Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part, 26496-26507 [2012-10838]

Download as PDF 26496 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices FRONTSEATING SERVICE VALVES FROM section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless the time limit is extended. THE PRC Exporter Weighted-average margin (percentage) Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. Ltd. ................... Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd. ... 0.00% 0.00% Disclosure The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within 10 days of the date of the public announcement of the results of this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Comments Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.85 Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in the written comments and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs.86 Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department’s electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.87 Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.88 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing. The Department intends to issue the final results of the administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, in accordance with 85 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 19 CFR 351.309(d). 87 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 88 See 19 CFR 351.310. 86 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 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.89 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer’s examined sales and the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).90 Where we calculate a margin by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, 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. Where an importer (or customer)specific per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer’s/customer’s entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific perunit rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For DunAn and Sanhua, which have separate rates, the cash deposit rates will be those established in the final 89 See 19 CFR 351.212(b). these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., on the basis of monthly average-to-average comparisons using only the transactions associated with that importer with offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons. See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103, February 14, 2012. 90 In PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 results of this review (except, if the rates are zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 55.62 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification To Importers This notice serves as a 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: April 30, 2012. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–10839 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–904] Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is conducting the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period April 1, 2010, through March 31, AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices 2011. The Department has preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by certain respondents examined in this administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of review. DATES: Effective Date: May 4, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer or Josh Startup, 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– 5260, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 27, 2011, the Department initiated this review with respect to all requested companies.2 On June 10, 2011, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review for Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (‘‘CCT’’) and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huahui’’). On the same date, Huahui withdrew its request for a review of itself, and Albemarle Corporation (‘‘Albemarle’’), a company we previously determined to be a wholesaler of the domestic-like product, withdrew its request for review of CCT. Likewise, on June 15, 2011, CCT withdrew its request for a review of itself. On July 7, 2011, the Department published a notice of rescission in the Federal Register for these two companies for which the request for review was withdrawn.3 On August 25, 2011, Petitioners withdrew the request for review with respect to an additional 166 companies.4 On September 20, 1 Collectively, Norit Americas Inc. (‘‘Norit’’) and Calgon Carbon Corporation (‘‘Calgon’’). 2 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 30912 (May 27, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 3 See Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 39581 (July 7, 2011). 4 Petitioners also withdrew their request for review of United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. (‘‘UMI’’). However, UMI submitted a VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 2011, the Department published a second notice of rescission in the Federal Register for those 165 companies.5 Nineteen companies remain subject to this review.6 On July 25, 2011, Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dapu’’) submitted a letter certifying it had no shipments during the period of review (‘‘POR’’).7 On September 30, 2011, the Department published a notice 8 extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 120 days to April 29, 2012.9 On April 2, 2012, the Department received comments from Datong Juqiang and Guanghua Cherishmet regarding surrogate country selection and certain surrogate values. However, because of the close proximity to the preliminary results, we are unable to take Datong Juqiang and Guanghua Cherishmet’s comments into consideration for the preliminary results. Datong Juqiang and Guanghua Cherishmet’s comments will be considered for the final results of this review. Respondent Selection Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’) directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise.10 However, section request on its behalf for an administrative review in the current segment of the proceeding. See Letter from UMI, dated April 21, 2011. 5 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 58246 (September 20, 2011). 6 These companies are: Adsorbent Carbons Pvt, Ltd.; Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Cherishmet Incorporated; Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal Yungang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation; Jacobi Carbons AB; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Jilin Province Bright Futures Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd.; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. 7 Companies have the opportunity to submit statements certifying that they did not ship the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 8 See Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results, 76 FR 60803 (September 30, 2011). 9 Because April 29, 2011, is a Sunday, the actual deadline for issuing the preliminary results falls on April 30, 2012, the next business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533, 24533 (May 10, 2005). 10 See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection, in general. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26497 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. On May 31, 2011, 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 and invited comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The Department received comments regarding respondent selection on June 9, 2011. On July 11, 2011, 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 three of the exporters subject to this review.11 Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Datong Juqiang’’), Jacobi Carbons AB (‘‘Jacobi’’), and Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guanghua Cherishmet’’) as mandatory respondents. Questionnaires On July 11, 2011, the Department issued its initial non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) antidumping duty questionnaire to the mandatory respondents, Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi. Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi timely responded to the Department’s initial and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between August 2011 and March 2012. Period of Review The POR is April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011. 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 11 See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Jamie BlairWalker, 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 11, 2011. E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 26498 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices 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 postactivation 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 Also excluded from the scope is activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon cloth is a woven textile fabric made of or containing activated carbon fibers. It is used in masks and filters and clothing of various types where a woven format is required. Any activated carbon meeting the physical description of subject merchandise provided above that is not expressly excluded from the scope is included within 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. Intent to Partially Rescind Administrative Review As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ section above, Dapu 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 Dapu.12 Additionally, we sent an inquiry to CBP asking if any CBP office had any information contrary to the noshipments claim and requested that CBP alert the Department of any such information within ten days of receiving our inquiry. CBP received our inquiry on December 21, 2011. 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 Dapu. Therefore, because the record indicates that Dapu did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we intend to rescind this administrative review with respect to this company.13 Non-Market Economy Country Status In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 12 See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Jamie BlairWalker, 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 11, 2011 at Attachment I. 13 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). PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 amended (‘‘the Act’’), the designation of a country as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. As such, we continue to treat the PRC as a NME in this proceeding. 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. 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. From the countries that are both economically comparable and significant producers, the Department will select a primary surrogate country based upon whether the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.14 In this review, the Department determined that Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.15 On July 26, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information regarding valuing FOPs.16 On October 27, 2011, Datong Juqiang, Jacobi, and Guanghua Cherishmet submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate country, contending that the Philippines is the appropriate surrogate country for this review.17 On October 28, 2011, 14 See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’), available on the Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 15 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 from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), dated July 25, 2011. 16 See the Department’s Letter to All Interested Parties; Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments, dated July 26, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 17 See Letter from Jacobi regarding Surrogate Country Comments dated October 27, 2011; see also Letter from Guanghua Cherishmet and Datong Juqiang regarding Surrogate Country Comments dated October 27, 2011. E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices Petitioners submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate country, arguing that Indonesia or Thailand are appropriate surrogate countries for this review.18 On November 16, 2011, the Department received information to value FOPs from Datong Juqiang, Jacobi, Guanghua Cherishmet and Petitioners.19 On November 23, 2011, Jacobi submitted rebuttal surrogate value comments.20 On November 28, 2011, Petitioners, Datong Juqiang, and Guanghua Cherishmet submitted rebuttal surrogate value comments.21 On February 21, 2012, Jacobi submitted additional information to value FOPs.22 Economic Comparability As explained in our Surrogate Country List, the Department considers Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine all comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.23 Therefore, we consider all six countries as having met this prong of the surrogate country selection criteria.24 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Significant Producers of Comparable Merchandise Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act requires the Department to value FOPs in a surrogate country that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Neither the statute nor the Department’s regulations provide further guidance on what may be considered comparable merchandise. Given the absence of any definition in the statute or regulations, the Department looks to other sources such as the Policy Bulletin 04.1 for guidance on defining comparable merchandise. The Policy Bulletin 04.1 states that ‘‘{t}he terms ‘comparable level of economic development,’ ‘comparable merchandise,’ and ‘significant producer’ are not defined in the statute.’’ 25 The Policy Bulletin 04.1 further states that ‘‘{i}n all cases, if identical merchandise is produced, the country qualifies as a 18 See Letter from Petitioners regarding Surrogate Country Comments dated October 28, 2011. 19 See First Surrogate Value Submission from Cherishment and DJAC, dated November 16, 2011; see Jacobi’s Surrogate Value Comments, dated November 16, 2011; see Petitioners Comments on Surrogate Values for Preliminary Results, dated November 16, 2011. 20 See Letter from Jacobi Clarifying Factual Information, dated November 23, 2011. 21 See Petitioners’ Comments on Respondents’ Surrogate Value Submissions for Preliminary Results, dated November 28, 2011; see First Surrogate Value Rebuttal Submission of Cherishmet Group and DJAC, dated November 28, 2011. 22 See Jacobi’s Supplemental Surrogate Value Comments, dated February 21, 2011. 23 See Surrogate Country List. 24 See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act. 25 See Policy Bulletin 04.1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 producer of comparable merchandise.’’ 26 Conversely, if identical merchandise is not produced, then a country producing comparable merchandise is sufficient in selecting a surrogate country.27 Further, when selecting a surrogate country, the statute requires the Department to consider the comparability of the merchandise, not the comparability of the industry.28 ‘‘In cases where the identical merchandise is not produced, the team must determine if other merchandise that is comparable is produced. How the team does this depends on the subject merchandise.’’ 29 In this regard, the Department recognizes that any analysis of comparable merchandise must be done on a case-by-case basis: In other cases, however, where there are major inputs, i.e., inputs that are specialized or dedicated or used intensively, in the production of the subject merchandise, e.g., processed agricultural, aquatic and mineral products, comparable merchandise should be identified narrowly, on the basis of a comparison of the major inputs, including energy, where appropriate.30 Further, the statute grants the Department discretion to examine various data sources for determining the best available information.31 The legislative history provides that the term ‘‘significant producer’’ includes any country that is a significant ‘‘net exporter,’’32 and it does not preclude reliance on additional or alternative metrics. In this case, because production data of identical or comparable merchandise from the countries on the surrogate country list are not available, we analyzed which of the six countries are exporters of identical or comparable merchandise as a proxy for production data. We obtained export data using the Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) for Harmonized 26 See id. Policy Bulletin 04.1 also states that ‘‘{i}f considering a producer of identical merchandise leads to data difficulties, the operations team may consider countries that produce a broader category of reasonably comparable merchandise.’’ See id., at n. 6. 28 See Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674 (December 15, 1997) and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (‘‘to impose a requirement that merchandise must be produced by the same process and share the same end uses to be considered comparable would be contrary to the intent of the statute’’). 29 See Policy Bulletin 04.1. 30 See id. 31 See section 773(c)(1) of the Act; Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 32 See Conference Report accompanying H.R. 3, the 1988 Omnibus Trade & Competitiveness Act, H. Rep. No. 100–576, at 590 (1988) (‘‘Conference Report’’). 27 The PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26499 Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) 3802.10: Activated Carbon, which is identical to the merchandise under consideration. The GTA data demonstrates that Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand were significant net exporters of identical merchandise in 2010.33 Accordingly, because Colombia, South Africa and Ukraine are not significant net exporters of activated carbon under HTS 3802.10, these countries will not be considered for primary surrogate country selection purposes at this time. Since only Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand of the potential surrogate countries have not been disqualified through the above analysis, the Department looks to the availability of surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) data to determine the most appropriate surrogate country.34 Data Availability When evaluating SV data, the Department considers several factors including whether the SV is publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR, represents a broad-market average, from an approved surrogate country, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the input.35 There is no hierarchy among these criteria.36 It is the Department’s practice to carefully consider the available evidence in light of the particular facts of each industry when undertaking its analysis.37 With respect to Indonesia, although Petitioners placed certain surrogate value data on the record, surrogate financial statements from Indonesia are unavailable, whereas there are surrogate financial statements from both the Philippines and Thailand on the record; therefore, we will not consider Indonesia for primary surrogate country selection purposes at this time. With Colombia, Indonesia, South Africa, and Ukraine disqualified, the Department is left with the Philippines and Thailand as potential surrogate countries. Again, we looked to data considerations in selecting the appropriate surrogate country and found that there are no usable import statistics for Philippine bituminous coal on the record. Specifically, all of the 33 GTA subtracts a country’s imports from its exports to arrive at net exports. See Memorandum to the File through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Katie Marksberry and Josh Startup, International Trade Specialists, Office 9, re: ‘‘Fourth 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 SV Memo’’) at Exhibit 3. 34 See Policy Bulletin 04.1. 35 See id. 36 See id. 37 See id. E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 26500 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices Philippine imports of bituminous coal under HTS 2701.12 are from Indonesia, which are excluded from the Department’s calculation of surrogate values.38 One respondent, Datong Juqiang, reported that it used bituminous coal with a calorific value over 5,833 kcal/kg, which indicates that the best surrogate value data to apply to its bituminous coal input is for HTS 2701.12. Therefore, we do not have a bituminous coal surrogate value from the Philippines that is specific to the input used by Datong Juqiang. The specificity of the inputs is one of the Department’s SV selection criteria and the GTA has been consistently used as a reliable source of import statistics 39 that fulfill the other SV selection criteria. In addition, we have Thai SV data for all other inputs (with the exception of steam, which is also missing from the Philippines SV data) and a Thai financial statement to calculate surrogate financial ratios. Therefore, we have selected Thailand as the primary surrogate country over the Philippines. A detailed explanation of the SVs is provided below in the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 38 See China Nat’l Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (CIT 2003), aff’d 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4. 39 See, e.g., Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 2011) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such party is able to submit the information,’’ the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed ‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the Department; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. However, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ‘‘finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.’’40 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.’’41 An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or 40 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. 41 See id. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 any other information placed on the record.42 Jacobi’s Excluded Producers On July 22, 2011, Jacobi requested to be excused from reporting FOP data for certain Chinese producers. On August 1, 2011, Petitioners submitted comments on Jacobi’s request. On August 12, 2011, 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.43 Specifically, the Department did not require Jacobi to report FOP data for its eleven smallest producers.44 Additionally, the Department notified Jacobi that it was not required to report FOP data for products that were purchased by Jacobi’s suppliers, as indicated in Jacobi’s July 22, 2011 letter.45 Guanghua Cherishmet’s Excluded Producers On September 9, 2011, Guanghua Cherishmet requested to be excused from reporting FOP data for a Chinese producer because of the limited quantity it produced. On September 19, 2011, the Department notified Guanghua Cherishmet that, because the quantity produced by one of its suppliers is limited and Guanghua Cherishmet produces comparable products during the POR, Guanghua Cherishmet would be excused from reporting certain FOP data.46 Specifically, the Department did not require Guanghua Cherishmet to report FOP data for its smallest producer as indicated in its September 9, 2011, submission.47 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 Guanghua Cherishmet were excused from reporting. As facts available, the Department is applying the calculated average normal value of Jacobi and Guanghua Cherishmet’s reported sales to the sales produced by their excluded producers, respectively. These issues are addressed in separate company-specific memoranda where a detailed explanation of the facts available calculation is provided.48 42 See id. the Department’s Letter to Jacobi dated August 12, 2011. 44 See id. 45 See id. 46 See the Department’s letter to Guanghua Cherishmet dated September 19, 2010. 47 See id. 48 See Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Joshua Startup, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for Jacobi Carbons AB in the 43 See E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Separate Rates The designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department.49 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.50 In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate rate status in NME reviews.51 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.52 Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.53 The Department analyzes each entity’s export independence under a test first articulated in Sparklers and as further developed in Silicon Carbide.54 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.55 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 Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China, dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Guanghua Cherishmet Prelim Analysis Memo’’). 49 See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. 50 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). 51 See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 30912–30913. 52 See id. 53 See id. 54 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’); see also 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’’) 55 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 The Department received separate rate applications or certifications from the following companies: Adsorbent Carbons Pvt. Ltd.; Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tangshan’’); Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. (‘‘UMI’’). Additionally, the Department received completed responses to the Section A portion of the NME questionnaire from the mandatory respondents Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi, which contained information pertaining to the companies’ eligibility for a separate rate. However, Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation and Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd., companies upon which the Department initiated administrative reviews that have not been rescinded, did not submit either a separate-rate application or certification. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate On July 27, 2011, Adsorbent, an Indian activated carbon company, submitted a separate rate application as it claims it had sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.56 On December 2, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Adsorbent regarding its claim.57 On December 22, 2011, Adsorbent responded to a supplemental questionnaire regarding its separate rate application, claiming that it had purchased activated carbon from unaffiliated PRC suppliers,58 and reprocessed and repackaged the activated carbon in India for resale to its U.S. customer.59 However, the CBP data used for respondent selection indicates no entries of the subject merchandise were made by Adsorbent.60 from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007). 56 See Letter from Adsorbent, dated July 27, 2011. 57 See Letter from the Department dated December 2, 2011. 58 See Letter from Adsorbent, dated July 27, 2011 at 12. 59 See Letter from Adsorbent, dated December 11, 2011 at 3. 60 See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Jamie BlairWalker, International Trade Compliance Analysts, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC: Selection PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26501 Additionally, the CBP 7501 Forms provided by Adsorbent’s importer indicate that the entries of the merchandise Adsorbent claims were subject PRC-origin were in fact made as non-subject ‘‘Type 1’’ entries.61 CBP data reviewed by the Department do not show any reviewable entries of subject merchandise made by the thirdcountry exporter Adsorbent during the POR. There is no information on the record of this proceeding indicating that Adsorbent made entries of subject merchandise during the POR.62 Additionally, we intend to refer this matter to CBP to investigate whether Adsorbent’s entries were entered properly. On July 22, 2011, the Department received a timely separate rate application from UMI, a company currently considered part of the PRC wide entity.63 On November 21, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to UMI requesting clarification on certain deficiencies in its separate rate application.64 However, UMI did not submit a response or request an extension to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire by the deadline. Therefore, because Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd., and UMI did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status, we have preliminarily determined to consider these companies as part of the PRC-wide entity. Separate Rate Recipients 1. Wholly Foreign-Owned Jacobi reported that it is whollyowned by a company located in an ME country, Sweden.65 Therefore, there is no PRC ownership of Jacobi and, because the Department has no evidence indicating that Jacobi is under the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from of Respondents for Individual Review, dated May 31, 2011 at Attachment I. 61 See Adsorbent’s supplemental response, dated December 11, 2011, at Exhibit 2. 62 See Saccharin from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 77 FR 21966, 21967 (April 12, 2012). 63 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, 70210 (November 17, 2010). 64 See the Department’s Letter to UMI, dated November 21, 2011. 65 See Jacobi’s Section A Questionnaire Response, dated August 11, 2011, at 2. E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 26502 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices government control.66 Additionally, one of the exporters under review not selected for individual review, Tangshan, demonstrated in its separaterate certification that it is 100 percent ME foreign owned.67 Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted separate rate status to Jacobi and Tangshan. 2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies 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.72 b. Absence of De Facto Control Datong Juqiang,68 Guanghua Cherishmet,69 and eight 70 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 our 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. a. Absence of De Jure Control erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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.71 The evidence provided by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and the eight separate rate applicants supports a 66 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). 67 See Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.’s Separate Rate Certification dated July 26, 2011, at Attachment 1. 68 See Datong Juqiang’s Section A Questionnaire Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 2–6. 69 See Guanghua Cherishmet’s Section A Questionnaire Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 2–8. 70 These companies are: Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd. 71 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 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.73 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 Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and 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.74 Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Datong Juqiang, Guanghua 72 See, e.g., Guanghua Cherishmet’s Section A Questionnaire Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 5, Exhibit A–3, and Exhibit A–4; and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.’s Separate Rate Certification dated July 26, 2011, at 5–6. 73 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). 74 See, e.g., Datong Juqiang ’s Section A Questionnaire Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 2–8 and Exhibit A–4; and Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. Separate Rate Application, dated November 25, 2011, at 17–19. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Cherishmet, and eight 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 The eight companies which are not mandatory respondents and which submitted timely information as requested by the Department remain subject to this review as separate rate respondents. The Department has preliminarily calculated a de minimis margin for Datong Juqiang. Furthermore, because using the weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales quantities for Guanghua Cherishmet and Jacobi would allow these two respondents to deduce each other’s business-proprietary information and thus cause an unwarranted release of such information, we cannot assign to the separate rate companies the weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values from these two respondents. For these preliminary results and consistent with our practice,75 we determine that using the ranged total sales quantities reported by Guanghua Cherishemet and Jacobi from the public versions of their submissions is more appropriate than applying a simple average.76 These publicly available figures provide the basis on which we can calculate a margin which is the best proxy for the weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values of Guanghua Cherishmet and Jacobi. We find that this approach is more consistent with the intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as guidance when we establish the rate for respondents not examined individually in an administrative review.77 Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for Guanghua Cherishmet and Jacobi are business-proprietary figures, we find that 1.34 U.S. Dollars/kilogram (‘‘USD/kg’’), which we calculated using the publicly available figures of U.S. 75 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 56158, 56160 (September 12, 2011) (‘‘Vietnam Shrimp’’); see also Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 68407, 68415 (November 4, 2011) (‘‘Galvanized Wire LTFV’’). 76 See Jacobi Section A questionnaire response (Public Version) dated September 13, 2011, at Exhibit 4; see also Guanghua Cherishmet Public Version of Exhibit SA–1 for the Section A Response, dated August 19, 2011. 77 See Vietnam Shrimp at 56160; see also Galvanized Wire LTFV at 68415. E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices sales quantities for these two firms, is the best reasonable proxy for the weighted-average margin based on the calculated U.S. sales quantities of Guanghua Cherishmet and Jacobi.78 For the PRC-wide entity, we have assigned the entity’s 2.42 USD/kg, which is the current and only rate ever determined for the entity in this proceeding.79 Date of Sale Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, 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,80 and in the absence of any information to the contrary, the Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as Datong Juqiang’s, Guanghua Cherishmet’s, and Jacobi’s date of sale. Fair Value Comparisons erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES To determine whether sales of certain activated carbon to the United States by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, 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.81 78 See ‘‘Memorandum to the File from Bob Palmer, International Trade Specialist, Office 9 Re: Calculation of Separate Rate,’’ dated concurrently with this notice. 79 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 15099 (March 30, 2007); see also 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) (‘‘AR2 Carbon’’). 80 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. 81 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (‘‘Final Modification for Reviews’’). In particular, the Department compared monthly weighted-average export prices (or constructed export prices) with monthly weighted-average NVs and granted offsets for nondumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted average dumping margin. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 26503 U.S. Price Normal Value Export Price 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. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated the EP for Datong Juqiang’s sales to the United State because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation, and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. The Department calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted from the starting price (gross unit price) to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling. Each of these services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, the Department based the deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values.82 Constructed Export Price For all of Guanghua Cherishmet 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. 82 See Prelim SV Memo for details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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.83 During the POR, Jacobi reported that it purchased certain inputs from an ME supplier and paid for the inputs in an ME currency.84 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.85 In these cases, unless casespecific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department’s presumption, the Department will use the weightedaverage 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 83 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). 84 See Jacobi’s Section D Questionnaire Response dated September 1, 2011, at page D–9, and Exhibit JT–2. 85 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’’). E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 26504 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices presumption.86 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.87 The Department used Thai Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi used to produce the subject merchandise under review during the POR, except where listed below. In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of disregarding surrogate values if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.88 In this regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies.89 Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies. Therefore, the Department has not used prices from these countries in calculating the Thai 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.90 86 See id. id. 88 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 100–576, at 590 (1988) (‘‘OTCA 1988’’), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24. 89 See e.g., 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). 90 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 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 87 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject merchandise produced by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi, the Department calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi for the POR. The Department used data from Thai Import Statistics and other publicly available Thai sources in order to calculate surrogate values for Datong Juqiang’s, Guanghua Cherishmet’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 Thai 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 productspecific, representative of a broadmarket average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR, and exclusive of taxes and duties.91 As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to render the prices delivered prices. Specifically, the Department added to Thai 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.92 For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi, see Prelim SV 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 Thai Producer Price Index as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund, a printout of which is attached to the Prelim SV Memo at Attachment 6. Where necessary, the Department adjusted surrogate values for inflation, exchange rates, and taxes, and the Department converted all applicable China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008). 91 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. 92 See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 items to a per-kilogram or per-metric ton basis. The Department valued electricity using data from the Electrical Generating Authority of Thailand, Annual Report 2010: Key Statistical Data. We calculated an average of the price of energy sales to various customers.93 Because water was used by the respondents in the production process of certain activated carbon, the Department considers water to be a direct material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a SV according to our practice.94 The Department valued water using data from Thailand’s Board of Investment.95 This source provides water rates for industrial users that are VAT exclusive. Although Petitioners suggested that we value water using information from Thailand’s Metropolitan Waterworks Authority, we find that the information provided is approximate and not explicitly tax-exclusive. Therefore, the data provided by the Board of Investment provides a more specific and accurate surrogate value.96 The Department was unable to locate a suitable surrogate value for purchased steam from Thailand or from any of the other countries on the surrogate country list. As noted above, the Department prefers to use surrogate values chosen from the primary surrogate country, however, where no reliable data exists in the primary surrogate country, the Department may look to additional countries for reliable surrogate values.97 The Department has preliminarily determined to use the 2010–2011 financial statement of Hindalco Industries Limited from India, which contains a surrogate value for steam,98 as it is the only information currently on the record for valuing steam, and is a source we have used in previous segments of this proceeding.99 93 See Prelim SV Memo at 9. 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. 95 See Prelim SV Memo at 8. 96 See id. 97 See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at n. 7. 98 See Jacobi’s Surrogate Value Comments: Certain Activated Carbon from China, dated November 16, 2011, at Exhibit SV–7. 99 See, e.g., Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Rescission in Part, 76 FR 23978, 23988 (April 29, 2011), unchanged in Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31, 2011). 94 See E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices We used Thai transport information in order to value the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from Siam Partners Group Company Limited.100 We calculated the per-unit inland freight costs using the distance from five different provinces in Thailand to Thailand’s largest city, Bangkok.101 We inflated the calculated a per-metric ton, per-kilometer surrogate inland freight because this source was from 2005.102 We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in Thailand. 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 Thailand that is published in Doing Business 2011: Thailand, published by the World Bank.103 To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, and profit, the Department used the 2010 audited financial statement of Carbokarn Co., Ltd., the only Thai financial statement available on the record of this review.104 Because the Department has chosen Thailand as the primary surrogate country, the discussion here is limited to financial statements placed on the record from Thailand. On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.105 In Labor Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (‘‘Yearbook’’). For these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor input 100 See Prelim SV Memo at 9. id. 102 See id., at Exhibit 8. 103 See Prelim SV Memo at 10. 104 See Petitioners November 28, 2011, Surrogate Value Submission at Exhibits 5 & 6. 105 See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’). This notice followed the Federal Circuit decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), which found that the regression-based method for calculating wage rates as stipulated by erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 101 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value the respondent’s labor input, the Department relied on data reported by Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. Although the Department further finds the two-digit description Sub-Classification 24 under ISICRevision 3 (‘‘Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical Products’’) to be the best available information on the record because it is specific to the industry being examined, and is therefore derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise, Thailand has not reported data specific to the twodigit description since 2000. However, Thailand did report total manufacturing labor data in 2005. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using total 2005 manufacturing labor data reported by Thailand to the ILO, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For the preliminary results, the calculated industry-specific wage rate is 135.93 Baht/hour. A more detailed description of the wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the Prelim SV Memo. As stated above, the Department used Thai ILO data reported in 2005 under Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the Department’s practice is to consider whether financial ratios reflect labor expenses that are included in other elements of the respondent’s factors of production (e.g., general and administrative expenses).106 However, the financial statements used to calculate financial ratios in this review were insufficiently detailed to permit the Department to isolate whether any labor expenses were included in other components of NV. Therefore, in this review, the Department preliminary has made no adjustment to these financial statements.107 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)). 106 See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093–94. 107 See Prelim SV Memo at 9. 108 See Ltr. From the Department to Datong Juqiang, re: ‘‘NME Questionnaire’’, dated July 11, 2011 at D–6. 109 See Datong Juqiang’s section D questionnaire response, dated September 12, 2011 at page 15 and Exhibit D–10. 110 See Datong Juqiang’s supplemental section D questionnaire response, dated March 15, 2012, at 5– 6; see also Datong Juqiang’s supplemental section PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26505 Treatment of Datong Juqiang’s Packing Factors For these preliminary results, we are applying partial adverse facts available to Datong Juqiang for packing bags for certain customers. In the initial Section D questionnaire, the Department informs parties that if they receive any inputs used in the production process for free, they must include the amount of that input used.108 In its Section D questionnaire response, Datong Juqiang reported the amount of packing bags it used for its other customers.109 On March 15, 2012, in response to a supplemental questionnaire and request for documentation, Datong Juqiang stated that its agreement with the customers was over the phone, that it had no agreement in writing, and that it could provide no evidence that packing bags were supplied by those certain customers.110 Datong did not provide the Department with any additional information. Therefore, because Datong Juqiang has failed to cooperate at the Department’s request to the best of its ability in reporting the total amount packing bags used in the production of subject merchandise, for these preliminary results the Department is applying as partial adverse facts available the highest single, per-unit consumption of packing bags reported by Datong Juqiang as the packing bags used by Datong Juqiang in the packing stage for those certain customers.111 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 weightedaverage dumping margins exist: A, C & D questionnaire response, dated November 29, 2011 at 23. 111 For further details, see 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 Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China, dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘DJAC Prelim Analysis Memo’’). E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 26506 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices Margin (dollars per kilogram) 112 Exporter Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................. Jacobi Carbons AB 113 ................................................................................................................................................................. Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd114 .................................................................................................... Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................ Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd ............................................................................................................................... Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited ........................................................................................................................................ Shanxi DMD Corporation ............................................................................................................................................................. Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................. Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................. Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................. PRC-Wide Rate 115 ...................................................................................................................................................................... * 0.00 1.49 1.07 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 2.42 * De minimis. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Disclosure and Public Comment 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.116 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.117 Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 112 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, 70210 (November 17, 2010). 113 In Activated Carbon AR3, the Department found Jacobi Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., and Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) are a single entity and, because there has been no changes to this determination since the first administrative 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: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31, 2011) (‘‘Activated Carbon AR3’’). 114 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 has been no changes to this determination since the first administrative 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). 115 The PRC-Wide entity includes Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation; Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. 116 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 117 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 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.118 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.119 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, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally cannot accept ‘‘the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value or financial ratio information’’ pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1).120 Additionally, for each piece of factual information submitted with surrogate value rebuttal comments, the interested party must provide a 118 See 19 CRR 351.309(d). 19 CFR 351.309(c), (d). 120 See Glycine From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 119 See PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 written explanation of what information that is already on the record of the ongoing proceeding that the factual information is rebutting, clarifying, or correcting. 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, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice and file the request via the Department’s Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’).121 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). 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 unless the deadline is extended. 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. For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for 121 See E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 19 CFR 351.310(c). 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the merchandise subject to this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).122 In this and future reviews, we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., perkilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Where an importer (or customer)-specific per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer’s/customer’s entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the rate we calculated for the mandatory respondent whose rate was not de minimis, as discussed above. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity (including Dapu) at the PRC-wide rate. Finally, 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. 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 from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 122 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for Reviews, i.e. on the basis of monthly average-to-average comparisons using only the transactions associated with that importer with offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 123; 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 27, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–10838 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before May 24, 2012. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 123 See AR2 Carbon 70208, 70209 and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 3. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26507 Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720. Docket Number: 12–013. Applicant: Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Dr., Saint Louis, MO 63130. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used for research on primitive solar system materials extracted from meteorites as well as on samples from NASA sample return missions, such as STARDUST. The instrument will be used for the preparation of TEM thin sections of micron-sized stardust grains as well as samples extracted from STARDUST Al foils, to increase the understanding of the chemical origin of the solar system and the processes by which its small bodies evolved. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 29, 2012. Docket Number: 12–018. Applicant: The Regents of the University of California, 1 Cyclotron Rd., MS 46R0125, Berkeley, CA 94720. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to investigate the structure and composition of micro- and nanomaterials that will be used as light absorbers, catalysts, and membranes in photoelectrochemical devices that are engineered to convert solar energy to fuel. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 28, 2012. Docket Number: 12–019. Applicant: Schepens Eye Research Institute, 20 Staniford St., Boston MA, 02114. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to investigate the genes and proteins that underlie normal and pathologic processes associated with human vision, to allow the repair, prevention, and cure of sightthreatening pathologies. The instrument will be used to examine the ultra structure of biological specimens including eye tissues, using conventional observation as well as immune-electron microscopy. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26496-26507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10838]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-904]


Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, and Intent To Rescind in Part

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the 
period April 1, 2010, through March 31,

[[Page 26497]]

2011. The Department has preliminarily determined that sales have been 
made below normal value (``NV'') by certain respondents examined in 
this administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of 
review.

DATES: Effective Date: May 4, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer or Josh Startup, 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) 
482-5260, 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 27, 2011, the 
Department initiated this review with respect to all requested 
companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Collectively, Norit Americas Inc. (``Norit'') and Calgon 
Carbon Corporation (``Calgon'').
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 30912 (May 27, 2011) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 10, 2011, Petitioners withdrew their request for an 
administrative review for Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (``CCT'') 
and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Huahui''). On the same 
date, Huahui withdrew its request for a review of itself, and Albemarle 
Corporation (``Albemarle''), a company we previously determined to be a 
wholesaler of the domestic-like product, withdrew its request for 
review of CCT. Likewise, on June 15, 2011, CCT withdrew its request for 
a review of itself. On July 7, 2011, the Department published a notice 
of rescission in the Federal Register for these two companies for which 
the request for review was withdrawn.\3\ On August 25, 2011, 
Petitioners withdrew the request for review with respect to an 
additional 166 companies.\4\ On September 20, 2011, the Department 
published a second notice of rescission in the Federal Register for 
those 165 companies.\5\ Nineteen companies remain subject to this 
review.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 39581 (July 7, 2011).
    \4\ Petitioners also withdrew their request for review of United 
Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. (``UMI''). However, UMI 
submitted a request on its behalf for an administrative review in 
the current segment of the proceeding. See Letter from UMI, dated 
April 21, 2011.
    \5\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 58246 (September 20, 2011).
    \6\ These companies are: Adsorbent Carbons Pvt, Ltd.; Beijing 
Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Cherishmet 
Incorporated; Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Datong 
Municipal Yungang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Hebei Foreign Trade 
and Advertising Corporation; Jacobi Carbons AB; Jilin Bright Future 
Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Jilin Province Bright Futures Industry and 
Commerce Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon 
Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi Dapu 
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi 
Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading 
Co., Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Maijin 
Industries Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing International 
(Beijing) Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 25, 2011, Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd. 
(``Dapu'') submitted a letter certifying it had no shipments during the 
period of review (``POR'').\7\ On September 30, 2011, the Department 
published a notice \8\ extending the time period for issuing the 
preliminary results by 120 days to April 29, 2012.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Companies have the opportunity to submit statements 
certifying that they did not ship the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.
    \8\ See Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 
From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for 
Preliminary Results, 76 FR 60803 (September 30, 2011).
    \9\ Because April 29, 2011, is a Sunday, the actual deadline for 
issuing the preliminary results falls on April 30, 2012, the next 
business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next 
Business Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines 
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533, 24533 
(May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 2, 2012, the Department received comments from Datong 
Juqiang and Guanghua Cherishmet regarding surrogate country selection 
and certain surrogate values. However, because of the close proximity 
to the preliminary results, we are unable to take Datong Juqiang and 
Guanghua Cherishmet's comments into consideration for the preliminary 
results. Datong Juqiang and Guanghua Cherishmet's comments will be 
considered for the final results of this review.

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 31, 2011, 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 and invited comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection. The Department received comments regarding 
respondent selection on June 9, 2011.
    On July 11, 2011, 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 three 
of the exporters subject to this review.\11\ Pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Datong Juqiang 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Datong Juqiang''), Jacobi Carbons AB 
(``Jacobi''), and Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., 
Ltd. (``Guanghua Cherishmet'') as mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from 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 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaires

    On July 11, 2011, the Department issued its initial non-market 
economy (``NME'') antidumping duty questionnaire to the mandatory 
respondents, Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi. Datong 
Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi timely responded to the 
Department's initial and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between 
August 2011 and March 2012.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.

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

[[Page 26498]]

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 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.

Intent to Partially Rescind Administrative Review

    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, Dapu 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 Dapu.\12\ 
Additionally, we sent an inquiry to CBP asking if any CBP office had 
any information contrary to the no-shipments claim and requested that 
CBP alert the Department of any such information within ten days of 
receiving our inquiry. CBP received our inquiry on December 21, 2011. 
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 Dapu. Therefore, because the record indicates that Dapu 
did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, 
we intend to rescind this administrative review with respect to this 
company.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from 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 11, 2011 at Attachment I.
    \13\ 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 accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (``the Act''), the designation of a country as an NME 
country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. As 
such, we continue to treat the PRC as a NME in this proceeding. 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.

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. From the countries that are both 
economically comparable and significant producers, the Department will 
select a primary surrogate country based upon whether the data for 
valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.\14\ In this review, the 
Department determined that Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South 
Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market 
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) 
(``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on the Department's Web site 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
    \15\ 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 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), dated July 25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 26, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information 
regarding valuing FOPs.\16\ On October 27, 2011, Datong Juqiang, 
Jacobi, and Guanghua Cherishmet submitted comments on the selection of 
a surrogate country, contending that the Philippines is the appropriate 
surrogate country for this review.\17\ On October 28, 2011,

[[Page 26499]]

Petitioners submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate country, 
arguing that Indonesia or Thailand are appropriate surrogate countries 
for this review.\18\ On November 16, 2011, the Department received 
information to value FOPs from Datong Juqiang, Jacobi, Guanghua 
Cherishmet and Petitioners.\19\ On November 23, 2011, Jacobi submitted 
rebuttal surrogate value comments.\20\ On November 28, 2011, 
Petitioners, Datong Juqiang, and Guanghua Cherishmet submitted rebuttal 
surrogate value comments.\21\ On February 21, 2012, Jacobi submitted 
additional information to value FOPs.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments, dated July 26, 2011 (``Surrogate Country 
List'').
    \17\ See Letter from Jacobi regarding Surrogate Country Comments 
dated October 27, 2011; see also Letter from Guanghua Cherishmet and 
Datong Juqiang regarding Surrogate Country Comments dated October 
27, 2011.
    \18\ See Letter from Petitioners regarding Surrogate Country 
Comments dated October 28, 2011.
    \19\ See First Surrogate Value Submission from Cherishment and 
DJAC, dated November 16, 2011; see Jacobi's Surrogate Value 
Comments, dated November 16, 2011; see Petitioners Comments on 
Surrogate Values for Preliminary Results, dated November 16, 2011.
    \20\ See Letter from Jacobi Clarifying Factual Information, 
dated November 23, 2011.
    \21\ See Petitioners' Comments on Respondents' Surrogate Value 
Submissions for Preliminary Results, dated November 28, 2011; see 
First Surrogate Value Rebuttal Submission of Cherishmet Group and 
DJAC, dated November 28, 2011.
    \22\ See Jacobi's Supplemental Surrogate Value Comments, dated 
February 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Comparability

    As explained in our Surrogate Country List, the Department 
considers Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, 
and Ukraine all comparable to the PRC in terms of economic 
development.\23\ Therefore, we consider all six countries as having met 
this prong of the surrogate country selection criteria.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Surrogate Country List.
    \24\ See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significant Producers of Comparable Merchandise

    Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act requires the Department to value 
FOPs in a surrogate country that is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Neither the statute nor the Department's 
regulations provide further guidance on what may be considered 
comparable merchandise. Given the absence of any definition in the 
statute or regulations, the Department looks to other sources such as 
the Policy Bulletin 04.1 for guidance on defining comparable 
merchandise. The Policy Bulletin 04.1 states that ``{t{time} he terms 
`comparable level of economic development,' `comparable merchandise,' 
and `significant producer' are not defined in the statute.'' \25\ The 
Policy Bulletin 04.1 further states that ``{i{time} n all cases, if 
identical merchandise is produced, the country qualifies as a producer 
of comparable merchandise.'' \26\ Conversely, if identical merchandise 
is not produced, then a country producing comparable merchandise is 
sufficient in selecting a surrogate country.\27\ Further, when 
selecting a surrogate country, the statute requires the Department to 
consider the comparability of the merchandise, not the comparability of 
the industry.\28\ ``In cases where the identical merchandise is not 
produced, the team must determine if other merchandise that is 
comparable is produced. How the team does this depends on the subject 
merchandise.'' \29\ In this regard, the Department recognizes that any 
analysis of comparable merchandise must be done on a case-by-case 
basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also states that ``{i{time} f 
considering a producer of identical merchandise leads to data 
difficulties, the operations team may consider countries that 
produce a broader category of reasonably comparable merchandise.'' 
See id., at n. 6.
    \28\ See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674 
(December 15, 1997) and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1 (``to impose a requirement that merchandise must be 
produced by the same process and share the same end uses to be 
considered comparable would be contrary to the intent of the 
statute'').
    \29\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.

    In other cases, however, where there are major inputs, i.e., 
inputs that are specialized or dedicated or used intensively, in the 
production of the subject merchandise, e.g., processed agricultural, 
aquatic and mineral products, comparable merchandise should be 
identified narrowly, on the basis of a comparison of the major 
inputs, including energy, where appropriate.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id.

Further, the statute grants the Department discretion to examine 
various data sources for determining the best available 
information.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See section 773(c)(1) of the Act; Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. 
United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legislative history provides that the term ``significant 
producer'' includes any country that is a significant ``net 
exporter,''\32\ and it does not preclude reliance on additional or 
alternative metrics. In this case, because production data of identical 
or comparable merchandise from the countries on the surrogate country 
list are not available, we analyzed which of the six countries are 
exporters of identical or comparable merchandise as a proxy for 
production data. We obtained export data using the Global Trade Atlas 
(``GTA'') for Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') 3802.10: Activated 
Carbon, which is identical to the merchandise under consideration. The 
GTA data demonstrates that Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand 
were significant net exporters of identical merchandise in 2010.\33\ 
Accordingly, because Colombia, South Africa and Ukraine are not 
significant net exporters of activated carbon under HTS 3802.10, these 
countries will not be considered for primary surrogate country 
selection purposes at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Conference Report accompanying H.R. 3, the 1988 Omnibus 
Trade & Competitiveness Act, H. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988) 
(``Conference Report'').
    \33\ GTA subtracts a country's imports from its exports to 
arrive at net exports. See Memorandum to the File through Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Katie 
Marksberry and Josh Startup, International Trade Specialists, Office 
9, re: ``Fourth 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 
SV Memo'') at Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since only Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand of the potential 
surrogate countries have not been disqualified through the above 
analysis, the Department looks to the availability of surrogate value 
(``SV'') data to determine the most appropriate surrogate country.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Availability

    When evaluating SV data, the Department considers several factors 
including whether the SV is publicly available, contemporaneous with 
the POR, represents a broad-market average, from an approved surrogate 
country, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the input.\35\ There 
is no hierarchy among these criteria.\36\ It is the Department's 
practice to carefully consider the available evidence in light of the 
particular facts of each industry when undertaking its analysis.\37\ 
With respect to Indonesia, although Petitioners placed certain 
surrogate value data on the record, surrogate financial statements from 
Indonesia are unavailable, whereas there are surrogate financial 
statements from both the Philippines and Thailand on the record; 
therefore, we will not consider Indonesia for primary surrogate country 
selection purposes at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id.
    \37\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With Colombia, Indonesia, South Africa, and Ukraine disqualified, 
the Department is left with the Philippines and Thailand as potential 
surrogate countries. Again, we looked to data considerations in 
selecting the appropriate surrogate country and found that there are no 
usable import statistics for Philippine bituminous coal on the record. 
Specifically, all of the

[[Page 26500]]

Philippine imports of bituminous coal under HTS 2701.12 are from 
Indonesia, which are excluded from the Department's calculation of 
surrogate values.\38\ One respondent, Datong Juqiang, reported that it 
used bituminous coal with a calorific value over 5,833 kcal/kg, which 
indicates that the best surrogate value data to apply to its bituminous 
coal input is for HTS 2701.12. Therefore, we do not have a bituminous 
coal surrogate value from the Philippines that is specific to the input 
used by Datong Juqiang. The specificity of the inputs is one of the 
Department's SV selection criteria and the GTA has been consistently 
used as a reliable source of import statistics \39\ that fulfill the 
other SV selection criteria. In addition, we have Thai SV data for all 
other inputs (with the exception of steam, which is also missing from 
the Philippines SV data) and a Thai financial statement to calculate 
surrogate financial ratios. Therefore, we have selected Thailand as the 
primary surrogate country over the Philippines. A detailed explanation 
of the SVs is provided below in the ``Normal Value'' section of this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See China Nat'l Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United 
States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (CIT 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 
183 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 
4.
    \39\ See, e.g., Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 
FR 51940 (August 19, 2011) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the Act provide that, if 
necessary information is not available on the record, or if an 
interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by 
the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely 
manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 
and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information in the requested form and manner, together 
with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such 
party is able to submit the information,'' the Department may modify 
the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that 
party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information 
and meeting the requirements established by the Department; and (5) the 
information can be used without undue difficulties.
    However, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department 
``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information 
from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering 
authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available.''\40\ 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.''\41\ 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.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 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.
    \41\ See id.
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jacobi's Excluded Producers

    On July 22, 2011, Jacobi requested to be excused from reporting FOP 
data for certain Chinese producers. On August 1, 2011, Petitioners 
submitted comments on Jacobi's request. On August 12, 2011, 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.\43\ Specifically, the Department did not 
require Jacobi to report FOP data for its eleven smallest 
producers.\44\ Additionally, the Department notified Jacobi that it was 
not required to report FOP data for products that were purchased by 
Jacobi's suppliers, as indicated in Jacobi's July 22, 2011 letter.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See the Department's Letter to Jacobi dated August 12, 
2011.
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guanghua Cherishmet's Excluded Producers

    On September 9, 2011, Guanghua Cherishmet requested to be excused 
from reporting FOP data for a Chinese producer because of the limited 
quantity it produced. On September 19, 2011, the Department notified 
Guanghua Cherishmet that, because the quantity produced by one of its 
suppliers is limited and Guanghua Cherishmet produces comparable 
products during the POR, Guanghua Cherishmet would be excused from 
reporting certain FOP data.\46\ Specifically, the Department did not 
require Guanghua Cherishmet to report FOP data for its smallest 
producer as indicated in its September 9, 2011, submission.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See the Department's letter to Guanghua Cherishmet dated 
September 19, 2010.
    \47\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Guanghua Cherishmet were 
excused from reporting. As facts available, the Department is applying 
the calculated average normal value of Jacobi and Guanghua Cherishmet's 
reported sales to the sales produced by their excluded producers, 
respectively. These issues are addressed in separate company-specific 
memoranda where a detailed explanation of the facts available 
calculation is provided.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Joshua Startup, 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 
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 
from the People's Republic of China, dated concurrently with this 
notice (``Guanghua Cherishmet Prelim Analysis Memo'').

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

[[Page 26501]]

Separate Rates

    The designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it 
is revoked by the Department.\49\ 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.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act.
    \50\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain 
Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
53079, 53080 (September 8, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME reviews.\51\ 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.\52\ Exporters can demonstrate this independence 
through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over export activities.\53\ The Department analyzes each entity's 
export independence under a test first articulated in Sparklers and as 
further developed in Silicon Carbide.\54\ 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.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 30912-30913.
    \52\ See id.
    \53\ See id.
    \54\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''); see also 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'')
    \55\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department received separate rate applications or 
certifications from the following companies: Adsorbent Carbons Pvt. 
Ltd.; Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Datong 
Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future 
Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited; Shanxi DMD 
Corporation; Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry 
Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. 
(``Tangshan''); Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.; and United 
Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. (``UMI'').
    Additionally, the Department received completed responses to the 
Section A portion of the NME questionnaire from the mandatory 
respondents Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi, which 
contained information pertaining to the companies' eligibility for a 
separate rate. However, Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation 
and Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd., 
companies upon which the Department initiated administrative reviews 
that have not been rescinded, did not submit either a separate-rate 
application or certification.

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    On July 27, 2011, Adsorbent, an Indian activated carbon company, 
submitted a separate rate application as it claims it had sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.\56\ On 
December 2, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
Adsorbent regarding its claim.\57\ On December 22, 2011, Adsorbent 
responded to a supplemental questionnaire regarding its separate rate 
application, claiming that it had purchased activated carbon from 
unaffiliated PRC suppliers,\58\ and reprocessed and repackaged the 
activated carbon in India for resale to its U.S. customer.\59\ However, 
the CBP data used for respondent selection indicates no entries of the 
subject merchandise were made by Adsorbent.\60\ Additionally, the CBP 
7501 Forms provided by Adsorbent's importer indicate that the entries 
of the merchandise Adsorbent claims were subject PRC-origin were in 
fact made as non-subject ``Type 1'' entries.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Letter from Adsorbent, dated July 27, 2011.
    \57\ See Letter from the Department dated December 2, 2011.
    \58\ See Letter from Adsorbent, dated July 27, 2011 at 12.
    \59\ See Letter from Adsorbent, dated December 11, 2011 at 3.
    \60\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from 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 May 31, 2011 at Attachment I.
    \61\ See Adsorbent's supplemental response, dated December 11, 
2011, at Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBP data reviewed by the Department do not show any reviewable 
entries of subject merchandise made by the third-country exporter 
Adsorbent during the POR. There is no information on the record of this 
proceeding indicating that Adsorbent made entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR.\62\ Additionally, we intend to refer this 
matter to CBP to investigate whether Adsorbent's entries were entered 
properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Intent to Rescind in Part, 77 FR 21966, 21967 (April 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 2011, the Department received a timely separate rate 
application from UMI, a company currently considered part of the PRC 
wide entity.\63\ On November 21, 2011, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to UMI requesting clarification on certain 
deficiencies in its separate rate application.\64\ However, UMI did not 
submit a response or request an extension to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire by the deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 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, 70210 (November 17, 2010).
    \64\ See the Department's Letter to UMI, dated November 21, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, because Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, 
Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd., and UMI 
did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status, we have 
preliminarily determined to consider these companies as part of the 
PRC-wide entity.

Separate Rate Recipients

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
    Jacobi reported that it is wholly-owned by a company located in an 
ME country, Sweden.\65\ Therefore, there is no PRC ownership of Jacobi 
and, because the Department has no evidence indicating that Jacobi is 
under the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not 
necessary to determine whether it is independent from

[[Page 26502]]

government control.\66\ Additionally, one of the exporters under review 
not selected for individual review, Tangshan, demonstrated in its 
separate-rate certification that it is 100 percent ME foreign 
owned.\67\ Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted 
separate rate status to Jacobi and Tangshan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Jacobi's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated August 
11, 2011, at 2.
    \66\ 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).
    \67\ See Tangshan Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.'s Separate Rate 
Certification dated July 26, 2011, at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese-Owned Companies
    Datong Juqiang,\68\ Guanghua Cherishmet,\69\ and eight \70\ 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 our 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Datong Juqiang's Section A Questionnaire Response, 
dated August 18, 2011, at 2-6.
    \69\ See Guanghua Cherishmet's Section A Questionnaire Response, 
dated August 18, 2011, at 2-8.
    \70\ These companies are: Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 
Products Co., Ltd.; Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., 
Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & 
Chemical Limited; 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.\71\ The evidence provided by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua 
Cherishmet, and 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.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    \72\ See, e.g., Guanghua Cherishmet's Section A Questionnaire 
Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 5, Exhibit A-3, and Exhibit A-4; 
and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.'s Separate Rate 
Certification dated July 26, 2011, at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto 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.\73\ 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 
Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and 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.\74\ Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and eight 
separate-rate applicants have established that they qualify for a 
separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and 
Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 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).
    \74\ See, e.g., Datong Juqiang 's Section A Questionnaire 
Response, dated August 18, 2011, at 2-8 and Exhibit A-4; and Shanxi 
Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. Separate Rate Application, dated 
November 25, 2011, at 17-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rate for Non-Selected Companies

    The eight companies which are not mandatory respondents and which 
submitted timely information as requested by the Department remain 
subject to this review as separate rate respondents.
    The Department has preliminarily calculated a de minimis margin for 
Datong Juqiang. Furthermore, because using the weighted-average margin 
based on the calculated net U.S. sales quantities for Guanghua 
Cherishmet and Jacobi would allow these two respondents to deduce each 
other's business-proprietary information and thus cause an unwarranted 
release of such information, we cannot assign to the separate rate 
companies the weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. 
sales values from these two respondents.
    For these preliminary results and consistent with our practice,\75\ 
we determine that using the ranged total sales quantities reported by 
Guanghua Cherishemet and Jacobi from the public versions of their 
submissions is more appropriate than applying a simple average.\76\ 
These publicly available figures provide the basis on which we can 
calculate a margin which is the best proxy for the weighted-average 
margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values of Guanghua 
Cherishmet and Jacobi. We find that this approach is more consistent 
with the intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of 
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as guidance when we establish the rate 
for respondents not examined individually in an administrative 
review.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 56158, 56160 
(September 12, 2011) (``Vietnam Shrimp''); see also Galvanized Steel 
Wire From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 77 FR 68407, 68415 (November 4, 2011) (``Galvanized 
Wire LTFV'').
    \76\ See Jacobi Section A questionnaire response (Public 
Version) dated September 13, 2011, at Exhibit 4; see also Guanghua 
Cherishmet Public Version of Exhibit SA-1 for the Section A 
Response, dated August 19, 2011.
    \77\ See Vietnam Shrimp at 56160; see also Galvanized Wire LTFV 
at 68415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for Guanghua 
Cherishmet and Jacobi are business-proprietary figures, we find that 
1.34 U.S. Dollars/kilogram (``USD/kg''), which we calculated using the 
publicly available figures of U.S.

[[Page 26503]]

sales quantities for these two firms, is the best reasonable proxy for 
the weighted-average margin based on the calculated U.S. sales 
quantities of Guanghua Cherishmet and Jacobi.\78\ For the PRC-wide 
entity, we have assigned the entity's 2.42 USD/kg, which is the current 
and only rate ever determined for the entity in this proceeding.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Bob Palmer, International 
Trade Specialist, Office 9 Re: Calculation of Separate Rate,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.
    \79\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
9508 (March 2, 2007) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon From the 
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 15099 (March 30, 2007); see also 
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) (``AR2 
Carbon'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, 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,\80\ and in the absence of any information to the 
contrary, the Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date 
is the most appropriate date to use as Datong Juqiang's, Guanghua 
Cherishmet's, and Jacobi's date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 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 Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, 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.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in 
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping 
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final 
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (``Final Modification 
for Reviews''). In particular, the Department compared monthly 
weighted-average export prices (or constructed export prices) with 
monthly weighted-average NVs and granted offsets for non-dumped 
comparisons in the calculation of the weighted average dumping 
margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Price

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated the EP for Datong Juqiang's sales to the United State 
because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the 
date of importation, and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. 
The Department calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of 
the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted from the starting 
price (gross unit price) to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 
freight and brokerage and handling. Each of these services was either 
provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, the 
Department based the deduction of these movement charges on surrogate 
values.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See Prelim SV Memo for details regarding the surrogate 
values for movement expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constructed Export Price

    For all of Guanghua Cherishmet 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.

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.

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.\83\ During the POR, Jacobi reported that it 
purchased certain inputs from an ME supplier and paid for the inputs in 
an ME currency.\84\ 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.\85\ 
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

[[Page 26504]]

presumption.\86\ 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.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 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).
    \84\ See Jacobi's Section D Questionnaire Response dated 
September 1, 2011, at page D-9, and Exhibit JT-2.
    \85\ 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'').
    \86\ See id.
    \87\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used Thai Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that Datong Juqiang, Guanghua 
Cherishmet, and Jacobi used to produce the subject merchandise under 
review during the POR, except where listed below. In accordance with 
the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the Department continues to apply 
its long-standing practice of disregarding surrogate values if it has a 
reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\88\ In 
this regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate 
to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and 
Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain 
broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\89\ Based on 
the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available 
to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the 
POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all 
exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have 
benefitted from these subsidies. Therefore, the Department has not used 
prices from these countries in calculating the Thai 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.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, H.R. 
Conf. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988) (``OTCA 1988''), reprinted in 
1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24.
    \89\ See e.g., 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).
    \90\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and 
Jacobi, the Department calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by 
Datong Juqiang, Guanghua Cherishmet, and Jacobi for the POR. The 
Department used data from Thai Import Statistics and other publicly 
available Thai sources in order to calculate surrogate values for 
Datong Juqiang's, Guanghua Cherishmet'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 Thai 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.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 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 Thai 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.\92\ For a detailed 
description of all surrogate values used for Datong Juqiang, Guanghua 
Cherishmet, and Jacobi, see Prelim SV Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Thai Producer Price Index as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund, 
a printout of which is attached to the Prelim SV Memo at Attachment 6. 
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.
    The Department valued electricity using data from the Electrical 
Generating Authority of Thailand, Annual Report 2010: Key Statistical 
Data. We calculated an average of the price of energy sales to various 
customers.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See Prelim SV Memo at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because water was used by the respondents in the production process 
of certain activated carbon, the Department considers water to be a 
direct material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a SV 
according to our practice.\94\ The Department valued water using data 
from Thailand's Board of Investment.\95\ This source provides water 
rates for industrial users that are VAT exclusive. Although Petitioners 
suggested that we value water using information from Thailand's 
Metropolitan Waterworks Authority, we find that the information 
provided is approximate and not explicitly tax-exclusive. Therefore, 
the data provided by the Board of Investment provides a more specific 
and accurate surrogate value.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ 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.
    \95\ See Prelim SV Memo at 8.
    \96\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department was unable to locate a suitable surrogate value for 
purchased steam from Thailand or from any of the other countries on the 
surrogate country list. As noted above, the Department prefers to use 
surrogate values chosen from the primary surrogate country, however, 
where no reliable data exists in the primary surrogate country, the 
Department may look to additional countries for reliable surrogate 
values.\97\ The Department has preliminarily determined to use the 
2010-2011 financial statement of Hindalco Industries Limited from 
India, which contains a surrogate value for steam,\98\ as it is the 
only information currently on the record for valuing steam, and is a 
source we have used in previous segments of this proceeding.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at n. 7.
    \98\ See Jacobi's Surrogate Value Comments: Certain Activated 
Carbon from China, dated November 16, 2011, at Exhibit SV-7.
    \99\ See, e.g., Certain Activated Carbon From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Preliminary Rescission in Part, 76 FR 
23978, 23988 (April 29, 2011), unchanged in Certain Activated Carbon 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
67142 (October 31, 2011).

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

[[Page 26505]]

    We used Thai transport information in order to value the freight-in 
cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available 
information for valuing truck freight to be from Siam Partners Group 
Company Limited.\100\ We calculated the per-unit inland freight costs 
using the distance from five different provinces in Thailand to 
Thailand's largest city, Bangkok.\101\ We inflated the calculated a 
per-metric ton, per-kilometer surrogate inland freight because this 
source was from 2005.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Prelim SV Memo at 9.
    \101\ See id.
    \102\ See id., at Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export 
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
Thailand. 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 Thailand that is published in Doing Business 2011: 
Thailand, published by the World Bank.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Prelim SV Memo at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the 2010 audited 
financial statement of Carbokarn Co., Ltd., the only Thai financial 
statement available on the record of this review.\104\ Because the 
Department has chosen Thailand as the primary surrogate country, the 
discussion here is limited to financial statements placed on the record 
from Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See Petitioners November 28, 2011, Surrogate Value 
Submission at Exhibits 5 & 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\105\ In Labor 
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to 
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the 
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that 
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: 
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization 
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving 
Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies''). This notice 
followed the Federal Circuit decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United 
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), which 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor 
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value 
the respondent's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by 
Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. Although the 
Department further finds the two-digit description Sub-Classification 
24 under ISIC-Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Chemicals and Chemical 
Products'') to be the best available information on the record because 
it is specific to the industry being examined, and is therefore derived 
from industries that produce comparable merchandise, Thailand has not 
reported data specific to the two-digit description since 2000. 
However, Thailand did report total manufacturing labor data in 2005. 
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department 
calculated the labor input using total 2005 manufacturing labor data 
reported by Thailand to the ILO, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act. For the preliminary results, the calculated industry-
specific wage rate is 135.93 Baht/hour. A more detailed description of 
the wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the Prelim SV 
Memo.
    As stated above, the Department used Thai ILO data reported in 2005 
under Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook, which reflects all costs related 
to labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Pursuant 
to Labor Methodologies, the Department's practice is to consider 
whether financial ratios reflect labor expenses that are included in 
other elements of the respondent's factors of production (e.g., general 
and administrative expenses).\106\ However, the financial statements 
used to calculate financial ratios in this review were insufficiently 
detailed to permit the Department to isolate whether any labor expenses 
were included in other components of NV. Therefore, in this review, the 
Department preliminary has made no adjustment to these financial 
statements.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093-94.
    \107\ See Prelim SV Memo at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment of Datong Juqiang's Packing Factors

    For these preliminary results, we are applying partial adverse 
facts available to Datong Juqiang for packing bags for certain 
customers. In the initial Section D questionnaire, the Department 
informs parties that if they receive any inputs used in the production 
process for free, they must include the amount of that input used.\108\ 
In its Section D questionnaire response, Datong Juqiang reported the 
amount of packing bags it used for its other customers.\109\ On March 
15, 2012, in response to a supplemental questionnaire and request for 
documentation, Datong Juqiang stated that its agreement with the 
customers was over the phone, that it had no agreement in writing, and 
that it could provide no evidence that packing bags were supplied by 
those certain customers.\110\ Datong did not provide the Department 
with any additional information. Therefore, because Datong Juqiang has 
failed to cooperate at the Department's request to the best of its 
ability in reporting the total amount packing bags used in the 
production of subject merchandise, for these preliminary results the 
Department is applying as partial adverse facts available the highest 
single, per-unit consumption of packing bags reported by Datong Juqiang 
as the packing bags used by Datong Juqiang in the packing stage for 
those certain customers.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See Ltr. From the Department to Datong Juqiang, re: ``NME 
Questionnaire'', dated July 11, 2011 at D-6.
    \109\ See Datong Juqiang's section D questionnaire response, 
dated September 12, 2011 at page 15 and Exhibit D-10.
    \110\ See Datong Juqiang's supplemental section D questionnaire 
response, dated March 15, 2012, at 5-6; see also Datong Juqiang's 
supplemental section A, C & D questionnaire response, dated November 
29, 2011 at 23.
    \111\ For further details, see 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 Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 
from the People's Republic of China, dated concurrently with this 
notice (``DJAC 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:

[[Page 26506]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Margin  (dollars
                      Exporter                        per  kilogram) 112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd............              * 0.00
Jacobi Carbons AB 113...............................                1.49
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co.,                   1.07
 Ltd114.............................................
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.                1.34
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd..........                1.34
Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited................                1.34
Shanxi DMD Corporation..............................                1.34
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd..................                1.34
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.........                1.34
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd......................                1.34
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd..................                1.34
PRC-Wide Rate 115...................................                2.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* De minimis.

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

    \112\ 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, 70210 (November 17, 2010).
    \113\ In Activated Carbon AR3, the Department found Jacobi 
Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., and 
Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) are a single entity and, because 
there has been no changes to this determination since the first 
administrative 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: Final Results and Partial Rescission 
of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 
(October 31, 2011) (``Activated Carbon AR3'').
    \114\ 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 
has been no changes to this determination since the first 
administrative 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).
    \115\ The PRC-Wide entity includes Hebei Foreign Trade and 
Advertising Corporation; Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and 
Commerce Co., Ltd.; and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) 
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    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.\116\ 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.\117\ 
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.\118\ 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.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    \117\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
    \118\ See 19 CRR 351.309(d).
    \119\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c), (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, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative 
review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, 
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested 
party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline 
for submission of such factual information. However, the Department 
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as 
it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the 
record. The Department generally cannot accept ``the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value or financial ratio information'' pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1).\120\ Additionally, for each piece of factual information 
submitted with surrogate value rebuttal comments, the interested party 
must provide a written explanation of what information that is already 
on the record of the ongoing proceeding that the factual information is 
rebutting, clarifying, or correcting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice and file the request via the Department's Import 
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'').\121\ An electronically filed 
document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. 
Eastern Time (ET). 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 unless the 
deadline is extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. For any individually examined respondents whose 
weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated 
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for

[[Page 26507]]

the merchandise subject to this review in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1).\122\ 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. Where an importer (or 
customer)-specific per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, we will 
apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/
customer's entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 
importer (or customer)-specific per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for 
Reviews, i.e. on the basis of monthly average-to-average comparisons 
using only the transactions associated with that importer with 
offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected 
for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the 
rate we calculated for the mandatory respondent whose rate was not de 
minimis, as discussed above. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate 
entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity 
(including Dapu) at the PRC-wide rate. Finally, 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.

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 from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final 
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $2.42 per kilogram \123\; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See AR2 Carbon 70208, 70209 and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 27, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-10838 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P