[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26927-26938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11462]


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

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 Second Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Preliminary Rescission in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the 
period April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. The Department has 
preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value 
(``NV'') by the respondents examined in this administrative review. 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.

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer or Kathleen Marksberry, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068 or (202) 
482-7906, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Department received timely requests by Petitioners \1\ and 
certain PRC and other companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 
during the anniversary month of April, to conduct a review of certain 
activated carbon producers and/or exporters from the PRC. On May 29, 
2009, the Department initiated this review with respect to all 
requested companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 
25711 (May 29, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Norit Americas Inc. and Calgon Carbon Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 18, 2009, Petitioners withdrew the request for review with 
respect to 155 of the 187 originally requested companies. On July 2, 
2009, the Department published a notice of rescission in the Federal 
Register for those 155 companies for which the request for review was 
withdrawn. See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 31690 (July 2, 2009) (``First Rescission''). On August 
21, 2009, Petitioners withdrew the request for review with respect to 
an additional thirteen companies. On September 16, 2009, the Department 
published a second notice of rescission in the Federal Register for 
those thirteen companies. See Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47558 (September 16, 2009) (``Second 
Rescission''). Following the two partial rescissions, nineteen 
companies remained subject to this review.\2\ On September 11, 2009, 
Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (``Lingzhou'') submitted a 
letter certifying it had no shipments during the period of review 
(``POR'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These companies are: Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd.; Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant; Datong Juqiang 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Cherishment Inc.; Hebei Foreign Trade 
Advertisement Company; Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 
Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical 
Limited.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future 
Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Jacobi Carbons AB; Tianjin Jacobi 
International Trading Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 
Products Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation; Shanxi 
Newtime Co., Ltd.; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi Industry 
Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing International 
(Beijing) Ltd.
    \3\ Companies have the opportunity to submit statements 
certifying that they did not ship the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 4, 2010, nine months after the publication of the 
Initiation Notice, United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. 
(``UMI'') requested permission to file a late separate rate 
certification, because UMI asserted that it was not properly served 
notice of this review at the time that the request was made by 
Petitioners. The Department fully considered UMI's request in light of 
UMI not being properly served with Petitioners' request. However, it is 
the Department's practice that the Initiation Notice constitutes public 
notice to all potential separate rate applicants of the initiation of 
an investigation or review and the deadline for providing separate rate 
information. Based upon this practice, the Department concludes that 
because UMI did not file a separate rate certification in a timely 
manner or request an extension within the time period for filing a 
separate rate certification, we are not now granting additional time 
for UMI to file a separate rate certification in this review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter from the Department to United Manufacturing 
International (Beijing) Ltd. dated April 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 24, 2009, 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, 74 FR 61330 (November 24, 
2009). Additionally, as explained in the memorandum from the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the Department has 
exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the 
closure of the Federal Government from February 5, through February 12, 
2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 
Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 
As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' 
dated February 12, 2010. Pursuant to that memorandum, all deadlines in 
this segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days. The 
revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now May 
7, 2010.

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.\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection, 
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 29, 2009, 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 access to materials released under APO inviting comments 
regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. On June 4, 2009,

[[Page 26928]]

the Department extended the deadline for comments regarding the CBP 
data.\6\ The Department received comments and rebuttal comments between 
June 15, 2009 and July 21, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See letter to All Interested Parties from Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office IX, dated June 4, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 10, 2009, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum after assessing its resources, considering the number of 
individual producers and/or exporters of activated carbon for which a 
review had been requested, and determining that it could reasonably 
examine two exporters subject to this review. Pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Jacobi Carbons AB 
(``Jacobi'') and Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. (``CCT'') as 
mandatory respondents.\7\ The Department sent its antidumping 
questionnaire to CCT and Jacobi on August 10, 2009. On August 19, 2009, 
CCT withdrew its request for review, and on August 21, 2009, 
Petitioners withdrew their request for review of CCT. Since both 
withdrawal requests were timely, and no other party requested a review 
of CCT, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, the Department rescinded the administrative review with 
respect to CCT. See Second Rescission. Consequently, on September 18, 
2009, in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act and because the 
Department determined it could review two mandatory respondents, the 
Department selected Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 
(``Huahui'') for individual examination in this review because Huahui 
was the next largest exporter by volume during the POR, based on CBP 
data of U.S. imports.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Activated Carbon From the PRC: Selection of Respondents for 
Individual Review, dated August 10, 2009 (``Respondent Selection 
Memo'').
    \8\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, 
from Katie Marksberry, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 
Office 9; Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon From the 
PRC: Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent, dated September 
18, 2009 (``Additional Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment of Shanxi DMD Corporation (``Shanxi DMD'')
    On June 19, 2009, in comments regarding the CBP data placed on the 
record for respondent selection, Shanxi DMD argued that the CBP data 
used in respondent selection overstated the total volume of its POR 
entries of subject merchandise. Additionally, Shanxi DMD claimed that 
it had sales of non-subject merchandise during the POR which fell under 
the same Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading as the subject 
merchandise. On July 13, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Shanxi DMD requesting that Shanxi DMD provide sales 
and shipment data for the POR and for a period of two months preceding 
the POR to estimate entries made during the POR.\9\ On July 20, 2009, 
the Department received a response from Shanxi DMD containing sales and 
shipment data for the POR and the two months preceding the POR. Based 
upon Shanxi DMD's response to our questionnaire, the Department 
selected Jacobi and Huahui as mandatory respondents in this 
administrative review. The Department requested from CBP entry 
documentation for all entries made by Shanxi DMD and on December 1, 
2009, placed that entry documentation on the record and requested 
comments from interested parties.\10\ The POR entry data the Department 
received from CBP differed from the data provided by Shanxi DMD. 
Parties submitted comments and rebuttal comments on the CBP entry 
documentation between December 11, 2009 and December 28, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter from the Department to Shanxi DMD Corporation, 
regarding Second Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 
From the People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Comments 
(July 13, 2009); see also Letter From the Department to Jacobi, 
regarding Second Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 
From the People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection Comments 
(July 13, 2009).
    \10\ See Memorandum to the File, from Katie Marksberry, Case 
Analyst Office IX, re: Shanxi DMD U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') Entry Documentation, dated December 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shanxi DMD explains that it provided POR quantity and value data by 
purchase order and invoice date because these dates are normally used 
to establish the legal date of sale, and that date of sale is used to 
determine the sales universe for any respondent in any investigation or 
review. Additionally, Shanxi DMD contends that its invoice date is the 
correct date of sale and that Shanxi DMD provided to the Department a 
table with shipment dates and invoice dates of invoices dating 
backwards 60 days prior to the POR. Shanxi DMD contends that there is 
nothing in the December 1, 2009 CBP release that contradicts the 
earlier data submissions of Shanxi DMD.
    Petitioners argue the Department should apply total adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') to Shanxi DMD because CBP entry documentation 
demonstrates that Shanxi DMD underreported its total POR entry volume, 
and Petitioners contend that Shanxi DMD was attempting to manipulate 
the respondent selection process. Petitioners argue that the 
Department's selection of mandatory respondents is dependent on the 
volume of subject merchandise sold by the respondents that entered the 
United States during the POR. Instead, Petitioners argue, Shanxi DMD 
limited its reporting to only sales that were invoiced during the POR 
in order to avoid selection as a mandatory respondent. Therefore, 
Petitioners conclude that the Department should apply the PRC-wide rate 
to Shanxi DMD as AFA because Shanxi DMD did not address certain entry 
documents that indicate that it underreported its POR exports to the 
United States.
    In the Respondent Selection Memo, the Department determined to use 
Shanxi DMD's submitted sales and shipment data, based on the data 
available at the time, because the Department determined the data to be 
a more accurate approximation of Shanxi DMD's entries during the POR. 
\11\ After receiving CBP entry documentation, it became clear that 
Shanxi DMD's claims about the inaccuracy of CBP data at the time of 
respondent selection were unfounded. However, Shanxi DMD did provide 
the Department with all the information requested and in a timely 
manner. Therefore, because Shanxi DMD cooperated with the Department in 
providing all the requested information, application of total AFA would 
be inappropriate and contrary to the Act. Accordingly, we are not 
applying the PRC-wide rate to Shanxi DMD as total adverse facts 
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Respondent Selection Memo at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per-Unit Assessment

    On December 22, 2009, Petitioners requested the Department 
calculate specific, per-kilogram cash deposit and importer-specific 
assessment rates for all respondents in this review, because 
Petitioners allege parties are selling the subject merchandise (or 
importing it) at prices significantly below prevailing market prices to 
evade assessment of antidumping duties. See Petitioners' Request for 
Establishment of Specific Rates, dated December 22, 2009 at 2. 
Petitioners state that because the Department calculates antidumping 
duty margins on a U.S. price that is different from the entered value, 
this results in an under collection of duties if the importer reports 
an improperly low entered value. Petitioners argue that per-unit 
assessment rates do not

[[Page 26929]]

prejudice respondents in anyway and that the per-unit assessment rate 
prevents the potential for abuse. Petitioners used the Global Trade 
Information Services, Inc. (``World Trade Atlas'' or ``WTA'') average 
unit value (``AUV'') of U.S. imports of activated carbon from the PRC 
to determine if the per-unit price of sales made by respondents 
indicates that those respondents are undervaluing their shipments to 
lower the antidumping duty deposits at the U.S. port of entry.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Petitioners' Request for Establishment of Specific 
Rates, dated December 22, 2009 at Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has analyzed the information on the record of this 
review submitted by Jacobi, the only respondent who submitted the 
entered value of its U.S. sales. Based on this analysis, the Department 
has not found that there is a substantial difference between the 
average U.S. sales price for activated carbon and the average entered 
value reported to CBP for Jacobi. See Honey from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 38873 (July 6, 2005) (``Honey 2005'') 
and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 7. 
Normally, the difference between entered value and the U.S. prices is 
relatively small, as in this case. See id. With regard Huahui, who did 
not report entered value because its sales were made on an EP basis, 
the Department finds that a comparison of its gross unit price and the 
WTA data \13\ for U.S. imports of activated carbon from the PRC, which 
Petitioners provided, is not appropriate. This is because that HTS 
category is a basket category that includes non-subject merchandise and 
Petitioners could not provide evidence that the non-subject merchandise 
was removed. Therefore, a comparison would not be on an apples-to-
apples basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, because there is insufficient evidence on the record to 
warrant a change to a per-unit importer-specific assessment and cash 
deposit rate, the Department preliminarily determines that it will 
continue to calculate ad valorem cash deposit and importer-specific 
assessment rates as in the past review.

Questionnaires

    On August 10, 2009, the Department issued its initial non-market 
economy (``NME'') antidumping duty questionnaire to the mandatory 
respondent Jacobi. On September 21, 2009, the Department issued its 
initial NME antidumping duty questionnaire to the mandatory respondent 
Huahui. Huahui and Jacobi timely responded to the Department's initial 
and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between September 2009 and 
April 2010.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009.

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 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.

Preliminary Partial Rescission

    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, Lingzhou filed a 
no shipment certification indicating that it did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. In order to examine 
this claim, we reviewed the CBP data used for respondent selection and 
found no discrepancies with the statement made by Lingzhou. 
Additionally, we sent an inquiry to CBP asking if any CBP office had 
any information contrary to the no shipments claim, and to alert the 
Department within ten days of receiving our inquiry. CBP received our 
inquiry on September 30, 2009. We have not received a response from CBP 
with regard to our inquiry which indicates that CBP did not have 
information that was contrary to the claim of Lingzhou. Therefore, 
because the record indicates that Lingzhou did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, we are preliminarily 
rescinding this administrative review with respect to this company. 
See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the

[[Page 26930]]

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), unchanged in Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 
15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008) (``Third Fish Fillets Review'').

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 has contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department 
continues to treat the PRC as an NME and 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)(1), the Department determines NV on the basis of the factors of 
production (``FOP'') utilized in producing the merchandise. Section 
773(c)(4) of the Act directs the Department to value 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. Pursuant to this statutory directive, the Department 
determined that India, Indonesia, Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, and 
Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic 
development.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
Second Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments, dated September 30, 2009, at Attachment I 
(``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2009, the Department sent interested parties a 
letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information 
regarding valuing factors of production.\15\ On February 24, 2010, the 
Department received information to value FOPs from Huahui, Jacobi, and 
Petitioners. On March 8, 2010, Huahui and Petitioners filed rebuttal 
surrogate value 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
Second Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments, dated September 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 to the PRC pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 
Act, is a significant producer of subject merchandise, and has publicly 
available and reliable data for which to value the respondents' FOPs. 
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.

Duty Absorption

    On June 29, 2009, Petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed for U.S. sales 
of certain activated carbon made during the POR by the respondents 
selected for review. If a duty absorption inquiry is requested, section 
751(a)(4) of the Act directs the Department to determine during an 
administrative review initiated two or four years after publication of 
the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign 
producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United 
States through an affiliated importer. Because the antidumping duty 
order underlying this review was issued in 2007, and this review was 
initiated in 2009, the request for the Department to conduct a duty 
absorption inquiry is timely requested. Therefore, we are conducting a 
duty absorption inquiry for this segment of the proceeding pursuant to 
the Petitioners request.
    Petitioners requested that the Department investigate whether 
Jacobi Carbons AB, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., 
Ltd., a separate rate company in this review, and any other separate 
rate company with affiliated U.S. importers had absorbed duties. As 
discussed above and pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B), because of the 
large number of companies subject to this review, the Department 
selected two companies as mandatory respondents and thus only issued 
its complete questionnaire to these two companies. In determining 
whether antidumping duties have been absorbed, the Department requires 
certain specific data (i.e., U.S. sales data) to ascertain whether 
those sales have been made at less than NV. Since U.S. sales data are 
only obtained from the complete questionnaire (i.e., only mandatory 
respondents submit U.S. sales data), and no other companies were 
required to provide U.S. sales data, we do not have the information 
necessary to assess whether any other companies absorbed duties. 
Accordingly, for those companies not selected as mandatory respondents, 
we cannot make duty absorption determinations with respect to those 
companies. Therefore, between Jacobi and Huahui, Jacobi is the only 
mandatory respondent with an affiliated importer in the United States, 
as required by section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
    In determining whether the respondent has absorbed antidumping 
duties, we make a rebuttable presumption that the duties will be 
absorbed for constructed export price (``CEP'') sales that have been 
made at less than NV. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence 
(e.g., an agreement between the affiliated importer and unaffiliated 
purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty 
ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. See, e.g., Certain 
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent 
to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 2005); unchanged in 
Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings From Taiwan, 70 FR 73727 (December 13, 2005).
    On January 28, 2010, the Department sent Jacobi a letter requesting 
Jacobi to provide evidence to demonstrate that its unaffiliated 
purchasers will ultimately pay any antidumping duties assessed on 
entries during the POR. Jacobi did not provide any such evidence as it 
did not submit a response to our request. Because Jacobi did not rebut 
the duty absorption presumption with evidence that the unaffiliated 
U.S. purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the 
subject merchandise, we preliminarily find that Jacobi has absorbed 
antidumping duties on all U.S.

[[Page 26931]]

sales made through its affiliated importer of record.

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.
Jacobi's Excluded Producers
    On August 24, 2009, Jacobi requested to be excused from reporting 
FOP data for certain Chinese producers. On September 2, 2009, Jacobi 
provided detailed information regarding its producers and production 
quantities. On September 17, 2009, the Department notified Jacobi that 
due to the large number 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 September 17, 2009. Specifically, 
the Department did not require Jacobi to report FOP data for its five 
smallest producers. Additionally, the Department notified Jacobi that 
it was not required to report FOP data for products that were purchased 
and not produced by Jacobi's suppliers, as indicated in Jacobi's August 
24, 2009 letter. 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, 
to the corresponding U.S. sales of subject merchandise.
    In accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department is 
applying facts available to determine the NV 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 Katie 
Marksberry, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memorandum for Jacobi Carbons AB in the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon From the 
People's Republic of China, dated May 7, 2010 (``Jacobi Prelim Analysis 
Memo'').

Assignment of Jacobi Carbons AB's Antidumping Duty Rate

    We note that in the less-than-fair-value investigation of this 
antidumping duty order, we stated that ``where Jacobi Tianjin acted as 
an export facilitator for Jacobi AB, those exports are also eligible 
for Jacobi AB's antidumping duty cash deposit rate.'' \16\ In this 
review Jacobi stated that only Jacobi Carbons AB made exports of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.\17\ 
Additionally, Jacobi stated that during the POR, both Tianjin Jacobi 
International Trading Co. Ltd. (``Tianjin Jacobi'') and Jacobi Carbons 
Industry (Tianjin) (``JCC'') ``acted to facilitate exports to the 
United States.'' \18\ In its April 30, 2010, supplemental questionnaire 
response, Jacobi submitted a selling functions chart which indicates 
that Tianjin Jacobi and JCC perform the same functions. Therefore, for 
these preliminary results, we find that JCC and Tianjin Jacobi both act 
as export facilitators for Jacobi Carbons AB. Additionally, we find it 
appropriate for Jacobi Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi and JCC to receive 
the antidumping duty rate assigned to Jacobi Carbons AB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Activated 
Carbon From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 59721 (October 11, 
2006); unchanged in 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).
    \17\ See Jacobi's Response to the Department's Supplemental A 
and C Questionnaire, dated December 14, 2009 at 2.
    \18\ See Jacobi's Response to the Department's Supplemental 
Questionnaire Regarding Jacobi's Antidumping Duty Rate, dated April 
20, 2010, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    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

[[Page 26932]]

should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. See 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).
    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME reviews. See Initiation Notice. 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 companies: Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., 
Ltd.; Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal 
Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals 
Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 
Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi 
Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade 
Corporation; and Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.
    Additionally, the Department received completed responses to the 
Section A portion of the NME questionnaire from Huahui and Jacobi, 
which contained information pertaining to the companies' eligibility 
for a separate rate. However, Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei 
Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., 
and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd., companies upon 
which the Department initiated administrative reviews that have not 
been rescinded, did not submit either a separate-rate application or 
certification in a timely manner.\19\ Therefore, because Datong 
Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising 
Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., and United Manufacturing 
International (Beijing) Ltd. did not demonstrate their eligibility for 
separate rate status in a timely manner, we have determined it is 
appropriate to consider these companies as part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For a full discussion of United Manufacturing International 
(Beijing) Ltd.'s separate rate status, see supra at p 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate Recipients
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
    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 10, 2008, at page 3. Therefore, there is no 
PRC ownership of Jacobi, and because the Department has no evidence 
indicating that Jacobi is under the control of the PRC, a separate 
rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control.\20\ 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 June 29, 2010, at 4. Accordingly, the 
Department has preliminarily granted separate rate status to Jacobi and 
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 Brake 
Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 
2001); 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
    Huahui \21\ and nine \22\ 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. In accordance with its practice, the Department has analyzed 
whether the separate-rate applicants have demonstrated the absence of 
de jure and de facto governmental control over their respective export 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Huahui's Section A Questionnaire Response dated October 
21, 2009, at pages 2-6.
    \22\ These companies are: Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 
Products Co., Ltd.; Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright 
Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; 
Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., 
Ltd.; and Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Huahui and nine 
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., Huahui's Section A Questionnaire Response dated October 21, 
2009, at pages 2-6; Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., 
Ltd.'s Separate Rate Certification dated June 29, 2009, at 5; Shanxi 
Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate Certification 
dated June 25, 2009, at 5-6.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto

[[Page 26933]]

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 Huahui and nine 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., Huahui's Section A Questionnaire 
Response dated October 21, 2009, at pages 2-6; and Datong Municipal 
Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. dated July 23, 2009, at 7. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Huahui and nine 
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 nineteen companies. Of 
those, the Department selected two exporters, Huahui and Jacobi 
(including affiliates), as mandatory respondents in this review. As 
stated above, four companies, Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei 
Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., 
and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. are part of the 
PRC-Wide entity, and thus, are not entitled to a separate rate. 
Additionally, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect 
to Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. because we determined that 
it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR. The remaining nine 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 generally weight-averages the rates 
calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are 
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA.\23\ Consequently, because 
the Department has calculated positive margins for both mandatory 
respondents, Huahui and Jacobi, in these preliminary results, and 
consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily established a 
margin for the separate rate respondents based on a simple average of 
the rates we calculated for the two mandatory respondents. Because 
there are only two respondents for which a company-specific margin was 
calculated in this review, the Department has calculated a simple 
average margin to ensure that the total import quantity and value for 
each company is not inadvertently revealed.\24\ The rate established 
for the separate rate respondents is 27.28 percent. Entities receiving 
this rate are identified by name in the ``Preliminary Results of 
Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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)).
    \24\ See Memorandum to the File, Re: Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results Simple-Average Margin for 
Separate Rate Respondents, dated May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    Huahui and Jacobi 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. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and the Department's 
long-standing practice of determining the date of sale,\25\ the 
Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the most 
appropriate date to use as Huahui's and Jacobi's date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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 Huahui and Jacobi 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 Huahui's sales to the United State 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 Memorandum to the File through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office IX, from Bob Palmer, Analyst, re; Second 
Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's 
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results dated 
May 7, 2010 (``Prelim Surrogate Value Memo'') for details regarding the 
surrogate values for movement expenses.
Constructed Export Price
    For all of Jacobi'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

[[Page 26934]]

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. 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. 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 May 7, 2010.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a FOP 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 Jacobi. As 
the corresponding U.S. sales of the subject merchandise supplied by the 
excused producers were reported in the U.S. sales listing, the 
Department has applied the calculated average normal value of the 
subject merchandise produced by Jacobi, as facts available, to those 
sales observations associated with the excluded producers. See Jacobi 
Prelim Analysis Memo.

Factor Valuations

    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.\26\ During the POR, Jacobi 
reported that it 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 15, 2009, at 5 
and Exhibit 2. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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 Huahui and Jacobi used to 
produce the subject merchandise under review during the POR, except 
where listed below.\27\ 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 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.\28\ 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

[[Page 26935]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Indian import data in the World Trade Atlas began 
identifying the original reporting currency for India as the U.S. 
Dollar. See Memorandum to the File, through Bob Palmer, Case 
Analyst, Office IX, re: Memorandum to the File from Edward Yang, 
Senior Executive Coordinator, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME Unit from 
Jennifer Moats, Senior Special Assistant, AD/CVD Operations, China/
NME Unit, regarding Indian Import Statistics Currency Denomination 
in the World Trade Atlas, dated May 7, 2010.
    \28\ 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 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by Huahui and Jacobi, the Department calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by Huahui and Jacobi 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 Huahui and Jacobi 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 the prices 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 Huahui and Jacobi, see 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 or per-metric ton 
basis.
    For bituminous coal used as a feedstock in the production of the 
subject merchandise, the Department used Indian import prices for 
coking coal, because certain respondents reported using low-ash content 
bituminous coal as a feedstock in the production of the subject 
merchandise and Coal India Limited (``CIL'') data does not provide 
price data for low-ash content bituminous coal. See Prelim Surrogate 
Value Memo. The Department used CIL data to value steam coal and 
bituminous coal used as an energy source, where the manufacturers 
provided Useful Heat Values (``UHV'') of their bituminous energy coal 
and steam coal. However, where manufactures of the subject merchandise 
indicate they do not track UHV and were unable to report this 
information, the Department used the Indian import prices for steam 
coal. The Department finds that CIL data has specific grades of non-
coking energy coal, measured in UHV, which correspond to the types of 
steam and bituminous coal used by the respondents as energy coals, 
therefore, CIL is more specific to the reported input. The Department 
used CIL's prices dated from December 12, 2007, effective throughout 
the POR. For further details regarding the Department's use of CIL 
data, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    The Department notes that Petitioners have argued that Jacobi's 
unaffiliated suppliers should report the transport bags that are used 
to transport subject merchandise from the affiliates to Jacobi Tianjin 
for further packing prior to being exported to the United States.\29\ 
Jacobi argues that its bags are reused and therefore should be 
considered an overhead expense and not included as a packing input.\30\ 
In past cases we have determined that certain consumables that were 
regularly replaced and required in the production process should be 
considered FOPs, even if they are considered to be an overhead expense 
in the company's normal course of business.\31\ Therefore, because 
Jacobi regularly replaces these bags and they are necessary to Jacobi's 
production process, we have determined that the transport bags used by 
Jacobi's affiliates should be included as packing FOPs based on the 
reported useful life of the bags. Accordingly, we are including 
Jacobi's transport bags as an FOP for the preliminary results of 
review.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Letter from Kelley Drye to the Department, regarding 
Second Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: 
Petitioner's Comments on Supplemental Questionnaire Responses of 
Jacobi Carbons AB, dated January 11, 2010.
    \30\ See Jacobi's Supplemental Section D Questionnaire Response 
for Jacobi Tianjin, dated March 29, 2010.
    \31\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 
FR 47587, August 14, 2008; and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2.
    \32\ See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, from Katie 
Marksberry, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX: Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memorandum for Jacobi Carbons AB in the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China (``Jacobi's Prelim Analysis Memo''), 
dated May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department valued electricity using price data for small, 
medium, and large industries, as published by the 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 March 2008. These electricity rates represent 
actual country-wide, publicly available information on tax-exclusive 
electricity rates charged to industries in India. We did not inflate 
this value because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated 
by the effective dates listed for each of the rates provided. 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. 
The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial 
Development Corporation (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 April 2009 through June 
2009, of which 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, we deflated the 
surrogate value. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued direct, indirect, 
and packing labor, using the most recently calculated regression-based 
wage rate, which relies

[[Page 26936]]

on 2007 data. This wage rate can currently be found on the Department's 
Web site on Import Administration's home page, Reference Material, 
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in December 2009, 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/07wages/final/final-2009-2007-wages.html. 
The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web 
site is the 2006 and 2007 data in Chapter 5B of the International 
Labour Statistics. 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.
    The Department calculated the surrogate value for purchased steam 
based upon the April 2008-March 2009 financial statement of Hindalco 
Industries Limited (``Hindalco''). See Jacobi's Surrogate Value 
Comments: Certain Activated Carbon form China, dated February 24, 2010 
at Exhibit SV-7. For a detailed explanation of our reasons for using 
Hindalco's financial statements as the source of the surrogate value 
for purchased 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. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at Attachment 8.
    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.\33\ 
Specifically, the Department averaged the public brokerage and handling 
expenses reported by Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 
administrative 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Letter from Troutman Sander, Certain Activated Carbon 
form the People's Republic of China: Second Administrative Review; 
Submission of Publicly Available Information to Value Factors of 
Production, dated February 24, 2010 at Exhibit 15; see also Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); Certain Lined 
Paper Products from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 17149 (April 14, 2009); Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Review, 73 FR 31961 (June 5, 2008); and Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 5268 (February 5, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the average of the 
audited financial statements of two Indian activated carbon producing 
companies; those being, Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. for FY 2006-2007 
(``Kalpalka'') and Quantum Active Carbon Pvt. Ltd. (``Quantum'') for 
2007-2008.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The FY 07-08 financial statements for Quantum were 
submitted by Huahui on February 24, 2010 and the FY 06-07 financial 
statements for Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. were placed on the record by 
the Department. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners submitted the 2007-2008 financial statements of Core 
Carbons Private Limited (``Core Carbons'') and Jacobi submitted the 
2008-2009 financial statements of Indo-German Carbon Ltd. (``Indo-
German'') for the Department's use in calculating surrogate financial 
ratios. We have determined not to rely on the 2007-2008 financial 
statements of Core Carbons and the 2008-2009 financial statements Indo-
German because both sets of financial statements indicate that they 
received a ``packing credit'' i.e., Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment 
Export Financing. Core Carbons' financial statements indicate they 
received ``working capital from SBI, Cbe Packing Credit'' under 
Schedule C.\35\ Indo-German's financial statements indicate they 
received ``Packing Credit/Letter of Credit/Cash Credit-State Bank of 
India.'' \36\ India's packing credit, Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment 
Export Financing has been found by the Department as a countervailable 
subsidy.\37\ Consistent with the Department's practice, we prefer not 
to use financial statements of a company we have reason to believe or 
suspect may have received subsidies, because financial ratios derived 
from that company's financial statements may not constitute the best 
available information with which to value financial ratios. See 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results and Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 
19174 (April 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum 
at Comment 1. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c), the Department 
preliminarily determines that the 2007-2008 financial statements of 
Quantum and the 2006-2007 financial statements of Kalpalka provide the 
best available information with which to calculate surrogate financial 
ratios, because they are complete and publicly available. Additionally, 
both of these companies produce comparable merchandise and use an 
integrated carbonization production process which closely mirrors that 
of both respondents. While the Department recognizes Quantum and 
Kalpalka's financial statements both pre-date the POR, we prefer to use 
more than one financial statement where possible to replicate the 
experience of producers of certain activated carbon in the surrogate 
country. See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 
FR 71355 (December 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum at Comment 1. Moreover, we find that neither company's 
financial statements pre-date the POR so significantly as not to be 
useful. See Hebei Metals v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1275 
(Ct. Int'l Trade 2005). Therefore, the Department has used these 
financial statements to value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, for 
these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Annual Report Core Carbons Private Limited 2007-2008, 
at 17 contained in Petitioners' February 24, 2010 Surrogate Value 
comments at Exhibit 49.
    \36\ See Annual Report of Indo-German 2008-2009 contained in 
Petitioners' March 8, 2010 Surrogate Value Rebuttal comments at 
Exhibit 7.
    \37\ See Commodity Matchbooks from India: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 54547 (October 22, 2009) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Commodity Matchbooks 
from India at IV.A.3; see also, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 6634 (February 10, 2010) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at III.A.1.
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

    Where appropriate, 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.

[[Page 26937]]

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 margin
             Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobi Carbons AB \38\.........................                     3.23
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.......                    51.33
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.......                    27.28
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co.,                    27.28
 Ltd...........................................
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.....                    27.28
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon                       27.28
 Co., Ltd \39\.................................
Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited.............                    27.28
Shanxi DMD Corporation.........................                    27.28
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd....                    27.28
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation........                    27.28
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.................                    27.28
PRC-Wide Rate \40\.............................                   228.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Department is assigning this rate to Jacobi Carbons AB and
  Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd.
\39\ In the previous administrative review, the Department found Beijing
  Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua
  Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and their U.S. affiliate,
  Cherishmet Inc. as a single entity and because there were no changes
  from the previous review, we will assign this rate to the companies in
  the single entity. See 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, 74 FR 21319, (May 7, 2009), unchanged in First Administrative
  Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
  China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
  57995 (November 10, 2009).
\40\ The PRC-Wide entity includes Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei
  Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd.,
  and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd.

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). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments 
may be filed no later than five days after the deadline for filing case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 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).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must 
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly 
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, 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 and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
its analysis of the issues 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.

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

[[Page 26938]]

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 intends to 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: May 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-11462 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P