Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results, 10333-10335 [2017-02791]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 27 / Friday, February 10, 2017 / Notices accordance with the amended final results of this review. If the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter’s case number will be liquidated at the PRCwide rate.7 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirement will be effective July 19, 2016, for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after that date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. For Anying, which had no reviewable transactions during the POR, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned in the most recently completed review of the company. Notifications to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 35 1.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This correction to the final results of administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(2)(i) of the Act, and 19 7 For a full discussion of this practice, see NonMarket Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Feb 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 CFR 351.224(e) of the Department’s regulations. Dated: February 6, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017–02789 Filed 2–9–17; 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: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (the Department’s) second remand results pertaining to the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review, and that the Department is amending the final results. DATES: Effective Date: February 6, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On November 25, 2014, the Department issued AR6 Final Results.1 The petitioners 2 and Carbon Activated Corporation (Carbon Activated), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, challenged certain aspects of AR6 Final Results. The petitioners challenged the Department’s final results regarding the 1 Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012–2013, 79 FR 70163 (November 25, 2014) (AR6 Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (IDM). 2 Calgon Carbon Corporation and Cabot Norit Americas (collectively, the petitioners). PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10333 surrogate value (SV) used to value the mandatory respondents’ 3 anthracite coal. Carbon Activated challenged several aspects of the Department’s final results as they pertained to Shanxi DMD Corporation (Shanxi DMD), which supplied Carbon Activated’s imports of subject merchandise and was found to be part of the PRC-wide entity in AR6 Final Results. On January 20, 2016, the Court in Calgon I remanded the Department’s AR6 Final Results and instructed the Department to reconsider its selection of the anthracite coal SV, and directed the Department to ‘‘assign Shanxi DMD the all-others rate.’’ 4 On May 25, 2016, the Department filed Remand I with the Court.5 Based on Calgon I, which had ordered the Department to ‘‘reconsider its selection of an SV for anthracite coal’’ in AR6 Final Results, and based on the Department’s finding that there were multiple SVs of equal reliability for anthracite coal on the record, the Department determined to select the anthracite coal SV based on which secondary surrogate country was the most significant producer of comparable merchandise.6 As a result of relying on significant production of comparable merchandise in Remand I, the Department valued anthracite coal using contemporaneous SV data from Thailand.7 Accordingly, the margins for Cherishmet and Jacobi (the mandatory respondents) were revised to $0.52/ kilogram (kg) and to $0.51/kg, respectively.8 Additionally, we recalculated the margin for those separate rate companies whose entries were subject to this litigation using the same method we used in AR6 Final Results.9 Thus, we calculated a weighted-average margin of $0.51/kg based on the publicly ranged U.S. sales quantities of the mandatory respondents.10 The 3 The mandatory respondents are Jacobi Carbons AB (Jacobi) and Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Cherishmet). 4 See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1322–23, 1326–29 (CIT 2016) (Calgon I). 5 See Calgon Carbon Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00326, Slip Op. 16–4, Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court Remand, dated May 25, 2016, (Remand I). 6 See Remand I at 15–17, 31–36. 7 Id. at 15–17, 31–35. 8 Id. at 49. 9 Id. at 50–51. Specifically, in AR6 Final Results, we calculated the separate rate by using the ranged total sales quantities reported by the mandatory respondents from the public versions of their submissions to calculate a weighted-average margin because we found that methodology is more appropriate than calculating a simple average of the mandatory respondents’ margins. See AR6 Final Results, 79 FR at 70164. 10 See Remand I at 50–51. E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM 10FEN1 10334 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 27 / Friday, February 10, 2017 / Notices separate rate companies that received this revised rate in Remand I were: (1) Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (Calgon Tianjin); (2) Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Juqiang); (3) Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Yunguang); (4) Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. (Jilin Bright); (5) Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Huahui); (6) Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited (Ningxia Mineral); (7) Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. (Sincere); and (8) Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd. (Tianjin Channel).11 Finally, in Remand I, and under protest, the Department assigned Shanxi DMD the separate rate of $0.51/kg, which the Department explained ‘‘will pertain to entries during the period of review that were exported from the PRC to the United States by Shanxi DMD and imported by Carbon Activated.’’ 12 On November 18, 2016, the Court in Calgon II sustained the Department’s assignment of a separate rate to Shanxi DMD, but again remanded to the Department its SV selection for anthracite coal.13 Although the Court in Calgon II held that the Department’s ‘‘finding that the Thai SV is reliable {,} is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence,’’ 14 the Court nonetheless found that the Department’s determination to select significant production over import volumes as the methodology for selecting the anthracite coal SV was not supported by substantial evidence. As a result, the Court remanded the matter and ordered the Department ‘‘to reconsider its selection of an SV for anthracite coal, . . . by either further explaining its selection methodology and basing that explanation on the record evidence or by choosing its other selection methodology based on import volume.’’ 15 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 11 Id. 12 Id. at 17–20, 49–50, 51. The Department also explained that, although the Court ordered the Department to assign Shanxi DMD the ‘‘all-others rate,’’ the Department assigned Shanxi DMD the separate rate because ‘‘the Department understands the Court as ordering the assignment of the separate rate to Shanxi DMD.’’ Id. at 19–20. 13 See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00326, Slip Op. 16–107 (CIT November 18, 2016) (Calgon II). 14 Id. at 23. 15 Id. at 24–32. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Feb 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 On January 3, 2017, the Department filed Remand II with the Court.16 The Department relied on the quantity of imports of anthracite coal to select a SV among the potential SV sources for that input that are equally reliable. As a result, the Department revised its SV choice and relied on a SV from South Africa to value the mandatory respondents’ anthracite coal factor of production.17 Consequently, Cherishmet’s 18 and Jacobi’s 19 final margins were revised to $0.28/kg and $0.18/kg, respectively.20 The separate rate was revised to $0.22/kg for: (1) Calgon Tianjin; (2) Juqiang; (3) Yunguang; (4) Jilin Bright; (5) Huahui; (6) Ningxia Mineral; (7) Sincere; and (8) Tianjin Channel.21 The Department used the same methodology for calculating the separate rate that was 16 See Calgon Carbon Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00326, Slip Op. 16–107, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated December 29, 2016 (Remand II). 17 Id. at 5–6. 18 In the first administrative review, the Department found that Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. should be treated as a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), and, because there were no changes to the facts which supported that decision, we continued to find these companies to be part of a single entity in subsequent reviews. Because there have been no changes to the facts that supported that decision in AR6 Final Results, we continued to treat the companies as a single entity in Remand II as well, as we did in Remand I. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317, 21319 (May 7, 2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995, 57998 (November 10, 2009). 19 In the third administrative review, the Department found that Jacobi, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., and Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) should be treated as a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), and, because there were no changes to the facts which supported that decision, we continued to find these companies part of a single entity in the fourth and fifth administrative reviews. Because there have been no changes to the facts that supported that decision in AR6 Final Results, we continued to treat the companies as a single entity in Remand II as well, as we did in Remand I. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142, 67145 n.25 (October 31, 2011); see also Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China; 2010–2011; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 67337, 67338 n.22 (November 9, 2012). 20 See Remand II at 6–7. 21 See Remand II at 8. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 used in AR6 Final Results and Remand I, discussed above. Finally, because the Court held in Calgon II that ‘‘any resulting changes to the value of the separate rate should be reflected in the rate ultimately assigned to Shanxi DMD,’’ 22 the Department assigned Shanxi DMD the revised separate rate of $0.22/kg, ‘‘which will only pertain to entries during the period of review that were exported from the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) to the United States by Shanxi DMD and imported by Carbon Activated.’’ 23 On January 27, 2017, the Court sustained Remand II in Calgon III.24 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,25 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,26 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The Court’s January 27, 2017, judgment in Calgon III constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department’s AR6 Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends AR6 Final Results with respect to the companies identified below. Based on Remand II, as affirmed by the Court in Calgon III, the revised weighted-average dumping margins for the companies listed below during the period April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, are as follows: 22 See Calgon II at 8–9. Remand II at 8–9. 24 See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00326, Slip Op. 17–6 (CIT January 27, 2017) (Calgon III). 25 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 26 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 23 See E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM 10FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 27 / Friday, February 10, 2017 / Notices Weighted-average dumping margins (dollars per kilogram) 27 Exporter Jacobi Carbons AB ............................................................................................................................................................ Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .............................................................................................. Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................... Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................... Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .................................................................................................. Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd ..................................................................................................................... Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................... Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited .............................................................................................................................. Shanxi DMD Corporation 28 ............................................................................................................................................... Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................... Tianjin Channel Filters Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................... In the event that the CIT’s rulings are not appealed or, if appealed, are upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins listed above. Cash Deposit Requirements COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. AGENCY: Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List. ACTION: Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for the companies identified above, the cash deposit rates will remain the rates established in the most recentlycompleted AR8 Final Results, which are $1.76/kg and $0.02 for Jacobi and Juqiang, respectively, and $1.36/kg for Calgon Tianjin, Cherishmet, Yunguang, Jilin Bright, Huahui, Ningxia Mineral, Sincere, Shanxi DMD, and Tianjin Channel.29 Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 6, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies. SUMMARY: DATES: Effective Date: 3/12/2017. Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202–4149. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603– 7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 2017–02791 Filed 2–9–17; 8:45 am] Additions BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P On 11/28/2016 (81 FR 85538–85540) and 12/30/2016 (81 FR 96442–96443), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 27 In the second administrative review, the Department determined that it would calculate perunit assessment and cash deposit rates for all future reviews. See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208, 70211 (November 17, 2010); see also AR6 Final Results, 79 FR at 70165 n.29. 28 As discussed above, this rate ‘‘will only pertain to entries during the period of review that were exported from the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) to the United States by Shanxi DMD and imported by Carbon Activated.’’ See Remand II at 8–9. 29 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR 62088, 62089 (September 8, 2016). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Feb 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 10335 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 0.18 0.28 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List: Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 9905–00–NIB–0376—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″ x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Fluorescent Orange 9905–00–NIB–0377—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″ x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Fluorescent Pink 9905–00–NIB–0378—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″ x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Orange 9905–00–NIB–0379—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″ x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Red 9905–00–NIB–0380—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″ x 3–1/2″, 21″ Staff, Yellow 9905–00–NIB–0384—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″ x 3–1/2″, 15″ Staff, Yellow 9905–00–NIB–0386—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″ x 3–1/2″, 15″ Staff, Red 9905–00–NIB–0387—Flag, Marking, 2–1/2″ x 3–1/2″, 15″ Staff, Orange 9905–00–NIB–0389—Flag, Marking, 4″ x 5″, 21″ Staff, Fluorescent Orange 9905–00–NIB–0390—Flag, Marking, 4″ x 5″ 21″ Staff, Fluorescent Pink 9905–00–NIB–0391—Flag, Marking, 4″ x 5″, 21″ Staff, Orange 9905–00–NIB–0392—Flag, Marking, 4″ x 5″, 21″ Staff, Red 9905–00–NIB–0393—Flag, Marking, 4″ x 5″ 21″ Staff, Yellow E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM 10FEN1

Agencies

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


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-904]


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

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

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

DATES: Effective Date: February 6, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 10334]]

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

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

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

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

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

    \16\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 14-00326, Slip Op. 16-107, Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated December 29, 2016 
(Remand II).
    \17\ Id. at 5-6.
    \18\ In the first administrative review, the Department found 
that Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia 
Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and Ningxia Guanghua 
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. should be treated as a single entity 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), and, because there were no changes to 
the facts which supported that decision, we continued to find these 
companies to be part of a single entity in subsequent reviews. 
Because there have been no changes to the facts that supported that 
decision in AR6 Final Results, we continued to treat the companies 
as a single entity in Remand II as well, as we did in Remand I. See 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317, 
21319 (May 7, 2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995, 
57998 (November 10, 2009).
    \19\ In the third administrative review, the Department found 
that Jacobi, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., and 
Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) should be treated as a single 
entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), and, because there were no 
changes to the facts which supported that decision, we continued to 
find these companies part of a single entity in the fourth and fifth 
administrative reviews. Because there have been no changes to the 
facts that supported that decision in AR6 Final Results, we 
continued to treat the companies as a single entity in Remand II as 
well, as we did in Remand I. See Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142, 67145 
n.25 (October 31, 2011); see also Certain Activated Carbon from the 
People's Republic of China; 2010-2011; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 67337, 67338 n.22 (November 9, 
2012).
    \20\ See Remand II at 6-7.
    \21\ See Remand II at 8.
    \22\ See Calgon II at 8-9.
    \23\ See Remand II at 8-9.
    \24\ See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 
14-00326, Slip Op. 17-6 (CIT January 27, 2017) (Calgon III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

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

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

Amended Final Results

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

[[Page 10335]]



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

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

    \27\ In the second administrative review, the Department 
determined that it would calculate per-unit assessment and cash 
deposit rates for all future reviews. See Certain Activated Carbon 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
70208, 70211 (November 17, 2010); see also AR6 Final Results, 79 FR 
at 70165 n.29.
    \28\ As discussed above, this rate ``will only pertain to 
entries during the period of review that were exported from the 
People's Republic of China (`PRC') to the United States by Shanxi 
DMD and imported by Carbon Activated.'' See Remand II at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

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

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

Notification to Interested Parties

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

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