[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23978-23991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10429]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-904]


Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of the Third 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 
third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the 
period April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010. 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: April 29, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer or Katie 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 from 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 exporters from the PRC. On May 28, 2010, and June 30, 
2010, the

[[Page 23979]]

Department initiated this review with respect to all requested 
companies with the exception of ten companies for which Petitioners did 
not demonstrate that they had made a reasonable attempt to serve the 
request for review as required by the Department in 19 CFR 
351.303(f)(3)(ii), nor did they explain satisfactorily why they desired 
a review of these ten companies, as required by 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Collectively, Norit Americas Inc. (``Norit'') and Calgon 
Carbon Corporation.
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976 (May 28, 2010); see also 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 (June 30, 
2010) (collectively, ``Initiation Notices'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 15, 2010, Petitioners withdrew the request for review with 
respect to 157 of the 192 companies under review. On August 11, 2010, 
the Department published a notice of rescission in the Federal Register 
for those 157 companies for which the request for review was 
withdrawn.\3\ On July 8, 2010, Petitioners withdrew the request for 
review with respect to an additional 17 companies. On August 23, 2010, 
the Department published a second notice of rescission in the Federal 
Register for those 17 companies.\4\ Eighteen companies remain subject 
to this review.\5\ On July 27, 2010, Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade 
Co., Ltd. (``Lingzhou'') submitted a letter certifying it had no 
shipments during the period of review (``POR'').\6\ On October 6, 2010, 
the Department published a notice \7\ extending the time period for 
issuing the preliminary results by 120 days to April 30, 2011.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 48644 (August 11, 2010).
    \4\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 51754 (August 23, 2010).
    \5\ These companies are: Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 
Products Co., Ltd., Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., Datong 
Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Datong Municipal Yungang 
Activated Caron Co., Ltd., Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei 
Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, Jacobi Carbons AB, 
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Ningxia 
Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade 
Company, Shanxi DMD Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., Shanxi 
Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanxi Industry Technology Trading 
Co., Ltd., Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd., Tianjin Jacobi 
International Trading Co. Ltd., Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd., 
and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd.
    \6\ Companies have the opportunity to submit statements 
certifying that they did not ship the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.
    \7\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of the Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 61697 (October 6, 
2010).
    \8\ Because April 30, 2011, is a Saturday, the actual deadline 
for issuing the preliminary results falls on May 2, 2011, the next 
business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Albemarle's Status as an Interested Party

    On April 30, 2010, Albemarle Corporation (``Albemarle'') requested 
a review of Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (``CCT''). On May 27, 
2010, Petitioners submitted comments disputing Albemarle's status as a 
domestic interested party. On June 2, 2010, the Department issued a 
questionnaire to Albemarle requesting further information regarding its 
status as a wholesaler of the domestic like product. Albemarle 
submitted its response to the Department's questionnaire on June 18, 
2010. Petitioners submitted additional comments regarding Albemarle's 
response on June 28, 2010. On August 11, 2010, the Department sent an 
additional questionnaire to Albemarle requesting further information 
regarding its status as a wholesaler of the domestic like product. 
Albemarle submitted its response on August 18, 2010. On August 26, 
2010, CCT submitted comments in response to Albemarle's additional 
questionnaire response, and on August 27, 2010, Norit submitted 
comments as well.
    The Department considered Petitioners' comments, CCT's comments, 
and Albemarle's submissions and determined that Albemarle is a 
``wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product.'' 
Therefore, under section 771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), the Department found that Albemarle is a 
domestic interested party, and its request for a review of CCT is 
proper pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b).\9\ We have not received 
additional comments regarding Albemarle's status as an interested 
party; therefore, we continue to find that Albemarle's request for a 
review of CCT was proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For further discussion of Albemarle's status as a domestic 
interested party, see Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
AD/CVD Operation Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, International 
Trade Specialist, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9; Re: Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's 
Republic of China: Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent, 
dated September 29, 2010 (``Additional Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\10\ 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 for which the review is initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection, 
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 28, 2010, the Department released CBP data for entries of 
the subject merchandise during the 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, 2010, the Department extended the 
deadline for comments regarding the CBP data. The Department received 
comments and rebuttal comments between June 7, 2010, and June 14, 2010.
    On July 21, 2010, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum after assessing its resources, considering the number of 
individual exporters of certain activated carbon for which a review had 
been requested, and determining that it could reasonably examine two of 
the exporters subject to this review.\11\ Pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Jacobi Carbons AB 
(``Jacobi'') as a mandatory respondent. On September 29, 2010, based on 
the determination that Albemarle Corporation is an interested party in 
this review, the Department issued an additional respondent selection 
memorandum selecting CCT as a mandatory respondent.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Kabir Archuletta and Jamie Blair-Walker, 
International Trade Compliance Analysts, Office 9; Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: 
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, dated July 21, 2010.
    \12\ See Additional Respondent Selection Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitioners' Allegations of Third-Country Sales Made by Jacobi

    On October 12, 2010, and November 1, 2010, Petitioners submitted 
comments requesting that the Department require Jacobi to revise its 
Section C database to include sales of subject merchandise that 
Petitioners allege were sold through Jacobi's affiliate in Sri Lanka. 
On November 9, 2010, the Department issued a letter to Petitioners 
acknowledging that the Department has the authority to address 
allegations of transshipment based on section 781(b) of the Act, which 
allows for the prevention of circumvention of

[[Page 23980]]

antidumping duty orders for merchandise completed or assembled in other 
foreign countries, and 19 CFR 351.225(h), which states how the 
Department handles scope inquiries related to ``products completed or 
assembled in other foreign countries,'' in accordance with section 
781(b) of the Act. However, the Department concluded that it would not 
request Jacobi to revise its Section C database to include sales of 
subject merchandise allegedly sold through Jacobi's Sri Lankan 
affiliate. As upheld by the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') in 
Globe Metallurgical \13\ affirming the Department's remand from Silicon 
Metal, \14\ where a party has placed evidence on the record of an 
administrative review to support allegations of transshipment involving 
third-country processing, it is the Department's practice to consider 
such allegations through a scope or anti-circumvention inquiry rather 
than within the context of an administrative review.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Globe Metallurgical Inc. v. United States, 722 F. Supp. 
2d 1372 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 1, 2010).
    \14\ See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China, 
April 8, 2010, remanded from Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United 
States, Court No. 08-00290 (December 18, 2009).
    \15\ See letter to Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas 
Inc., from James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, re: Third 
Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's 
Republic of China, dated November 9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 16, 2010, Petitioners filed additional comments asking 
the Department to reconsider its decision. Petitioners argued that this 
case differs from Globe Metallurgical in a number of ways. 
Specifically, Petitioners noted that in this case, unlike in Globe 
Metallurgical: (1) The Department has a substantial database of sales 
by Jacobi that are subject to review; (2) the third-country supplier is 
affiliated with Jacobi and the Department has the ability to require it 
to participate; (3) the Department has sufficient time and resources to 
examine the additional sales and circumstances; (4) there are suspended 
entries upon which the Department can assess antidumping duties; (5) 
the question of Jacobi's potential transshipment is best explored 
within the context of an administrative review; and (6) the Department 
should exercise the authority to examine Jacobi's third-country sales 
to ensure that companies do not transship their highest margin sales to 
manipulate margins in administrative reviews.
    At this time, the Department continues to find that although the 
Department does have the authority to investigate allegations of 
transshipment within the context of an administrative review, we have 
determined that an administrative review is not the best context for 
addressing the type of allegations that Petitioners have brought to the 
Department. Specifically, we continue to find, as we did in the Globe 
Metallurgical remand, that evaluating and verifying additional 
information relating to a circumvention allegation creates an 
overwhelming burden in an administrative review. Therefore, as 
previously stated, it is the Department's practice that where a party 
has placed evidence on the record of an administrative review to 
support allegations of transshipment involving third-country 
processing, a scope or anti-circumvention inquiry is the proper venue 
and we will not consider it within the context of an administrative 
review. Furthermore, where the allegation concerns transshipment that 
does not involve third-country processing, such an allegation should be 
directed to CBP, which is the proper authority to investigate claims of 
mislabeling country-of-origin. Therefore, although the Department 
intends to seek additional information from Jacobi in order to ensure 
that its Section C database includes the full universe of its POR sales 
of subject merchandise, we are not requiring Jacobi to revise its 
Section C questionnaire responses or databases to include sales of 
merchandise from Sri Lanka for these preliminary results.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ However, we will refer Petitioners' transshipment 
allegations to CBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaires

    On July 21, 2010, the Department issued its initial non-market 
economy (``NME'') antidumping duty questionnaire to the mandatory 
respondent Jacobi. On September 30, 2010, the Department issued its 
initial NME antidumping duty questionnaire to the mandatory respondent 
CCT. CCT and Jacobi timely responded to the Department's initial and 
subsequent supplemental questionnaires between August 2010 and February 
2011.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the 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 the 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 the 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 the scope, and those containing more than 50 percent chemically 
activated carbons are outside the 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

[[Page 23981]]

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 the 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 the 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 requesting CBP 
alert the Department of any such information within ten days of 
receiving our inquiry. CBP received our inquiry on October 6, 2010. 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy 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.\18\ 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    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, the 
Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are countries comparable to 
the PRC in terms of economic development.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, from Carole 
Showers, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration re: 
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Activated Carbon 
(``Carbon'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), dated 
September 21, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 28, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a 
letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information 
regarding valuing FOPs.\20\ On January 14, 2011, the Department 
received information to value FOPs from CCT, Jacobi, and Petitioners. 
The Department did not receive any rebuttal surrogate value comments. 
All of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
Third Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments, dated September 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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] for 
information, notifies [the Department] that such party is unable to 
submit the information 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

[[Page 23982]]

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.'' \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jacobi's Excluded Producers

    On August 2, 2010, Jacobi requested to be excused from reporting 
FOP data for certain Chinese producers. On August 9, 2010, Petitioners 
submitted comments on Jacobi's request. On August 13, 2010, 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.\22\ 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 2, 2010 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See the Department's Letter to Jacobi dated August 13, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCT's Excluded Producers

    On October 14, 2010, CCT requested to be excused from reporting FOP 
data for certain Chinese producers as well as FOP data for products 
that were produced prior to the POR, but were sold during the POR. On 
October 29, 2010, the Department notified CCT that due to the large 
number of producers that supplied CCT during the POR, CCT would be 
excused from reporting certain FOP data.\23\ Specifically, the 
Department did not require CCT to report FOP data for its eight 
smallest producers. Additionally, the Department notified CCT that it 
was not required to report FOP data for products that were purchased 
and not produced by CCT's suppliers, as indicated in CCT's October 14, 
2010 letter. Furthermore, the Department notified CCT that it would not 
be required to report FOP data for products that were produced prior to 
the POR, except for those products blended by CCT during the current 
POR. Thus, the Department determined that upon CCT'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See the Department's letter to CCT dated October 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 and CCT were excused from 
reporting. As facts available, the Department is applying the 
calculated average normal value of Jacobi and CCT's reported sales to 
the sales produced by the excluded producers. These issues are 
addressed in separate company-specific memoranda where a detailed 
explanation of the facts available calculation is provided.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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 concurrently with this notice (``Jacobi Prelim Analysis 
Memo''); see also Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for 
Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of 
China, dated concurrently with this notice (``CCT Prelim Analysis 
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department.\25\ 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act.
    \26\ 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 Notices, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME reviews.\27\ 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.\28\ Exporters can demonstrate this independence 
through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over export activities.\29\ The Department analyzes each entity 
exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as 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 (``ME''), then a separate rate analysis is not 
necessary to determine whether it is independent from government 
control.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Initiation Notices.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ See id.
    \30\ 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 Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia 
Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Huahui 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Huahui''); Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi 
Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., 
Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Maijin Industries 
Co., Ltd.
    Additionally, the Department received completed responses to the

[[Page 23983]]

Section A portion of the NME questionnaire from CCT and Jacobi, which 
contained information pertaining to the companies' eligibility for a 
separate rate. However, Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 
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. Therefore, 
because Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 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.

Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.'s Status as a Separate Rate 
Company

    On December 23, 2010, Huahui submitted its separate rate 
application to the Department.\31\ On January 3, 2011, Petitioners 
submitted comments on Huahui's application.\32\ On January 21, 2011, 
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Huahui regarding 
its separate rate application, and on February 22, 2011, Huahui 
submitted its response to the Department.\33\ On March 3, 2011, 
Petitioners submitted additional comments to the Department regarding 
Huahui's application for a separate rate.\34\ On March 11, 2011, the 
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Huahui 
regarding its separate rate application, and on March 23, 2011, Huahui 
submitted a response to the Department.\35\ On April 5, 2011, 
Petitioners submitted additional comments on Huahui's second 
supplemental questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Separate Rate Application of Ningxia Huahui Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd., dated December 23, 2010, (``Huahui Separate Rate 
Application'').
    \32\ See Letter from Petitioners to the Department re: Third 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Petitioners' 
Initial Comments on Ningxia Huahui's Separate Rate Application, 
dated January 3, 2011.
    \33\ See Huahui's Supplemental Questionnaire Regarding the 
December 23, 2010 Separate Rate Application of Ningxia Huahui 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., dated February 22, 2011.
    \34\ See Letter from Petitioners to the Department re: Third 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Petitioners' 
Pre-Preliminary Comments on Ningxia Huahui's Separate Rate 
Application, dated March 3, 2011.
    \35\ See Huahui's Second Supplemental Questionnaire Regarding 
the December 23, 2010 Separate Rate Application of Ningxia Huahui 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., dated March 23, 2011 (``Huahui Second 
Separate Rate Supplemental'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has analyzed Huahui's separate rate application and 
supplemental responses and, for these preliminarily results, we find 
that Huahui has demonstrated both de jure and de facto independence 
from the PRC government with respect to its export activities. 
Consistent with the Department's requirements on exporters requesting a 
separate rate, Huahui placed numerous documents on the record that have 
been examined for these preliminary results. Specifically, Huahui 
demonstrated an absence of de jure government control by the absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with its business license and 
export certificate of approval, and through submission of pertinent 
legislative enactments that protect the operational and legal 
independence of companies incorporated in the PRC.\36\ With respect to 
de facto government control, Huahui: (1) Certified that its export 
prices are neither set by or subject to the approval of a government 
agency; \37\ (2) placed on the record documents that demonstrate an 
absence of government control over the negotiation and signing of 
contracts including documents related to price negotiation for U.S. 
sales, and complete sales and export documentation; \38\ (3) certified 
that it retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding the disposition of profits and financing of losses 
and provided financial statements with record evidence from its 
Articles of Association demonstrating the independent distribution of 
profit; \39\ and (4) certified that it has autonomy from all levels of 
government and government entities in making decisions regarding the 
selection of management and placed on the record its Articles of 
Association, a number of board resolutions and an internal management 
selection proposal, which demonstrate the independent selection of 
management by the Board of Directors.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Huahui Separate Rate Application at 8-11 and Exhibits 5 
and 6.
    \37\ See id. at 17.
    \38\ See id. at Exhibits 2 and 3.
    \39\ See id. at 20 and Exhibits 9 and 11.
    \40\ See id. at 13 and Exhibit 13; see also Huahui Second 
Separate Rate Supplemental at 2-3 and Exhibits 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Petitioners have argued that Huahui should be denied a 
separate rate because it does not fulfill the criteria for establishing 
autonomy from de facto government control of its selection of 
management and disposition of profits, the evidence on the record of 
this review demonstrates that Huahui does have the ability, and has 
exercised its ability, to appoint its managers and control the 
disposition of its profits through its Board of Directors. With respect 
to the selection of management, the Department has previously found 
that management selected and appointed by an independent board of 
directors is sufficiently removed from government-controlled 
shareholders for the purpose of demonstrating the absence of de facto 
government control.\41\ Furthermore, the Articles of Association 
submitted by Huahui clearly state that its shareholders have the right 
to approve profit distributions by voting according to the number of 
shares owned.\42\ In this case, Petitioners have provided information 
that addresses speculative and potential control by government entities 
over Huahui, which the Department has found is not sufficient evidence 
to support denying a separate rate.\43\ There is no evidence on the 
record of actual government control of individual export decisions of 
Huahui during the POR, or evidence demonstrating that government owned 
or controlled shareholders actually controlled the selection of 
Huahui's management in greater proportion to their proportion of the 
voting shares. Furthermore, the Department has previously determined 
that government ownership alone does not warrant denying a company a 
separate rate.\44\ Therefore, based on an analysis of all of the 
information placed on the record of this review by Huahui and 
Petitioners, we preliminarily find that Huahui is eligible for a 
separate rate, and we are granting Huahui separate rate status for 
these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 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 25.
    \42\ See Huahui Second Separate Rate Supplemental at 9; see also 
Huahui Separate Rate Application at Exhibit 9.
    \43\ 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 11.
    \44\ See e.g. Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 57329 (October 2, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.

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

[[Page 23984]]

Separate Rate Recipients

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
    Jacobi reported that it is wholly owned by a company located in an 
ME country, Sweden.\45\ Additionally, CCT reported that it is wholly 
owned by a company located in the United States.\46\ Therefore, there 
is no PRC ownership of Jacobi or CCT and, because the Department has no 
evidence indicating that Jacobi or CCT are under the control of the 
PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether 
they are independent from government control.\47\ Additionally, one of 
the exporters under review not selected for individual review, Tangshan 
Solid Carbon Co., Ltd., demonstrated in its separate-rate certification 
that it is 100 percent market-economy foreign owned.\48\ Accordingly, 
the Department has preliminarily granted separate rate status to 
Jacobi, CCT, and Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Jacobi's Section A Questionnaire Response dated August 
11, 2010, at 3.
    \46\ See CCT's Section A Questionnaire Response dated October 
27, 2010 at A-2.
    \47\ 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).
    \48\ See Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.'s Separate Rate 
Certification dated July 27, 2010, at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese-Owned Companies
    Eight \49\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ These companies are: Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 
Products Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., 
Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Shanxi DMD Corporation; 
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology 
Trading Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\50\ The evidence provided by the eight 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.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    \51\ See, e.g., Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.'s 
Separate Rate Certification dated July 21, 2010, at 8; and Shanxi 
DMD Corporation's Separate Rate Certification dated July 21, 2010, 
at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\52\ 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 
the eight 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.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 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).
    \53\ See, e.g., Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.'s 
Separate Rate Certification dated July 21, 2010, at 8-9; and Shanxi 
DMD Corporation's Separate Rate Certification dated July 21, 2010, 
at 8-9. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rate for Non-Selected Companies

    As stated previously, this review covers eighteen companies. Of 
those, the Department selected two exporters, CCT and Jacobi, as 
mandatory respondents. As stated above, five companies, Datong Juqiang 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 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 eight companies submitted timely information as 
requested by the Department and remain subject to this review as 
cooperative separate rate respondents.
    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination 
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents 
we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of 
the Act instructs that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using 
any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts 
available. Accordingly, the Department's practice in this regard, in 
reviews involving limited respondent selection based on exporters 
accounting for the largest volume of trade, has been to average the 
rates for the selected companies, excluding zero and de minimis rates 
and rates based entirely on facts available.\54\ Section 735(c)(5)(B)

[[Page 23985]]

of the Act also provides that, where all margins are zero, de minimis, 
or based entirely on facts available, we may use ``any reasonable 
method'' for assigning the rate to non-selected respondents, including 
``averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined 
for the exporters and producers individually investigated.'' In this 
instance, consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily 
established a margin for the separate rate respondents based on the 
rate we calculated for the mandatory respondent whose rate was not de 
minimis.\55\ For the PRC-wide entity, we have assigned the entity's 
current rate and only rate ever determined for the entity in this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273, 52275 
(September 9, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 6.
    \55\ See, e.g., Forth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warrnwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, In Part, 75 FR 11855 
(March 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    CCT 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,\56\ the 
Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the most 
appropriate date to use as CCT's and Jacobi's date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 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 and Jacobi were made at less than normal value, 
the Department compared constructed export price (``CEP'') to NV, as 
described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.

U.S. Price

Constructed Export Price

    For all of CCT and Jacobi's sales, the Department based U.S. price 
on CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because sales of 
Chinese-origin merchandise were made on behalf of the companies located 
in the PRC 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. For those expenses that were provided by an ME provider and 
paid for in an ME 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 memoranda, dated 
concurrently with this notice.
    CCT also requested that the Department apply the ``special rule'' 
for merchandise with value added after importation and excuse CCT from 
reporting U.S. re-sales 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 those re-sales. CCT made this request with respect to 
all categories of U.S. sales with further manufacturing and provided 
further-processing cost data.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See CCT's Section A Questionnaire Response dated October 
27, 2010, at Exhibit 11; see also CCT's Supplemental Section A 
Questionnaire Response dated December 6, 2010 at Exhibit A-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department preliminarily determines to apply the ``special 
rule'' under section 772(e) of the Act for merchandise with value added 
after importation 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 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.\58\ Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily determines that the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 further processed 
merchandise.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 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 Bob Palmer, 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 January 5, 2011 (``Special Rule 
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department has determined to apply the ``special 
rule'' to CCT's sales of subject merchandise that were further 
processed by CCC in the United States. Furthermore, the Department has 
excused CCT from reporting these U.S. sales and the U.S. further-
processing cost information associated with the sales. In the Special 
Rule Memo, the Department stated that it would apply the weight-
averaged margin from CCT's non-further manufactured U.S. sales to the 
quantity

[[Page 23986]]

of CCC's U.S. further manufactured sales.\60\ However, the Department 
intended to explain that it would apply the weight-averaged margin 
calculated based upon CCT's U.S. sales to the first unaffiliated 
customer as the surrogate margin to the transactions to which the 
``special rule'' applied. The latter methodology was applied in 
Activated Carbon AR 1, when we last granted CCT this ``special rule'' 
exemption.\61\ Therefore, for these preliminary results, we are 
applying the weight-averaged margin as was intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Special Rule Memo at 5.
    \61\ See 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) 
(``Activated Carbon AR1'') and accompanying Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum at Comment 7; see also CCT Prelim Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an 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 CCT and 
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 CCT and Jacobi, respectively, as 
facts available, to those sales observations associated with the 
excluded producers.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Jacobi Prelim Analysis Memo; see also CCT Prelim 
Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCT's Control Number (``CONNUM'') Reporting Methodology

    CCT has reported that neither it nor its individual producers can 
provide FOP data based on all 15 product characteristics which comprise 
the CONNUM.\63\ Rather, CCT and its individual producers have reported 
FOP consumption data based on 11 of the 15 CONNUM product 
characteristics which CCT tracks through its product codes and is the 
basis on which CCT reported its weighted-average calculation of its 
producers' FOP consumption.\64\ However, CCT states that it and its 
producers, in the ordinary course of business, need not, and do not, 
track data during the production process for the remaining four product 
characteristics, but test for these four characteristics prior to 
shipment.\65\ CCT has provided detailed and potentially verifiable 
information on the standards used in the ordinary course of business by 
CCT and its producers.\66\ 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.\67\ CCT has explained that each of its producers maintains 
records on the consumption of all raw materials. Further, CCT states 
that there is no way to link all 15 product characteristics of the 
finished products to the material inputs throughout the production 
process because each of its producers sets out to produce a particular 
product based on its own specific product definition. Production 
inputs, consumption quantities and other relevant data are only tracked 
on this basis. CCT notes that its producers do not track data during 
the production process for four product characteristics: apparent 
density, hardness, abrasion, and ash content.\68\ CCT further explains 
that these four product characteristics are not relevant to the 
production of each producer's products and none of the producers tracks 
production inputs, consumption quantities or other relevant data on the 
basis of these four characteristics.\69\ Moreover, CCT states the four 
product characteristics above are testing specifications which are 
expressed in terms of minimum and maximum values, which correspond to a 
range of potential actual characteristics for any particular product 
produced; it is therefore sufficient to ensure that each of the four 
characteristics is within the established characteristic-specific 
range. As such, during the production process none of the companies 
tracks the specific value for each of these four characteristics.\70\ 
However, CCT states that it has provided its FOP data based on as much 
detail as the accounting books and records of itself and its producers' 
would allow.\71\ Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines 
that CCT's FOP reporting methodology is sufficient to preliminarily 
calculate an accurate dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See CCT's Supplemental Section D Questionnaire Response 
dated January 14, 2011, at 3.
    \64\ Those 11 product characteristics are: (1) Physical 
material; (2) form; (3) oversize mesh; (4) undersize mesh; (5) PAC 
mesh; (6) particle size; (7) pellet diameter; (8) carbon 
tetrachloride (``CTC''); (9) iodine; (10) wash type; and (11) 
impregnation. See CCT's Supplemental Section D Questionnaire 
Response dated January 14, 2011, at 3.
    \65\ See CCT's Supplemental Section D Questionnaire Response 
dated January 14, 2011, at 4.
    \66\ See e.g., CCT's Supplemental Section D Questionnaire 
Responses dated January 6 and 14, 2011.
    \67\ See e.g., CCT's Supplemental Section D Questionnaire 
Response dated January 6, 2010, at HQ-12 and Exhibit HQ-26, HQ-31, 
HQ-34 and JB-20; see also e.g., CCT's Supplemental Section D 
Questionnaire Response dated January 14, 2010, at 7 and Exhibit DCC-
17, DCC-18, DCC-21 and NC-23.
    \68\ We note that apparent density, abrasion and ash content are 
three product characteristics are components of the 15 product 
characteristic CONNUM. Additionally, one product characteristic CTC 
test (CTESTU) indicates where CTC test or another test was used.
    \69\ See CCT's Supplemental Section D Questionnaire Response 
dated January 14, 2011 at 3-6.
    \70\ See id.
    \71\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner Norit argues that in Activated Carbon AR1, the 
Department has previously notified CCT that it must provide CONNUM-
specific FOP data in subsequent reviews, but it has continued to report 
FOP data on its product codes.\72\ While we note that that in Activated 
Carbon AR1, we placed CCT on notice 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, we further note that because our final results of Activated 
Carbon AR1 occurred eight months into the current POR, it is 
unreasonable to expect CCT and its producers to adjust the manner in 
which they maintain their records in order to report FOPs on a CONNUM-
specific basis for the remaining four months of the current POR.\73\ 
However, we are providing a second and final notice that CCT and other 
respondents must maintain their records in a manner that they can 
report FOPs on a

[[Page 23987]]

CONNUM-specific basis for future reviews.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Letter from Petitioners to the Department re: Third 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Norit 
America's Comments on CCT's Questionnaire Response, dated December 
10, 2010.
    \73\ See Activated Carbon AR1 and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 4; see also 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.
    \74\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 an ME country and pays for it in an ME 
currency, the Department may value the factor using the actual price 
paid for the input.\75\ During the POR, Jacobi reported that it 
purchased certain inputs from an ME supplier and paid for the inputs in 
an ME currency.\76\ The Department has a rebuttable presumption that ME 
input prices are the best available information for valuing an input 
when the total volume of the input purchased from all ME 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.\77\ 
In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to 
rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the 
weighted average ME purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, 
when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from ME 
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 ME purchase price with an 
appropriate surrogate value according to their respective shares of the 
total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate 
grounds to rebut the presumption.\78\ When a firm has made ME 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 ME purchases meet the 33-percent 
threshold.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Lasko Metal Products, Inc. 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).
    \76\ See Jacobi's Section D Questionnaire Response dated 
September 17, 2010, at Exhibit C, page D-9.
    \77\ 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'').
    \78\ See Antidumping Methodologies.
    \79\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that CCT and Jacobi used to 
produce the subject merchandise under review during the POR, except 
where listed below. With regard to both the Indian import-based 
surrogate values and the ME 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.\80\ 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.\81\ Rather, the Department 
bases its decision on information that is available to it at the time 
it makes its determination.\82\ 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.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: 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 Nat'l 
Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 
1334 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 
183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    \81\ 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).
    \82\ 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).
    \83\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by CCT and Jacobi, the Department calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by CCT 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 CCT's and Jacobi'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.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 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 CCT and Jacobi, see Memorandum to the File through Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, Case 
Analyst; Re: Third Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the 
Preliminary Results, dated concurrently with this notice (``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 as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund, 
a printout of which is attached to

[[Page 23988]]

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 the respondents reported using low-ash content 
bituminous coal as a feedstock in the production of the subject 
merchandise and Coal India Limited (``CIL'') data do 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'') and ash contents of their bituminous energy coal 
and steam coal. The Department finds that CIL data have 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 majority of the POR. For further details regarding the 
Department's use of CIL data, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    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 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.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 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.\86\ 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 April 2009 through June 2009, of which 193 
for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193 for the 
``outside industrial areas'' usage category.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 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 Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11.
    \87\ See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with our practice in previous reviews, the Department 
calculated the surrogate value for purchased steam based upon the April 
2008 through March 2009 financial statement of Hindalco Industries 
Limited.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Jacobi's Surrogate Value Comments: Certain Activated 
Carbon form China, dated January 14, 2011, at Exhibit SV-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
website contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at Attachment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a price list 
of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods 
in India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of 
the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India, published by the World Bank.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See id. at Attachment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. for FY 2007-2008 (``Kalpalka'') and 
Quantum Active Carbon Pvt. Ltd. (``Quantum'') for 2007-2008.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Both the FY 07-08 financial statements for Quantum and the 
FY 07-08 financial statements for Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. were 
placed on the record by Petitioners. See Prelim Surrogate Value 
Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jacobi submitted the 2009-2010 financial statements of Adsorbent 
Carbons Pvt. Ltd. (``Adsorbent'') for the Department's use in 
calculating surrogate financial ratios. We have determined not to rely 
on the 2009-2010 financial statement of Adsorbent because it indicates 
that it received a ``Capital Subsidy''.\92\ The Department has found 
India's Capital Subsidy to be a countervailable subsidy.\93\ 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.\94\ Therefore, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c), the Department preliminarily determines 
that the 2007-2008 financial statements of Quantum and the 2007-2008 
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. 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.\95\ While the Department recognizes Quantum's 
and Kalpalka's financial statements both pre-date the POR, we find that 
neither company's financial statements pre-date the POR so 
significantly as not to be useful.\96\ Therefore, the Department has 
used these financial statements to value factory overhead, SG&A, and 
profit, for these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See Annual Report Adsorbent Carbons Private Limited 2009-
2010, contained in Jacobi's February 7, 2011 Resubmission of 
Surrogate Financial Ratios.
    \93\ See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
India, 71 FR 7534 (February 13, 2006).
    \94\ 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 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \95\ 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 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \96\ See Hebei Metals & Minerals v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 
2d 1264, 1275 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``CAFC) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 
2010), found that the ``[regression-based] method for calculating wage 
rates [as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)] uses data not permitted 
by [the statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the Act 
(i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c))].'' The Department is continuing to evaluate 
options for determining labor values in light of the recent CAFC 
decision. However, for these preliminary results, we have calculated an 
hourly wage rate to use in valuing the respondents' reported labor

[[Page 23989]]

input by averaging industry-specific earnings and/or wages in countries 
that are economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise.
    For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the 
Department is valuing labor using a simple average industry-specific 
wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the 
International Labor Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-
specific labor value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from 
the countries we determined to be both economically comparable to the 
PRC, and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full 
description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology 
is provided in the Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. The Department 
calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $2.06 for 
these preliminary results. Specifically, for this review, the 
Department has calculated the wage rate using a simple average of the 
data provided to the ILO under Sub-Classification 24 of the ISIC-
Revision 3 standard by countries determined to be both economically 
comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The Department finds the two-digit description under ISIC-
Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical Products'') to be 
the best available wage rate surrogate value on the record because it 
is specific and derived from industries that produce merchandise 
comparable to the subject merchandise. Consequently, we averaged the 
ILO industry-specific wage rate data or earnings data available from 
the following countries found to be economically comparable to the PRC 
and significant producers of comparable merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt, 
Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand and Ukraine.\97\ For 
further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see Prelim 
Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Although India is used as the primary surrogate country for 
the other FOPs, India is not included in the list of countries used 
to calculate the industry-specific wage rate because there were no 
earnings or wage data available from the ILO for the applicable 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment of Jacobi's Water Factors

    For these preliminary results, we are applying partial adverse 
facts available to Jacobi's supplier Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon 
Co., Ltd. (``NXGH''). The Department asked Jacobi to report the full 
amount of water used in the production of subject merchandise, which it 
was able to do for its other suppliers. In a supplemental questionnaire 
dated November 3, 2010, NXGH stated that the ``water for acid wash 
can't be predicted or measured,'' and that the water reported in its 
FOP database is water used for the boiler room and does not include all 
of the water used in the production of subject merchandise.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See Jacobi's Response to the Supplemental Section D 
Questionnaire for NXGH and Huahui, dated November 3, 2010, at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 10, 2010, Petitioners submitted comments to the 
Department regarding Jacobi's supplemental questionnaire responses. In 
their comments, Petitioners argued that NXGH has a responsibility to 
maintain detailed records of every stage of its production process, and 
as it has participated in multiple prior segments of this proceeding, 
it is aware of this requirement.\99\ Additionally, the Department notes 
that NXGH has participated in prior segments of this case as one of 
Jacobi's suppliers and stated that it was able to report the full 
amount of water used in the production of subject merchandise.\100\ In 
this review, Jacobi reported that it was not able to report the full 
amount of water used in production of subject merchandise, and did not 
provide even an estimate when the Department gave it an opportunity to 
correct its reported water usage for NXGH.\101\ Therefore, because 
Jacobi has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in reporting 
the total amount of water used in the production of subject 
merchandise, as requested by the Department, as partial adverse facts 
available, for these preliminary results the Department is applying the 
highest single, per-unit consumption of water reported by any of 
Jacobi's suppliers as the water used by NXGH in the acid washing 
stage.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See Letter to the Department from Petitioners; Re: Third 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Petitioners' 
Comments on Jacobi Carbons' Recent Supplemental Responses, dated 
December 10, 2010.
    \100\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208 (November 17, 2010) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5a.
    \101\ See Jacobi's Response to the Supplemental Section D 
Questionnaire for NXGH and Huahui, dated November 3, 2010, at 11-12.
    \102\ For further details, see Jacobi Prelim Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in their December 10, 2010, comments, Petitioners 
argued that Jacobi's packing affiliate, Jacobi Tianjin International 
Trading Co., Ltd. (``Jacobi Tianjin''), improperly accounted for the 
water used in its administrative offices and laboratory as overhead. 
Therefore, Petitioners argue that the Department should include the 
water reported by Jacobi Tianjin, as required by the Department in a 
supplemental questionnaire, in determining Jacobi Tianjin's total cost 
of manufacture. However, as Jacobi Tianjin reported that it only uses 
water in its laboratory, and for these preliminary results, we find 
that it is properly accounted for as overhead.

Treatment of CCT's Reported By-Products

    For these preliminary results, the Department has found that non-
activated by-products, such as pressroom powder and non-activated 
fines, which were reported by CCT as by-products produced during the 
production of subject merchandise by its unaffiliated producers, are 
eligible for a byproduct offset. However, one of CCT's unaffiliated 
producers, Inner Mongolia Taixi Coal Chemical Industry Limited Company 
(``TX''), has reported that it produces its own anthracite coal, which 
is then used as an input in the production of subject merchandise. 
Although it is our general policy to value all of the FOPs used to 
produce subject merchandise, there are certain exceptions. One such 
exception is attempting to value the factors used in a production 
process yielding an intermediate product. This would lead to an 
inaccurate result because a significant element of cost would not be 
adequately accounted for in the overall factors buildup. For example, 
the Department addressed whether to value the respondent's factors used 
in extracting iron ore, an input to its wire rod factory, in Steel Wire 
Rod from Ukraine.\103\ The Department determined that, if it were to 
use those factors, it would not sufficiently account for the capital 
costs associated with the iron ore mining operation given that the 
surrogate used for valuing production overhead did not have mining 
operations. Therefore, because ignoring this important cost element 
would distort the calculation, the Department declined to value the 
inputs used in mining iron ore and valued the iron ore instead. 
Similarly, in this case, we did not find it appropriate to obtain the 
factors relevant to the process of mining anthracite coal, and are not 
valuing

[[Page 23990]]

those factors or including them in the cost build-up of subject 
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 
Circumstances, 76 FR 1966 (January 3, 2011) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12; see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Ukraine, 67 FR 55785 (August 30, 2002) 
(``Steel Wire Rod from Ukraine'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in CCT's questionnaire response for TX, it claimed 
that there are four products (coal slurry, foam, middlings, and 
tailings), which are by-products of the production process of 
anthracite coal. However, it is the Department's practice to only grant 
by-product credits for by-products that are produced directly as a 
result of the production process of the subject merchandise.\104\ 
Therefore, for these preliminary results, we are not granting CCT a by-
product offset for the four products produced by TX in the production 
of anthracite coal.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See e.g. id and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 5; see also Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 (November 20, 1997) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 44.
    \105\ For more detail, see CCT Prelim Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

    \106\ In the second administrative review of this order the 
Department determined that it would calculate per-unit assessment 
and cash deposit rates for all future reviews. See Certain Activated 
Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
75 FR 70208 (November 17, 2010).
    \107\ The Department is assigning this rate to Jacobi Carbons AB 
and Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd.
    \108\ In Activated Carbon AR1, the Department found Beijing 
Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua 
Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and Ningxia Guanghua Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd. are a single entity and, because there were no 
changes from the previous review, we continue to find these 
companies to be part of a single entity. Therefore, 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 21317 (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).
    \109\ The PRC-Wide entity includes Datong Juqiang Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd.; Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant; Hebei Foreign 
Trade and Advertising Corporation; Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd.; and 
United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                        Exporter                           (dollars per
                                                           kilogram) 106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobi Carbons AB 107...................................          * 0.00
Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd........................            0.05
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd......            0.05
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.....            0.05
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co.,                   0.05
 Ltd.108................................................
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd................            0.05
Shanxi DMD Corporation..................................            0.05
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd......................            0.05
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.............            0.05
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd..........................            0.05
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd......................            0.05
PRC-Wide Rate 109.......................................            2.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (de minimis).

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.\110\ 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.\111\ 
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.\112\ 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.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    \111\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
    \112\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
    \113\ 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. 
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 this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. 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. In this and future reviews, 
we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based 
on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in 
kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. For 
the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for 
individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on rates 
calculated in previous reviews as discussed above.
    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

[[Page 23991]]

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 $2.42 per kilogram; 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 22, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-10429 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P