead expense. The Department valued 
water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development 
Corporation (http://www.midcindia.org) since it includes a wide range 
of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water 
rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 for the 
``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193 for the ``outside 
industrial areas'' usage category. Because the value was not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See 
Surrogate Value Memo.
    For natural gas, we applied a surrogate value obtained from the Gas 
Authority of India Ltd. Web site, a supplier of natural gas in India, 
covering the period January through June 2002. In addition, based on 
the February 1, 2005, article from Chemical Weekly, we note that the 
Petroleum Ministry had been considering raising the price but no action 
was taken. Therefore, consistent with the Department's recent 
determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 
we took the average of the base and ceiling prices, added the 
transportation charge, and inflated the calculated value using the 
appropriate WPI inflator. See Surrogate Value Memo and Polyvinyl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 27991 (May 15, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    The Department valued steam following the methodology used in the 
investigation of Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, but updated the natural 
gas price. See Surrogate Value Memo and Notice of Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination for Certain Tissue Paper Products, 69 FR 56407 
(September 21, 2004), unchanged in the final determination, Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue 
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 
(February 14, 2005).
    The Department used Indian transport information in order to value 
the freight-in cost of the raw materials. We determined the best 
available information for valuing truck freight to be from http://www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major 
points of origin to five destinations in India during the POI. We 
obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POI from 
each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data 
accordingly. See

[[Page 59736]]

Surrogate Value Memo. To value rail freight, the Department used an 
average of rail freight prices based on the publicly available freight 
rates reported by the official Web site of the Indian Ministry of 
Railways at http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railway/freightrates/freight_charges.htm. The Department used an average of the price-per-
kilogram rate for class 130 based on the freight distances between 
cities. As the prices were denoted in quintals, the Department divided 
the price by 100 to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram. Consistent 
with the calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the 
same freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, 
as reported by http://www.infreight.com to derive a value in Rupees per 
kilogram per kilometer. See Surrogate Value Memo.
    The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for 
domestic brokerage expenses. The Department used a simple average of 
the publicly summarized version of the average value (adjusted for 
inflation) for brokerage and handling expenses reported in the U.S. 
sales listings in the submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (Essar Steel), 
dated February 28, 2005, in the antidumping duty review of Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, and the submission from 
Agro Dutch Industries Limited (Agro Dutch), dated May 24, 2005, in the 
antidumping duty administrative review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
from India. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 
66 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001), Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 
(March 2, 2006), and Surrogate Value Memo.
    With respect to the respondents' request for by-product offsets, 
the Department has preliminarily determined that the products 
respondents have claimed as a by-product are in fact merchandise within 
the scope of this investigation because they are still considered 
activated carbon, and, therefore, should not be considered a by-
product. We are therefore not granting by-product credits in our margin 
calculations, except for coal tar as reported by Jilin Bright Future 
because this is not subject merchandise. See Analysis Memos for CCT, 
Jilin Bright Future, and Jacobi.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice. This 
change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.
    The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination 
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation. See Policy Bulletin 05.1, at 
page 6.

    Also, the Department is not including Ningxia Haoqing Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd (``HQG''), or Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., 
Ltd (``GH''), in the combination rate for CCT as both HQG and GH are 
trading companies who sold other companies' merchandise to CCT during 
the POI. See Policy Bulletin 05.1 and Memo to the File from Catherine 
Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, dated 
October 3, 2006.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average (``WA'') dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Exporter                      Supplier          WA margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon     Alashan Yongtai               72.52
 Products Co., Ltd.                   Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon     Changji Hongke                72.52
 Products Co., Ltd.                   Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon     Datong Forward                72.52
 Products Co., Ltd.                   Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon     Datong Locomotive Coal        72.52
 Products Co., Ltd.                   & Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon     Datong Yunguang               72.52
 Products Co., Ltd.                   Chemicals Plant.
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon     Ningxia Guanghua              72.52
 Products Co., Ltd.                   Cherishment Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon     Ningxia Luyuangheng           72.52
 Products Co., Ltd.                   Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Calgon Carbon Tianjin         84.45
                                      Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Carbon                 84.45
                                      Corporation.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Changtai               84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Forward                84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Fuping                 84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Hongtai                84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Huanqing               84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Huibao                 84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Kangda                 84.45
                                      Activated Carbon
                                      Factory.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Datong Runmei                 84.45
                                      Activated Carbon
                                      Factory.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Dushanzi Chemical             84.45
                                      Factory.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Fangyuan Carbonization        84.45
                                      Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Hongke Activated              84.45
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Huairen Jinbei                84.45
                                      Chemical Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Jiaocheng Xinxin              84.45
                                      Purification Material
                                      Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Guanghua              84.45
                                      Cherishment Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Guanghua A/C          84.45
                                      Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Honghua Carbon        84.45
                                      Industrial
                                      Corporation.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Luyuanheng            84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.

[[Page 59737]]

 
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Pingluo Yaofu         84.45
                                      Activated Carbon
                                      Factory.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Tianfu                84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Yinchuan              84.45
                                      Lanqiya Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Nuclear Ningxia               84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Pingluo Xuanzhong             84.45
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Shanxi Xuanzhong              84.45
                                      Chemical Industry
                                      Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Xingtai Coal Chemical         84.45
                                      Co., Ltd.
Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.....  Yuyang Activated              84.45
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon      Datong Juqiang                72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals   Datong Locomotive Coal        72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            & Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated  Datong Municipal              72.52
 Carbon Co., Ltd.                     Yunguang Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant....  Datong Yunguang               72.52
                                      Chemicals Plant.
Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising  Da Neng Zheng Da              72.52
 Corporation.                         Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising  Shanxi Bluesky                72.52
 Corporation.                         Purification Material
                                      Co., Ltd.
Jacobi Carbons AB..................  Datong Forward                49.09
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Jacobi Carbons AB..................  Datong Hongtai                49.09
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Jacobi Carbons AB..................  Datong Huibao                 49.09
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Jacobi Carbons AB..................  Ningxia Guanghua              49.09
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Jacobi Carbons AB..................  Ningxia Huahui                49.09
                                      Activated Carbon
                                      Company Limited.
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals        Shanxi Xinhua                 13.78
 Company, Ltd.                        Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals        Tonghua Bright Future         13.78
 Company, Ltd.                        Activated Carbon
                                      Plant.
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals        Zuoyun Bright Future          13.78
 Company, Ltd.                        Activated Carbon
                                      Plant.
Jilin Province Bright Future         Shanxi Xinhua                 13.78
 Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.      Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Jilin Province Bright Future         Tonghua Bright Future         13.78
 Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.      Activated Carbon
                                      Plant.
Jilin Province Bright Future         Zuoyun Bright Future          13.78
 Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.      Activated Carbon
                                      Plant.
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment         Ningxia Guanghua              72.52
 Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.           Cherishment Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon      Ningxia Huahui                72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited.  Ningxia Baota                 72.52
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Shanxi DMD Corporation.............  China Nuclear Ningxia         72.52
                                      Activated Carbon
                                      Plant.
Shanxi DMD Corporation.............  Ningxia Guanghua              72.52
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Shanxi DMD Corporation.............  Shanxi Xinhua Chemical        72.52
                                      Co., Ltd.
Shanxi DMD Corporation.............  Tonghua Xinpeng               72.52
                                      Activated Carbon
                                      Factory.
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading   Actview Carbon                72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Technology Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading   Datong Forward                72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading   Datong Tri-Star &             72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Power Carbon Plant.
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading   Fu Yuan Activated             72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Carbon Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading   Jing Mao (Dongguan)           72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading   Xi Li Activated Carbon        72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd............  Datong Forward                72.52
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd............  Ningxia Guanghua              72.52
                                      Chemical Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd............  Ningxia Tianfu                72.52
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade          Datong Locomotive Coal        72.52
 Corporation.                         & Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade          Datong Tianzhao               72.52
 Corporation.                         Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade          Ningxia Huinong               72.52
 Corporation.                         Xingsheng Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade          Ningxia Yirong Alloy          72.52
 Corporation.                         Iron Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade          Ninxia Tongfu Coking          72.52
 Corporation.                         Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade          Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu          72.52
 Corporation.                         Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.  Datong Guanghua               72.52
                                      Activated Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.  Ningxia Guanghua              72.52
                                      Cherishmemt Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.  Ningxia Pingluo County        72.52
                                      YaoFu Activated
                                      Carbon Factory.
Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry   Ningxia Pingluo               72.52
 Co., Ltd.                            Xuanzhong Activated
                                      Carbon Co., Ltd.
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.....  Datong Zuoyun Biyun           72.52
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Guanghua              72.52
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.....  Ningxia Xingsheng Coal        72.52
                                      and Active Carbon
                                      Co., Ltd.
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.....  Pingluo Yu Yang               72.52
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.  Hegongye Ninxia               72.52
                                      Activated Carbon
                                      Factory.
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.  Ningxia Pingluo County        72.52
                                      YaoFu Activated
                                      Carbon Plant.
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.  Yinchuan Lanqiya              72.52
                                      Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
United Manufacturing International   Datong Fu Ping                72.52
 (Beijing) Ltd.                       Activated Carbon Co.,
                                      Ltd.
United Manufacturing International   Datong Locomotive Coal        72.52
 (Beijing) Ltd.                       & Chemical Co. Ltd.
United Manufacturing International   Xinhua Chemical               72.52
 (Beijing) Ltd.                       Company Ltd.
Xi'an Shuntong International Trade   DaTong Tri-Star &             72.52
 & Industrials Co., Ltd.              Power Carbon Plant.
Xi'an Shuntong International Trade   Ningxia Huahui                72.52
 & Industrials Co., Ltd.              Activated Carbon
                                      Company Limited.
PRC-Wide Rate......................  ......................       228.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in the ``Affiliation'' section, the WA Margin of 
Jacobi Carbons AB of 49.09 percent applies to exports made by Jacobi 
Tianjin.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise, entered, or

[[Page 59738]]

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct 
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, 
as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect 
until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than 
fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its 
final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United 
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by 
reason of imports of certain activated carbon, or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 
45 days of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date of the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs limited to issues 
raised in case briefs may be submitted no later than five days after 
the deadline date for case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of 
authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after 
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to 
section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 4, 2006.
David Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 06-8622 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P