[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10333-10335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-904]


Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the 
Department of Commerce's (the Department's) second remand results 
pertaining to the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC) covering the period of April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. The 
Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case 
is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review, 
and that the Department is amending the final results.

DATES: Effective Date: February 6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations 
Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On November 25, 2014, the Department issued AR6 Final Results.\1\ 
The petitioners \2\ and Carbon Activated Corporation (Carbon 
Activated), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, challenged certain 
aspects of AR6 Final Results. The petitioners challenged the 
Department's final results regarding the surrogate value (SV) used to 
value the mandatory respondents' \3\ anthracite coal. Carbon Activated 
challenged several aspects of the Department's final results as they 
pertained to Shanxi DMD Corporation (Shanxi DMD), which supplied Carbon 
Activated's imports of subject merchandise and was found to be part of 
the PRC-wide entity in AR6 Final Results. On January 20, 2016, the 
Court in Calgon I remanded the Department's AR6 Final Results and 
instructed the Department to reconsider its selection of the anthracite 
coal SV, and directed the Department to ``assign Shanxi DMD the all-
others rate.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2012-2013, 79 FR 70163 (November 25, 2014) (AR6 Final Results) and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ Calgon Carbon Corporation and Cabot Norit Americas 
(collectively, the petitioners).
    \3\ The mandatory respondents are Jacobi Carbons AB (Jacobi) and 
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Cherishmet).
    \4\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 3d 
1312, 1322-23, 1326-29 (CIT 2016) (Calgon I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 25, 2016, the Department filed Remand I with the Court.\5\ 
Based on Calgon I, which had ordered the Department to ``reconsider its 
selection of an SV for anthracite coal'' in AR6 Final Results, and 
based on the Department's finding that there were multiple SVs of equal 
reliability for anthracite coal on the record, the Department 
determined to select the anthracite coal SV based on which secondary 
surrogate country was the most significant producer of comparable 
merchandise.\6\ As a result of relying on significant production of 
comparable merchandise in Remand I, the Department valued anthracite 
coal using contemporaneous SV data from Thailand.\7\ Accordingly, the 
margins for Cherishmet and Jacobi (the mandatory respondents) were 
revised to $0.52/kilogram (kg) and to $0.51/kg, respectively.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 14-00326, Slip Op. 16-4, Final Results Of Redetermination 
Pursuant To Court Remand, dated May 25, 2016, (Remand I).
    \6\ See Remand I at 15-17, 31-36.
    \7\ Id. at 15-17, 31-35.
    \8\ Id. at 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we recalculated the margin for those separate rate 
companies whose entries were subject to this litigation using the same 
method we used in AR6 Final Results.\9\ Thus, we calculated a weighted-
average margin of $0.51/kg based on the publicly ranged U.S. sales 
quantities of the mandatory respondents.\10\ The

[[Page 10334]]

separate rate companies that received this revised rate in Remand I 
were: (1) Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (Calgon Tianjin); (2) 
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Juqiang); (3) Datong 
Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Yunguang); (4) Jilin 
Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. (Jilin Bright); (5) Ningxia 
Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Huahui); (6) Ningxia Mineral and 
Chemical Limited (Ningxia Mineral); (7) Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., 
Ltd. (Sincere); and (8) Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd. (Tianjin 
Channel).\11\ Finally, in Remand I, and under protest, the Department 
assigned Shanxi DMD the separate rate of $0.51/kg, which the Department 
explained ``will pertain to entries during the period of review that 
were exported from the PRC to the United States by Shanxi DMD and 
imported by Carbon Activated.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 50-51. Specifically, in AR6 Final Results, we 
calculated the separate rate by using the ranged total sales 
quantities reported by the mandatory respondents from the public 
versions of their submissions to calculate a weighted-average margin 
because we found that methodology is more appropriate than 
calculating a simple average of the mandatory respondents' margins. 
See AR6 Final Results, 79 FR at 70164.
    \10\ See Remand I at 50-51.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id. at 17-20, 49-50, 51. The Department also explained 
that, although the Court ordered the Department to assign Shanxi DMD 
the ``all-others rate,'' the Department assigned Shanxi DMD the 
separate rate because ``the Department understands the Court as 
ordering the assignment of the separate rate to Shanxi DMD.'' Id. at 
19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 18, 2016, the Court in Calgon II sustained the 
Department's assignment of a separate rate to Shanxi DMD, but again 
remanded to the Department its SV selection for anthracite coal.\13\ 
Although the Court in Calgon II held that the Department's ``finding 
that the Thai SV is reliable {,{time}  is reasonable and supported by 
substantial evidence,'' \14\ the Court nonetheless found that the 
Department's determination to select significant production over import 
volumes as the methodology for selecting the anthracite coal SV was not 
supported by substantial evidence. As a result, the Court remanded the 
matter and ordered the Department ``to reconsider its selection of an 
SV for anthracite coal, . . . by either further explaining its 
selection methodology and basing that explanation on the record 
evidence or by choosing its other selection methodology based on import 
volume.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 
14-00326, Slip Op. 16-107 (CIT November 18, 2016) (Calgon II).
    \14\ Id. at 23.
    \15\ Id. at 24-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 3, 2017, the Department filed Remand II with the 
Court.\16\ The Department relied on the quantity of imports of 
anthracite coal to select a SV among the potential SV sources for that 
input that are equally reliable. As a result, the Department revised 
its SV choice and relied on a SV from South Africa to value the 
mandatory respondents' anthracite coal factor of production.\17\ 
Consequently, Cherishmet's \18\ and Jacobi's \19\ final margins were 
revised to $0.28/kg and $0.18/kg, respectively.\20\ The separate rate 
was revised to $0.22/kg for: (1) Calgon Tianjin; (2) Juqiang; (3) 
Yunguang; (4) Jilin Bright; (5) Huahui; (6) Ningxia Mineral; (7) 
Sincere; and (8) Tianjin Channel.\21\ The Department used the same 
methodology for calculating the separate rate that was used in AR6 
Final Results and Remand I, discussed above. Finally, because the Court 
held in Calgon II that ``any resulting changes to the value of the 
separate rate should be reflected in the rate ultimately assigned to 
Shanxi DMD,'' \22\ the Department assigned Shanxi DMD the revised 
separate rate of $0.22/kg, ``which will only pertain to entries during 
the period of review that were exported from the People's Republic of 
China (`PRC') to the United States by Shanxi DMD and imported by Carbon 
Activated.'' \23\ On January 27, 2017, the Court sustained Remand II in 
Calgon III.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 14-00326, Slip Op. 16-107, Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated December 29, 2016 
(Remand II).
    \17\ Id. at 5-6.
    \18\ In the first administrative review, the Department found 
that Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia 
Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and Ningxia Guanghua 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. should be treated as a single entity 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), and, because there were no changes to 
the facts which supported that decision, we continued to find these 
companies to be part of a single entity in subsequent reviews. 
Because there have been no changes to the facts that supported that 
decision in AR6 Final Results, we continued to treat the companies 
as a single entity in Remand II as well, as we did in Remand I. 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, 
21319 (May 7, 2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995, 
57998 (November 10, 2009).
    \19\ In the third administrative review, the Department found 
that Jacobi, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., and 
Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) should be treated as a single 
entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), and, because there were no 
changes to the facts which supported that decision, we continued to 
find these companies part of a single entity in the fourth and fifth 
administrative reviews. Because there have been no changes to the 
facts that supported that decision in AR6 Final Results, we 
continued to treat the companies as a single entity in Remand II as 
well, as we did in Remand I. See Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142, 67145 
n.25 (October 31, 2011); see also Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China; 2010-2011; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 67337, 67338 n.22 (November 9, 
2012).
    \20\ See Remand II at 6-7.
    \21\ See Remand II at 8.
    \22\ See Calgon II at 8-9.
    \23\ See Remand II at 8-9.
    \24\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 
14-00326, Slip Op. 17-6 (CIT January 27, 2017) (Calgon III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\25\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\26\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is 
not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and must suspend 
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The 
Court's January 27, 2017, judgment in Calgon III constitutes a final 
decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's AR6 
Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will 
continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at 
issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, a 
final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
    \26\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends 
AR6 Final Results with respect to the companies identified below. Based 
on Remand II, as affirmed by the Court in Calgon III, the revised 
weighted-average dumping margins for the companies listed below during 
the period April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, are as follows:

[[Page 10335]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Weighted-average
                                                     dumping margins
                   Exporter                      (dollars per kilogram)
                                                          \27\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobi Carbons AB.............................                      0.18
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon                        0.28
 Co., Ltd.....................................
Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd..............                      0.22
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd......                      0.22
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon                          0.22
 Co., Ltd.....................................
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd....                      0.22
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd......                      0.22
Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited..........                      0.22
Shanxi DMD Corporation \28\...................                      0.22
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd............                      0.22
Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd..............                      0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if 
appealed, are upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the 
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject 
merchandise based on the revised dumping margins listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In the second administrative review, 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, 70211 (November 17, 2010); see also AR6 Final Results, 79 FR 
at 70165 n.29.
    \28\ As discussed above, this rate ``will only pertain to 
entries during the period of review that were exported from the 
People's Republic of China (`PRC') to the United States by Shanxi 
DMD and imported by Carbon Activated.'' See Remand II at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for the 
companies identified above, the cash deposit rates will remain the 
rates established in the most recently-completed AR8 Final Results, 
which are $1.76/kg and $0.02 for Jacobi and Juqiang, respectively, and 
$1.36/kg for Calgon Tianjin, Cherishmet, Yunguang, Jilin Bright, 
Huahui, Ningxia Mineral, Sincere, Shanxi DMD, and Tianjin Channel.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2014-2015, 81 FR 62088, 62089 (September 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 6, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-02791 Filed 2-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P