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
<![CDATA[
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merchandise entered, or withdrawn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
