[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 87 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21317-21330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10631]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-904]


Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the 
period October 11, 2006, through March 31, 2008. The Department has 
preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value 
(``NV'') by the respondents. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of 
review.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. The Department intends to issue the final results no later 
than 180 days from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). See ``Extension of the Time Limits for the Final Results'' 
below.

DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock, Irene Gorelik, or Bob 
Palmer, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street 
and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-1394, (202) 482-6905 or (202) 482-9068, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On April 27, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the PRC. See 
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 20988 (April 27, 2007) (``Order''). 
On April 1, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order of certain activated carbon from the PRC for the 
period October 11, 2006, through March 31, 2008.\1\ See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 17317 (April 1, 
2008). The Department received timely requests by Petitioners \2\ to 
conduct a review of 90 companies. On June 4, 2008, the Department 
initiated this review with respect to all requested companies. See

[[Page 21318]]

Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 31813 (June 4, 2008) 
(``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department does not include merchandise that entered the 
United States during the provisional measures gap period (``gap 
period''), i.e., April 9, 2007, and April 19, 2007, in our 
calculation because these entries are not subject to antidumping 
duties. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France, 69 FR 3883 
(January 27, 2004). However, for the purposes of these preliminary 
results, we are basing the margin calculation on all reported U.S. 
sales made during the POR because we are unable to determine whether 
any reported U.S. sales entered during the gap period. We will 
request additional information from the respondents with respect to 
this issue.
    \2\ Norit Americas Inc. and Calgon Carbon Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 26, 2008, Petitioners withdrew the request for review with 
respect to 57 of the 90 originally requested companies. On July 22, 
2008, the Department published a notice of rescission in the Federal 
Register for those 57 companies. See Certain Activated Carbon From the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 42550 (July 22, 2008). On September 
16, 2008, Petitioners withdrew the request for review with respect to 
an additional 19 companies. On October 1, 2008, the Department 
published a second notice of rescission in the Federal Register for 
those 19 companies. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 57058 (October 1, 2008). Following the two 
partial rescissions, 14 companies remained to be reviewed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These companies are: Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd.; Hebei Foreign Trade Advertisement Company (and its 
successor company, Hebei Shenglun Import and Export Group Company); 
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign 
Trade Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited.; Tangshan Solid 
Carbon Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright 
Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Jilin Province Bright Future 
Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.; Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; 
Jacobi Carbons AB and its affiliates, Tianjin Jacobi International 
Trading Co., Ltd. and Jacobi Carbons, Inc.; Tianjin Jacobi 
International Trading Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; and Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 
Products Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 26, 2008, the Department published a notice extending 
the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 120 days to 
April 30, 2009. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic 
of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 72026 (November 26, 
2008).

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the 
subject merchandise.\4\ However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives 
the Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable 
number of exporters or producers if it is not practicable to examine 
all exporters or producers involved in the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection, 
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 9, 2008, the Department released CBP data for entries of 
the subject merchandise during the period of review (``POR'') under 
administrative protective order (``APO'') to all interested parties 
having an APO as of five days of publication of the Initiation Notice, 
inviting comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The 
Department received comments and rebuttal comments between June 23, 
2008, and July 3, 2008. Based upon the comments received from the 
Petitioners and several respondents, on July 8, 2008, the Department 
provided a second round of CBP data under APO to all interested parties 
having an APO, and invited comments regarding the second round of CBP 
data. The Department received parties' second round of comments between 
July 14, 2008 and July 23, 2008.
    On August 5, 2008, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum after assessing its resources and determining that it could 
reasonably examine three exporters subject to this review. Pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Jacobi 
Carbons AB (``Jacobi''),\5\ Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. (``CCT''), 
and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. (``Jilin'') as 
mandatory respondents.\6\ The Department sent its antidumping 
questionnaire to CCT, Jacobi, and Jilin on August 5, 2008. On August 7, 
2008, a separate rate respondent, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd. (``GHC''), requested treatment as a voluntary 
respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Consisting of Jacobi Carbons AB and its affiliates, Tianjin 
Jacobi International Trading Co., Ltd. and Jacobi Carbons, Inc.
    \6\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Paul Walker, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9; First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: Selection of 
Respondents for Individual Review, dated August 5, 2008 
(``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 15, 2008, Jilin filed a letter stating that it will 
not participate as a mandatory respondent in this administrative 
review.\7\ Upon receiving comments from Petitioners regarding Jilin's 
withdrawal from the proceeding and comments from GHC regarding its 
status as a voluntary respondent, the Department issued a memorandum 
selecting GHC as a voluntary respondent. The Department stated that 
because Jilin decided not to respond to the Department's questionnaires 
in this administrative review, and the Department previously determined 
that it had the resources to examine three respondents,\8\ it would 
individually review GHC pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Letter from Jilin Regarding Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China and Termination of Jilin's Participation 
as a Mandatory Respondent, dated September 15, 2008.
    \8\ See Respondent Selection Memo.
    \9\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, 
from Julia Hancock and Robert Palmer, International Trade Compliance 
Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9; Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's 
Republic of China: Selection of Voluntary Respondent, dated October 
14, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners submitted deficiency comments regarding all three 
respondents' questionnaire responses between October 2008 and April 
2009. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Jacobi, CCT, 
and GHC between October 2008 and March 2009.

Period of Review

    The POR is October 11, 2006, through March 31, 2008.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On August 27, 2008, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information 
regarding valuing factors of production.\10\ On February 13, 2009, the 
Department received information to value factors of production 
(``FOP'') from GHC, CCT, Jacobi, and Petitioners. On February 23, 2009, 
GHC and Petitioners filed rebuttal comments. On February 24, 2009, GHC 
provided additional surrogate value information. On March 2, 2009, 
Petitioners filed additional rebuttal comments. All the surrogate 
values placed on the record were obtained from sources in India. No 
parties provided comments with respect to selection of a surrogate 
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
First Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments, dated August 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order 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

[[Page 21319]]

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 order 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 order 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 order 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. This exclusion language 
regarding blended material applies only to mixtures of steam and 
chemically activated carbons.
    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 subject to the order 
are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') subheading 3802.10.00. Although the HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy (``NME'') Country Status

    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 Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 
Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to this 
proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department 
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which 
applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and 
available information does not permit the Department to determine NV 
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME producer's 
FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries 
that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The Department determined that India, Indonesia, 
Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC 
in terms of economic development.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
First Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments, dated August 27, 2008, at Attachment I 
(``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on publicly available information placed on the record (e.g., 
production data), the Department determines India to be a reliable 
source for surrogate values because India is at a comparable level of 
economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 
significant producer of subject merchandise, and has publicly available 
and reliable data. Accordingly, the Department has selected India as 
the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs because it meets 
the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection.

Affiliation--GHC

    Section 771(33) of the Act, provides that ``the following persons 
shall be considered to be `affiliated' or `affiliated persons' '':
    (A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by 
the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants.
    (B) Any officer or director of an organization and such 
organization.
    (C) Partners.
    (D) Employer and employee.
    (E) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or 
holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting 
stock or shares of any organization and such organization.
    (F) Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, 
controlled by, or under common control with, any person.
    (G) Any person who controls any other person and such other person.
    Additionally, section 771(33) of the Act stipulates that: ``For 
purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to control 
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position 
to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.''
    Based on the evidence on the record in this administrative review 
including information found in GHC's questionnaire responses, the 
Department preliminarily finds GHC affiliated with Beijing Pacific 
Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. (``Beijing Pacific''), an exporter 
of the subject merchandise, Cherishmet Inc. (``Cherishmet''), a U.S. 
importer of the subject merchandise, Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon 
Company (``GH''), a domestic reseller of the merchandise under 
consideration, and Company A\12\ pursuant to sections 771(33) (E), (F) 
and

[[Page 21320]]

(G) of the Act, based on ownership and common control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The identity of this company is business proprietary 
information; for further discussion of this company, see Memorandum 
to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
from Robert Palmer, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, re; 
Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of 
China: Affiliation Memorandum of Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet 
Activated Carbon Co. Ltd., (April 30, 2009) (``GHC Affiliation 
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find that in addition to being affiliated, the collapsing 
criterion of significant potential for manipulation of price exists 
among Beijing Pacific, Cherishmet, GH, and GHC for the following 
reasons. There is a level of common ownership between and among these 
companies: (a) Cherishmet owns Beijing Pacific and a significant share 
of GHC and (b) GH owns a significant share of GHC. Moreover, a 
significant level of common control exists among these companies: (a) 
The owner of Cherishmet is a member of Beijing Pacific and GHC's board 
of directors; (b) Cherishmet appointed the general manager and board 
member of Beijing Pacific to GHC's board of directors; (c) GH and GHC 
share board of directors, management, and employees. Further, we find 
that the operations of Beijing Pacific, Cherishmet, GH, and GHC are 
sufficiently intertwined. Specifically, Beijing Pacific and GHC share 
sales information with Cherishmet. Finally, certain information 
contained within GHC's supplemental questionnaire responses indicates 
that Cherishmet sets the U.S. sales prices for Beijing Pacific and GHC. 
See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) states that the Department will treat 
``two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where those 
producers have production facilities for similar or identical 
products that would not require substantial retooling of either 
facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and the 
Secretary concludes that there is a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production.'' Further, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) 
states that ``in identifying a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production, the factors the Secretary may 
consider include: (i) The level of common ownership; (ii) The extent 
to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on 
the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii) Whether 
operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales 
information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the 
sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions 
between the affiliated producers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we note that the factors listed in 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in the context of an NME 
investigation or administrative review, other factors unique to the 
relationship of business entities within the NME may lead the 
Department to determine that collapsing is either warranted or 
unwarranted, depending on the facts of the case. See Hontex 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 03-17, 36 (February 13, 
2003) (noting that the application of collapsing in the NME context may 
differ from the standard factors listed in the regulation). 
Additionally, the Department may consider export decisions in its 
collapsing analysis. See Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 342 F. 
Supp. 2d 1225, 1230-34 (CIT 2004) (``Hontex II''). Furthermore, the 
Department may expand the market-economy inquiry into the potential for 
manipulation to include NME exporters' export decisions, rather than 
whether or not the companies share production facilities. See Hontex 
II.
    Accordingly, the Department finds Beijing Pacific, Cherishmet, GH 
and GHC as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. 
See 19 CFR 351.401(f). With respect to Company A, based on evidence on 
the record and evidence presented in GHC's questionnaire responses, the 
Department preliminarily determines that Company A is not a single 
entity with GHC. See 19 CFR 351.401(f). For a detailed discussion of 
this issue, see GHC Affiliation Memo.

Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the Act provide that, if 
necessary information is not available on the record, or 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 sections 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.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, 
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in 
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department 
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on 
that party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (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 Department; and (5) the 
information can be used without undue difficulties.
    However, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department 
``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information 
from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering 
authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available.'' See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 
(1994) (SAA), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' Id. An adverse inference may include reliance on information 
derived from the petition, the final determination in the 
investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on 
the record. See section 776(b) of the Act.

CCT

    On August 19, 2008, CCT requested to be excused from reporting FOP 
data for certain Chinese producers. On September 30, 2008, the 
Department requested additional information from CCT regarding its 
exclusion requests. On October 10, 2008, CCT responded and provided 
detailed information regarding its producers and production quantities. 
On October 17, 2008, the Department notified CCT that due to the large 
numbers of producers that supplied CCT during the POR, its request to 
be excused from reporting certain FOP data would be granted. See the 
Department's Letter to CCT dated October 17, 2008. Specifically, the 
Department did not require CCT to

[[Page 21321]]

report FOP data for the following producers: (1) Datong Nanjiao Huiyuan 
A/C Co. Ltd.; (2) Datong Fuping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; (3) Hongke 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; (4) Ningxia Luyuangheng Activated Carbon 
Co., Ltd.; (5) Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; and (6) 
Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. Id.
    The Department also notified CCT that it would not be required to 
report FOP data for products that were produced prior to the POR, as 
indicated in CCT's October 11, 2008, response. Furthermore, the 
Department notified CCT that it was not required to report FOP data for 
products that were purchased by and not produced by CCT's producers, as 
indicated in CCT's October 11, 2008, response. Additionally, the 
Department notified CCT that, upon CCT's acceptance of the terms of the 
FOP data exclusions, the Department shall determine the appropriate 
facts available to apply, in lieu of the actual FOP data, to the 
corresponding U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Id.
    Thus, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the 
Department is applying facts available to determine the normal value 
for the sales corresponding to the FOP data CCT was excused from 
reporting. Due to the proprietary nature of the factual information 
concerning these producers, these issues are addressed in a separate 
business proprietary memorandum where a detailed explanation of the 
facts available calculation is provided. See Memorandum to Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Irene 
Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memorandum for Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., in 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 
from the People's Republic of China, dated April 30, 2009 (``CCT Prelim 
Analysis Memo'').

Jacobi

    On September 15, 2008, Jacobi requested to be excused from 
reporting FOP data for certain Chinese producers. On September 30, 
2008, the Department requested additional information from Jacobi 
regarding its exclusion requests. On October 10, 2008, Jacobi responded 
and provided detailed information regarding its producers and 
production quantities. On October 20, 2008, the Department notified 
Jacobi that due to the large numbers of producers that supplied Jacobi 
during the POR, Jacobi would be excused from reporting certain FOP 
data. See the Department's Letter to Jacobi dated October 20, 2008. 
Specifically, the Department did not require Jacobi to report FOP data 
for its five smallest producers.\14\ Additionally, the Department 
notified Jacobi that it was not required to report FOP data for 
products that were produced by the four largest producers prior to the 
POR, as indicated in Jacobi's October 11, 2008, request. Thus, the 
Department determined that upon Jacobi's acceptance of the exclusion 
terms, the Department would determine the appropriate facts available 
to apply, in lieu of the actual FOP data for products produced prior to 
the POR for the four largest producers, to the corresponding U.S. sales 
of subject merchandise. Lastly, as indicated in Jacobi's October 10, 
2008, response, Jacobi's four largest producers purchased certain 
quantities of activated carbon from unaffiliated suppliers, but did not 
sell any of the purchased activated carbon to Jacobi. Thus, the 
Department notified Jacobi that if this were indeed the case, it would 
be unnecessary for Jacobi to report the FOPs for such purchases to the 
Department because these products were not sold to Jacobi. See Jacobi 
Producers' Exclusion Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The names of these producers are business proprietary 
information thus not available for public summary. See the 
Department's letter to Jacobi, dated October 20, 2008, for the names 
of these producers (``Jacobi Producers' Exclusion Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department is 
applying facts available to determine the normal value for the sales 
corresponding to the FOP data that Jacobi was excused from reporting. 
Due to the proprietary nature of the factual information concerning 
these producers, these issues are addressed in a separate business 
proprietary memorandum where a detailed explanation of the facts 
available calculation is provided. See Memorandum to Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Julia 
Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memorandum for Jacobi Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi 
International Trading Co., Ltd., and Jacobi Carbons, Inc.'s 
(collectively ``Jacobi'') in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, dated 
April 30, 2009 (``Jacobi Prelim Analysis Memo'').

GHC

    On September 12, 2008, GHC requested to be excused from reporting 
FOP data for a Chinese producer.\15\ On October 17, 2008, the 
Department notified GHC that because the FOP data for this Chinese 
producer are of limited quantity and GHC states it produces comparable 
products, the Department was excusing GHC from providing the Chinese 
producer's FOP data. See the Department's Letter to GHC dated October 
17, 2008. Thus, the Department determined that upon GHC's acceptance of 
the exclusion terms, the Department would determine the appropriate 
facts available to apply, in lieu of the actual FOP data for products 
produced by the excluded producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The name of this producer is business proprietary 
information thus not available for public summary. See the 
Department's letter to Cherishmet, dated October 27, 2008, for the 
name of this producer (``Cherishmet Producers' Exclusion Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in accordance with sections 776(a)(1) of the Act, the 
Department is applying facts available to determine the normal value 
for the sales corresponding to the FOP data that GHC was excused from 
reporting. Due to the proprietary nature of the factual information 
concerning these producers, these issues are addressed in a separate 
business proprietary memorandum where a detailed explanation of the 
facts available calculation is provided. See Memorandum to Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Robert 
Palmer, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Results 
Analysis Memorandum for Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon 
Co. Ltd. (``GHC'') in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, dated 
April 30, 2009 (``GHC Prelim Analysis Memo'').

Jilin

    As stated in the ``Respondent Selection'' section above, the 
Department issued the NME questionnaire to Jilin on August 5, 2008. On 
August 26, 2008, the Department granted Jilin an extension of seven 
business days to September 5, 2008, in which to submit its Section A 
questionnaire response. However, the Department was not contacted by 
Jilin, nor did it receive a response to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire by the extended deadline (i.e., September 5, 2008). 
Moreover, the Department did not receive Jilin's response to sections C 
and D of the questionnaire by the established deadline (i.e., September 
11, 2008).\16\ However, the Department

[[Page 21322]]

provided Jilin with another opportunity to explain why it had not 
submitted responses to sections A, C, and D of the August 5, 2008, 
questionnaire, and requested that it do so by September 19, 2008.\17\ 
As stated above in the ``Respondent Selection'' section, on September 
15, 2008, counsel to Jilin filed a letter stating that Jilin would not 
participate as a mandatory respondent in this administrative 
review.\18\ Therefore, the Department finds it appropriate to rely on 
the facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for Jilin 
for purposes of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Although Jilin contacted us on September 11, 2008, 
withdrawing its request for an administrative review, Norit America, 
Inc. and Calgon Carbon Corporation (``Petitioners'') requested a 
review of Jilin; thus, we informed Jilin in the September 12, 2008, 
letter that it is still under review.
    \17\ See Letter from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Regarding Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Activated 
Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Jilin's 
Request for Administrative Review (September 12, 2008).
    \18\ See Letter from Jilin Regarding Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China and Termination of Jilin's Participation 
As A Mandatory Respondent (September 15, 2008).
    \19\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of the 
Sixth Administrative Review, 71 FR 11183 (March 6, 2006) (unchanged 
in final results); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 18369 (April 11, 2005) (unchanged in final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the 
interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise 
available. See also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 
54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 
FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences may be 
employed ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
SAA at 870. As a result of Jilin's termination of participation from 
the instant proceeding, the Department is not granting Jilin a separate 
rate and considers Jilin part of the PRC-wide entity. See ``PRC-Wide 
Entity and Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate'' section below. 
See also the ``Corroboration'' section below for a discussion of the 
probative value of the PRC-wide rate of 228.11 percent rate.

PRC-Wide Entity and Selection of Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'') Rate

    As noted above, the Department determined that, as a result of 
Jilin's termination of participation from the instant proceeding, the 
Department is not granting Jilin a separate rate and considers Jilin 
part of the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the Department finds that the PRC-
wide entity, including Jilin, withheld requested information, failed to 
provide information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and 
significantly impeded this proceeding. Moreover, by refusing to answer 
the Department's questionnaire, the PRC-wide entity, including Jilin, 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the 
Department must rely on adverse facts otherwise available in order to 
determine a margin for the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and 776(b) of the Act.\20\ By doing so, the 
Department ensures that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide 
entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than had they cooperated fully in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and 
New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) (decision to 
apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity), unchanged in Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 
Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally 
selects, as AFA, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the 
proceeding. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3987, 3989 
(January 22, 2009). The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the 
Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice in 
this regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 
1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (``Rhone Poulenc''); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 
346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total 
AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different 
respondent in an LTFV investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading 
Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a 
different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen 
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 
1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest 
available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous 
administrative review).
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004); D&L Supply 
Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In 
choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an 
incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably 
related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the 
highest prior margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the 
highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, 
because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would 
have produced current information showing the margin to be less.'' 
Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court 
precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has assigned the 
rate of 228.11 percent, the highest rate on the record of any segment 
of the proceeding, to the PRC-wide entity, which includes Jilin, as 
AFA. See e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results And Rescission, In Part, of 
2004/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 
FR 52049 (September 12, 2007). See

[[Page 21323]]

 ``Corroboration of Information'' section below.

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information on which it relies as 
facts available. ``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 subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA states that 
``corroborate'' means to determine that the information has probative 
value. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be 
both reliable and relevant.\21\ The Department is applying as AFA the 
highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, which 
is the rate currently applicable to all exporters subject to the PRC-
wide rate, including Jilin. The AFA rate in the current review (i.e., 
the PRC-wide rate of 228.11 percent) represents the highest rate from 
the petition in the LTFV investigation. See Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of corroboration, the Department will consider whether 
that margin is both reliable and relevant. The AFA rate the Department 
is applying for the current review was corroborated in the LTFV 
investigation.\22\ No information has been presented in the current 
review that calls into question the reliability of this information. 
Thus, the Department finds the information continues to be reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
9508 (March 2, 2007) (``Activated Carbon LTFV''). An amended final 
determination was published on March 30, 2007. See Notice of Amended 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 15099 
(March 30, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. The information used in calculating this margin was based on 
sales and production data submitted by the petitioner in the LTFV 
investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value 
information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the 
parties in the LTFV investigation, as well as information gathered by 
the Department itself. See Activated Carbon LTFV. Furthermore, the 
calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested 
parties in the proceeding. As there is no information on the record of 
this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use 
as AFA, the Department determines that this rate has relevance.
    As the 228.11 percent rate is both reliable and relevant, the 
Department determines that it has probative value. Accordingly, the 
Department determines that the calculated rate of 228.11 percent, which 
is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accord with the requirement of 
section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be corroborated to 
the extent practicable (i.e., that it have probative value). The 
Department has assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject 
merchandise by the PRC-wide entity, which includes Jilin.

Separate Rates

    In the Separate Rates Application and Certification Letter,\23\ the 
Department notified parties of the recent application and certification 
process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate rate 
status in an NME review. The process requires exporters and producers 
to submit a separate rate status certification and/or application. See 
also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005) (``Policy Bulletin 05.1''), 
available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the standard for 
eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can 
demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over its export activities) has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See the Department's letter to interested parties entitled, 
``Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Separate Rate Application and Separate 
Rate Certification,'' dated August 15, 2008 (``Separate Rates 
Application and Certification Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. In 
proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's practice to 
begin 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. See, e.g., Policy Bulletin 05.1; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53080 
(September 8, 2006); 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, 29307 (May 22, 2006). 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 
affirmatively demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to 
be entitled to a separate rate. Id. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control over export activities. Id. The Department analyzes 
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 
the Notice of 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 further developed in 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''). However, if the Department determines that a company is 
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate 
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic 
of China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
    Excluding the companies selected for individual review, the 
Department received separate rate applications or certifications from 
the following

[[Page 21324]]

companies: Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Lingzhou 
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; Tianjin 
Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon 
Co., Ltd.; Hebei Foreign Trade Advertisement Company; and Beijing 
Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. Additionally, the 
Department received completed responses to the Section A portion of the 
NME questionnaire from CCT, Jacobi, and GHC, which contained 
information pertaining to the companies' eligibility for a separate 
rate. However, Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited, one of the companies 
upon which the Department initiated an administrative review that has 
not been rescinded, did not submit either a separate-rate application 
or certification. Therefore, because Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited 
did not demonstrate its eligibility for separate rate status, it has 
now been included as part of the PRC-wide entity. Also, as noted above, 
Jilin has not participated in this administrative review. Therefore, 
Jilin (including affiliate Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and 
Commerce Co., Ltd.) has failed to demonstrate its eligibility for a 
separate rate.

Separate Rate Recipients

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
    CCT and Jacobi have reported that they are wholly foreign-owned. 
CCT reported that 100 percent of its shares are held by Calgon Carbon 
Corporation, which is located in the United States. See CCT's Section A 
Questionnaire Response dated September 16, 2008, at pages 2-4. Jacobi 
reported that it is wholly owned by a company located in a market-
economy country, Sweden. See Jacobi's Section A Questionnaire Response 
dated September 5, 2008 at page 3. Therefore, there is no PRC ownership 
of CCT or Jacobi, and because the Department has no evidence indicating 
that either company is under the control of the PRC, a separate rates 
analysis is not necessary to determine whether they are independent 
from government control.\24\ Additionally, one of the exporters under 
review not selected for individual review, Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., 
Ltd., reported in its separate-rate certification that it is 100 
percent foreign owned. See Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.'s Separate 
Rate Certification dated September 15, 2008, at 2. Accordingly, the 
Department has preliminarily granted separate rate status to CCT, 
Jacobi, and Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese-Owned Companies
    GHC \25\ and six of the separate rate applicants in this 
administrative review stated that they are either joint ventures 
between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned 
companies. The Department has analyzed whether GHC and the separate-
rate applicants have demonstrated the absence of de jure and de facto 
governmental control over their respective export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See GHC's Section A Questionnaire Response dated September 
5, 2008, at pages 2-4. See also Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 
Products Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate Certification dated September 15, 
2008 at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. 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) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by GHC and the six separate rate applicants 
supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control 
based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
(2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control 
of the companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., GHC's Section A 
Questionnaire Response dated September 5, 2008, at pages 2-4; Datong 
Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate 
Certification dated September 15, 2008, at Exhibit 3; Hebei Foreign 
Trade and Advertising Corp.'s Separate Rate Certification dated 
September 15, 2008, at 3-4.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government 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 22586-87; 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 government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by 
GHC and the six separate rate applicants supports a preliminary finding 
of de facto absence of government control based on the following: (1) 
The companies set their own export prices independent of the government 
and without the approval of a government authority; (2) the companies 
have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; 
(3) the companies have autonomy from the government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management; and (4) there is no restriction 
on any of the companies' use of export revenue. See, e.g., GHC's 
Section A Questionnaire Response dated September 5, 2008, at pages 2-4; 
Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade Company's Separate Rate Application 
dated October 15, 2008, at 10 and Supplemental Response dated January 
8, 2009, at 3-4; Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate 
Certification dated September 9, 2008, at Exhibit 1. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily finds that GHC and six separate-rate 
applicants have established that they qualify for a separate rate under 
the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Separate Rate Calculation

    As stated previously, this review covers 14 exporters. Of those, 
the Department selected two exporters, CCT and Jacobi (including 
affiliates), as mandatory respondents in this review and one voluntary 
respondent, GHC (including affiliate Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 
Products Co., Ltd.). As stated above, two companies, Ningxia

[[Page 21325]]

Mineral & Chemical Limited and Jilin (including affiliate, Jilin 
Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.), are part of 
the PRC-Wide entity, and thus, are not entitled to a separate rate. The 
remaining six companies submitted timely information as requested by 
the Department and remain subject to this review as cooperative 
separate rate respondents.
    For the exporters subject to this review that were determined to be 
eligible for separate rate status, but were not selected as mandatory 
respondents, the Department normally establishes a simple-average 
margin based on an average of the rates it calculated for the mandatory 
respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on AFA.\26\ Accordingly, for these preliminary results, the 
rates calculated for Jacobi and CCT (excluding GHC, a voluntary 
respondent) are applied as the rate for non-selected separate entities. 
That rate is 119.19 percent. Entities receiving this rate are 
identified by name in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279 
(February 13, 2008) (unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 
20, 2008)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    CCT, Jacobi, and GHC reported the invoice date as the date of sale 
because they claim that, for their U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
made during the POR, the material terms of sale were established on the 
invoice date. The Department preliminarily determines that the invoice 
date is the most appropriate date to use as CCT's, Jacobi's, and GHC's 
date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and the Department's 
long-standing practice of determining the date of sale.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain activated carbon to the 
United States by CCT, Jacobi, and GHC were made at less than fair 
value, the Department compared either export price (``EP'') or 
constructed export price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.

U.S. Price

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated the EP for a portion of sales to the United States for GHC 
because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the 
date of importation and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. The 
Department calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as 
appropriate, the Department deducted from the starting price to 
unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight and brokerage and 
handling. Each of these services was either provided by an NME vendor 
or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, the Department based the 
deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values. Additionally, 
for international freight provided by a market economy provider and 
paid in U.S. dollars, the Department used the actual cost per kilogram 
of the freight. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo for details regarding 
the surrogate values for movement expenses.

Constructed Export Price

    For all of CCT's and Jacobi's sales and the majority of GHC's 
sales, the Department based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act, because sales were made on behalf of the 
Chinese-based companies by a U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. For these sales, the Department based CEP on 
prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where 
appropriate, the Department 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, the Department 
also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States. The Department 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, the Department valued these services 
using surrogate values (see ``Factor Valuations'' section below for 
further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by a market 
economy provider and paid for in a market economy currency, the 
Department used the reported expense. However, the Department has not 
used GHC's reported market economy international freight expenses 
because they were not provided by and paid for directly through a 
market economy provider.\28\ 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 April 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 and provided 
further-processing cost data. See CCT's Section A Questionnaire 
Response dated September 16, 2008, at page 32 and Exhibit 11; see also 
CCT's Supplemental Section C Questionnaire Response dated January 7, 
2009 at Exhibit 44-A. Petitioner NORIT submitted comments on October 
21, 2008, and December 23, 2008, arguing that, among other concerns, 
CCT overstated the significance of its further manufacturing costs.
    The Department preliminarily determines that the ``special rule'' 
under section 772(e) of the Act for merchandise with value added after 
importation applies to the sales made by CCC in the United States. 
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when the subject merchandise 
is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in the United 
States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the 
value of the subject merchandise, the Department shall determine the 
CEP for such merchandise using the price to an unaffiliated party of 
identical or other subject merchandise if there is a sufficient 
quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, and the 
Department determines that the use of such sales is appropriate. If 
there is not a sufficient quantity of such sales or if the Department 
determines that using the price to an unaffiliated party of

[[Page 21326]]

identical or other subject merchandise is not appropriate, the 
Department may use any other reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
    To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the Department 
estimated the value added based on the difference between the averages 
of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the 
merchandise as sold in the United States and the averages of the prices 
paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated purchaser, CCC. 
Based on the information provided by CCT and the Department's analysis 
of this information, the Department determined that the estimated value 
added in the United States by CCC accounted for at least 65 percent of 
the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the 
merchandise as sold in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c); see 
also Antifriction Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 
Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and the 
United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part, 66 FR 36551, 36555 (July 12, 
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 28 
(``AFBs''). Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that the 
value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise.
    For CCT, the Department preliminarily determines that the remaining 
quantity of sales of identical or other subject merchandise to 
unaffiliated persons are sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for 
comparison and that the use of these sales is appropriate as a basis 
for calculating margins of dumping on the value-added merchandise. See 
section 772(e) of the Act; see also AFBs; Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, 
Senior Case Analyst, Office 9: Special Rule for Merchandise with Value 
Added after Importation for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, dated 
April 30, 2009 (``Special Rule Memo'').
    Accordingly, the Department has determined 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. For 
purposes of these preliminary results, the Department has applied the 
weighted-average margin from CCT's other U.S. sales to the quantity of 
U.S. further manufactured sales. See CCT Prelim 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 FOPs 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.

FOP Reporting Exclusions

    As stated above, the Department granted exclusions for certain 
nominal producers to be excused from providing FOP data for CCT, 
Jacobi, and GHC. As the corresponding U.S. sales from the material 
supplied by the excused producers were reported in the U.S. sales 
listing, the Department has assigned FOPs for similar subject 
merchandise that was produced by CCT, Jacobi, and GHC, respectively, as 
facts available, to those sales observations associated with the 
excluded producers. See CCT Prelim Analysis Memo, Jacobi Prelim 
Analysis Memo and GHC Prelim Analysis Memo.
    Additionally, CCT has reported that its individual producers could 
not provide FOP data on a CONNUM-specific basis. See, e.g., CCT letter 
dated March 17, 2009. Rather, these individual producers have reported 
FOP consumption data based on product family codes, which are then 
batch-tested by CCT to determine and assign a CONNUM to the product 
family codes based on a weighted-average calculation of its producers' 
FOP consumption. CCT has provided detailed and potentially verifiable 
information on the standards used in the ordinary course of business by 
CCT and its producers. See Supplemental Section D Questionnaire 
Response dated February 17, 2009. In addition, CCT has provided samples 
of FOP consumption data, reconciliation worksheets, and FOP source 
documentation used in the ordinary course of business by its producers. 
See, e.g., CCT's Second Supplemental Section D Questionnaire Response 
dated March 13, 2009, at 2 and Exhibits FW-7, FW-9, FW-11, XX-4. 
Further, CCT has explained that each of its producers maintains records 
on the consumption of all raw materials. CCT notes that its producers 
do not track data during the production process for four product 
characteristics within the CONNUM: apparent density, hardness, 
abrasion, and ash content. However, CCT claims that it has provided its 
FOP data based on as much detail as the books and records of its 
records and its producers' records would allow. See CCT's Supplemental 
Section D Questionnaire Response dated February 17, 2009, at 3-7. 
Therefore, on the basis of the data submitted by CCT, which the 
Department intends to carefully scrutinize at verification, the 
Department preliminarily determines that CCT's FOP reporting 
methodology is sufficient to preliminarily calculate an accurate 
dumping margin. Nonetheless, we are hereby notifying CCT that it should 
begin to track all records generated in the normal course of business 
that would allow CCT and its producers to report FOP consumption in 
future segments of this proceeding taking into account as many CONNUM 
characteristics as possible.\29\ Additionally, as stated in Certain 
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, the 
Department also notes that there is no reason to conclude that 
respondents in future segments would be unable to report FOPs on a 
CONNUM-specific basis, notwithstanding the fact that previous 
respondents have been unable to do so, based on the manner in which 
they chose to maintain their records. See Certain Tissue Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final 
Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
58113 (October 6, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 2009) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when 
a producer sources an input from a market economy country and pays for 
it in a market economy currency, the Department may value the factor 
using the actual price paid for the input.\30\ During the POR, Jacobi 
reported that it

[[Page 21327]]

purchased certain inputs from a market economy supplier and paid for 
the inputs in a market economy currency. See Jacobi's Section D 
Questionnaire Response dated October 24, 2008, at D-1-5 and Exhibit D-
1-E. The Department has a rebuttable presumption that market economy 
input prices are the best available information for valuing an input 
when the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy 
sources during the period of investigation or review exceeds 33 percent 
of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the 
period. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected 
Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 
FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping Methodologies''). 
In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to 
rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the 
weighted average market economy purchase price to value the input. 
Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input 
from market economy suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of 
its total volume of purchases of the input during the period, but where 
these purchases are otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard 
the prices, the Department will weight-average the market economy 
purchase price with an appropriate surrogate value (``SV'') according 
to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless 
case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. 
See Antidumping Methodologies. When a firm has made market economy 
input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona 
fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, 
the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to 
ensure a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases 
meet the 33-percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 
1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of 
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that CCT, Jacobi, and GHC used to 
produce the merchandise under investigation during the POR, except 
where listed below. With regard to both the Indian import-based 
surrogate values and the market economy input values, the Department 
has disregarded prices that the Department has reason to believe or 
suspect may be subsidized. The Department has reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of inputs from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and 
Thailand may have been subsidized. The Department has 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.\31\ The Department is also guided by the statute's 
legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a 
formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See 
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to 
accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in 1988 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's 
Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30763 n.6 (June 4, 2007) unchanged in 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 
2007). Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that is 
available to it at the time it makes its determination. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged in Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 
55039 (September 24, 2008). Therefore, the Department has not used 
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based 
surrogate values. Additionally, the Department disregarded prices from 
NME countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from 
an ``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, as the 
Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME 
country or a country with general export subsidies. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 
54011 (September 13, 2005) (unchanged in the final results); China 
National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States, 293 
F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 104 
Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by CCT, Jacobi, and GHC, the Department calculated 
NV based on the FOPs reported by CCT, Jacobi, and GHC for the POR. The 
Department used data from the Indian Import Statistics and other 
publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate surrogate 
values for CCT, Jacobi, and GHC's FOPs (direct materials, energy, and 
packing materials) and certain movement expenses. To calculate NV, the 
Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). The 
Department's practice when selecting the best available information for 
valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values 
which are product-specific, representative of a broad market average, 
publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes 
and duties. See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, the 
Department added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight 
cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic 
supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the 
factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the 
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate values 
used for CCT, Jacobi, and GHC, see Memorandum to the File through 
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9 from Blaine Wiltse, Case 
Analyst, re; First Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the 
Preliminary Results (``Prelim Surrogate Value Memo'').
    In those instances where the Department could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value 
factors, the Department adjusted the surrogate values using, where 
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in 
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund, a printout of which is attached to the Prelim Surrogate Value 
Memo at Exhibit 2. Where necessary, the Department adjusted surrogate 
values for inflation, exchange rates, and taxes, and the Department 
converted all applicable items to a per-kilogram basis.
    The Department valued electricity using price data for small, 
medium, and large industries, as published by the

[[Page 21328]]

Central Electricity Authority of the Government of India (``CEA'') in 
its publication titled ``Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of 
Electricity Supply in India'', dated July 2006. These electricity rates 
represent actual country-wide, publicly available information on tax-
exclusive electricity rates charged to industries in India. Since the 
rates are not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department inflated the 
values using the WPI. Parties have suggested that the Department rely 
on June 2008 CEA data and International Energy Agency (``IEA'') data. 
However, the Department preliminarily finds that we cannot rely on 
those data because we are unable to separate duty rates from the June 
2008 CEA data, and the IEA data are less contemporaneous than the July 
2006 CEA data. Additionally, Petitioners have recommended that the 
Department not use CEA data because of a 2007 TERI report that 
indicated that the rates include subsidies and are below production. 
However, the Department was unable to find sufficient evidence of 
subsidies to demonstrate that the electricity rates used in the CEA 
data were unreliable. Moreover, the Department was also unable to find 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the electricity rates used in 
the CEA data were below cost. Therefore, we preliminarily determine to 
value electricity using the CEA price data. See Prelim 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, the Department finds that whether the producer pays for water is 
irrelevant in determining whether it should be considered a direct 
material input.\32\ Further, there is no evidence on the record that 
the Indian producers of activated carbon from which the Department are 
obtaining overhead financial ratio data account for water as an 
overhead expense. The Department valued water using data from the 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (http://www.midcindia.org) as 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 POR, 
the Department adjusted the rate for inflation. See Prelim Surrogate 
Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Pacific Giant, Inc., et al. v. United States, 223 F. 
Supp. 2d 1336, 1346 (CIT 2002); Fresh Garlic From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Reviews, 69 FR 33626 (June 16, 2004) and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), the Department 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 May 2008; see 
Corrected 2007 Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 
27795 (May 14, 2008), and http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The 
source of these wage-rate data on Import Administration's web site is 
the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2005, ILO (Geneva: 2007), 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, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all skill 
levels and types of labor reported by the respondents. See Prelim 
Surrogate Value Memo.
    For coal gas, the Department examined Indian import data and noted 
that there are no imports of commercial quantities of coal gas for the 
POR or prior to the POR. Because the Department found no usable data to 
value coal gas, the Department has determined to use the methodology 
employed in pure magnesium from the PRC. See Pure Magnesium from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 2008) and accompanying 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 4. Therefore, to value coal 
gas, the Department first obtained a value for natural gas from the 
financial statements found in the 2007-2008 Annual Report of the Gas 
Authority of India Ltd. (``GAIL''), a supplier of natural gas in India. 
The Department then compared the amount of British thermal units 
(``BTUs'') in coal gas (i.e., 600) to that of natural gas (i.e., 1150) 
to calculate the relative percentage of BTUs in coal gas. The 
Department has applied that percentage to the value of natural gas to 
determine a surrogate value for coal gas.\33\ See Prelim Surrogate 
Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ We note that we have also used this methodology in other 
proceedings. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; 
see also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001) (unchanged in 
Final Notice of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China, 66 
FR 49632 (September 28, 2001)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department calculated the surrogate value for steam based upon 
the April 2007-March 2008 financial statement of Hindalco Industries 
Limited (``Hindalco''). See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 (March 11, 2009), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. For a detailed explanation 
of our reasons for using Hindalco's financial statements as the source 
of the surrogate value for steam, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit 
average rate calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this 
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POR, the 
Department deflated the rate using WPI. See Prelim Surrogate Value 
Memo.
    To value international freight, the Department obtained price data 
from the Maersk SeaLand Web site (https://www.maerskline.com). See 
Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. To value marine insurance, the Department 
used data from RGJ Consultants (http://www.rjgconsultants.com/). This 
source provides information regarding the per-value rates of marine 
insurance of imports and exports to/from various countries. See Prelim 
Surrogate Value Memo.
    To value brokerage and handling, the Department calculated a simple 
average of the brokerage and handling costs that were reported in 
public submissions that were filed in three antidumping duty cases.\34\ 
Specifically, the Department averaged the public brokerage and handling 
expenses reported by Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 
administrative

[[Page 21329]]

review of certain lined paper products from India, Essar Steel Limited 
in the 2006-2007 antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from India, and Himalaya International Ltd. 
in the 2005-2006 administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms 
from India. The Department inflated the brokerage and handling rate 
using the appropriate WPI inflator. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Certain Lined Paper Products from India (07-08), Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India (06-07), and 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India (05-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the average of the 
audited financial statements of three Indian activated carbon producing 
companies; those being, Core Carbons for fiscal year (``FY'') 07-08, 
Indo German Carbons Ltd. for FY 07-08, and Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. for 
FY 06-07.\35\ Additionally, while GHC also provided an additional 
source for surrogate financial ratios using the financial statements of 
Quantum Active Carbon Pvt. Ltd. (``Quantum''), which is an Indian 
producer of activated carbon products, the Department preliminarily 
finds that the financial statements of this producer should not be used 
for purposes of calculating surrogate financial ratios because the 
financial statement was submitted without the profit and loss 
statement. Although GHC provided Quantum's profit and loss statement on 
February 24, 2009, 11 days after submitting Quantum's financial 
statement, GHC did not provide any explanation of how this profit and 
loss statement was obtained or whether it is available in the public 
domain. Thus, we find that absent any information on the record with 
respect to the availability of Quantum's complete financial statements, 
inclusive of the profit and loss statement, we find that Quantum's 
financial statement is incomplete. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), the Department preliminarily determines that the FY 07-
08 financial statements of Core Carbons and Indo German Carbons Ltd., 
and the FY 06-07 financial statements of Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. 
provide the best available information with which to calculate 
surrogate financial ratios, because they are complete, publicly 
available, and contemporaneous with the POR. Additionally, all three of 
these companies produce comparable merchandise and use an integrated 
carbonization production process which closely mirrors that of all 
three respondents. Therefore, the Department has used these financial 
statements to value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, for these 
preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The FY 07-08 financial statements for Core Carbons were 
submitted by Petitioners on February 13, 2009; the FY 07-08 
financial statements for Indo German Carbons Ltd. and the FY 06-07 
financial statements for Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. were submitted by 
Jacobi on February 13, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to GHC's request for a byproduct offset for fines, the 
Department has preliminarily determined that the product GHC has 
claimed as a byproduct is in fact merchandise within the scope of this 
administrative review because it is still considered activated carbon, 
and, therefore should not be considered a byproduct. Consequently, the 
Department is not granting a byproduct credit in our margin calculation 
for GHC. See GHC Prelim Analysis Memo.

Currency Conversion

    The Department 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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist:

      Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted  average
                Manufacturer/exporter                  margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd....................              188.57
Jacobi Carbons AB \36\..............................               49.81
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co.,                  50.84
 Ltd \37\...........................................
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.              119.19
Hebei Foreign Trade Advertisement Company...........              119.19
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd............              119.19
Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.............              119.19
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd......................              119.19
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd..................              119.19
PRC-Wide Rate \38\..................................              228.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Because, as 
discussed above, the Department intends to seek additional information, 
the Department will establish the briefing schedule at a later time, 
and will notify parties of the schedule in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.309. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement 
of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ And its affiliates, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading 
Co., Ltd. and Jacobi Carbons, Inc.
    \37\ Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and 
the following companies have been determined to be a single entity: 
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia 
Guanghua Activated Carbon Company, and Company A. Thus, the 
calculated margin applies to the single entity.
    \38\ The PRC-Wide entity includes Ningxia Mineral & Chemical 
Limited, Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. and its 
affiliate, Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., 
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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, 
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
its analysis of the issues

[[Page 21330]]

raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Extension of the Time Limits for the Final Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires that the Department issue 
the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the 
date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not 
practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline 
for the final results to a maximum of 180 days after the date on which 
the preliminary results are published.
    In this proceeding, the Department requires additional time to 
complete the final results of this administrative review to issue 
additional supplemental questionnaires, conduct verifications of 
several producers in addition to the exporters, generate the reports of 
the verification findings, and properly consider the issues raised in 
case briefs from interested parties. Thus, it is not practicable to 
complete this administrative review within the original time limit. 
Consequently, the Department is extending the time limit for completion 
of the final results of this review by 60 days, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are now due no later 
180 days after the publication date of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review excluding any reported sales that entered during 
the gap period. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for the 
merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported 
reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific 
ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all 
U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by 
the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). 
See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad 
valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment 
rate to the entered value of the importers'/customers' entries during 
the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected 
for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on 
the simple average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the 
companies selected for individual review pursuant to section 
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.
    For those companies for which this review has been preliminarily 
rescinded, the Department intends to assess antidumping duties at rates 
equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at 
the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2), if the review is rescinded for 
these companies. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final 
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 228.11 percent; and (4) for 
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received 
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to 
the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: April 30, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E9-10631 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P