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, 71369-71371 [2019-28127]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Notices
cash deposit rates for Founder Land,
Shun Yang, Tension Steel, Yieh Hsing,
and Yieh Phui will remain unchanged
from the rate assigned to them in the
most recently completed review of those
companies; (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters
not covered in this review but covered
in a prior segment of the proceeding, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recently-completed segment; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the original
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recently
completed segment for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will continue to be 23.56
percent, the all-others rate established
in the less-than-fair-value
investigation.18 These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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 may result in the
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: December 10, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are (1)
circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and
tubes, of circular cross section over 114.3
millimeters (4.5 inches), but not over 406.4
millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter,
with a wall thickness of 1.65 millimeters
(0.065 inches) or more, regardless of surface
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or endfinish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or
threaded and coupled); and (2) circular
welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of
circular cross-section less than 406.4
18 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Taiwan,
57 FR 49454 (November 2, 1992).
18:44 Dec 26, 2019
Jkt 250001
[FR Doc. 2019–27937 Filed 12–26–19; 8:45 am]
Republic of China (China) covering the
period of April 1, 2013 through March
31, 2014. Commerce 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 Commerce is amending the final
results with respect to certain producers
and/or exporters identified herein.
DATES: Applicable December 27, 2019.
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 October 9, 2015, Commerce issued
the AR7 Final Results.1 Jacobi Carbons
AB (Jacobi), a mandatory respondent,
and Jacobi Carbons, Inc., its affiliated
U.S. importer of subject merchandise,2
challenged certain aspects of the AR7
Final Results. Jacobi challenged
Commerce’s final results regarding: (1)
The selection of Thailand as the primary
surrogate country for the mandatory
respondents,3 (2) the selection of Thai
surrogate values (SV) used to value
financial ratios and carbonized material,
and (3) the reduction of Jacobi’s
constructed export price (CEP) by an
amount for irrecoverable value added
tax (VAT). On April 7, 2017, the Court
in Jacobi AR7 I remanded Commerce’s
AR7 Final Results with respect to
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
Appendix
VerDate Sep<11>2014
millimeters (16 inches), with a wall thickness
of less than 1.65 millimeters (0.065 inches),
regardless of surface finish (black,
galvanized, or painted) or end-finish (plain
end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and
coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally
known as standard pipes and tubes and are
intended for the low pressure conveyance of
water, steam, natural gas, air, and other
liquids and gases in plumbing and heating
systems, air conditioning units, automatic
sprinkling systems, and other related uses,
and generally meet ASTM A–53
specifications. Standard pipe may also be
used for light load-bearing applications, such
as for fence-tubing and as structural pipe
tubing used for framing and support
members for construction, or load-bearing
purposes in the construction, shipbuilding,
trucking, farm-equipment, and related
industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also
included in this order.
All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the
physical description outlined above are
included within the scope of this order,
except line pipe, oil country tubular goods,
boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and
tube hollows for redraws, finished
scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard
pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled
that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind or
used for oil and gas pipelines is also not
included in this investigation.
Imports of the products covered by this
order are currently classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
subheadings, 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,
7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,
7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90. Although the
HTS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this order
is dispositive.
71369
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 17, 2019, the
Court of International Trade (the Court)
issued a final judgment in Jacobi
Carbons AB v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 15–00286; Slip Op. 19–159
(CIT December 17, 2019) (Jacobi AR7
IV), sustaining the Department of
Commerce’s (Commerce’s) third remand
results pertaining to the seventh
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
activated carbon from the People’s
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2013–2014, 80 FR
61172 (October 9, 2015) (AR7 Final Results) and
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum
(IDM).
2 In the third administrative review of the Order,
Commerce found that Jacobi, Tianjin Jacobi
International Trading Co. Ltd., and Jacobi Carbons
Industry (Tianjin) are a single entity and, because
there were no changes to the facts which supported
that decision since that determination was made,
we continued to find these companies part of a
single entity for this administrative review. 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 (October 31,
2011) (AR3 Final Results); Certain Activated Carbon
from the People’s Republic of China; 2010–2011;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 77 FR 67337 (November 9, 2012) (AR4
Final Results); Certain Activated Carbon from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–
2012, 78 FR 70533 (November 26, 2013) (AR5 Final
Results); and 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).
3 The mandatory respondents are Jacobi and
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
(Juqiang).
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
71370
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Commerce’s surrogate country selection
(specifically, its determinations
regarding economic comparability
generally and significant production of
comparable merchandise by Thailand in
particular). The Court also sustained
Commerce’s authority to deduct
irrecoverable VAT from CEP, while
ruling that Commerce’s calculation
methodology lacked substantial
evidence and remanding to Commerce
on that issue. The Court deferred
resolving Jacobi’s arguments regarding
Thai SVs pending the results of
Commerce’s remand redetermination.4
Jacobi AR7 I ordered Commerce: (1)
To provide a reasoned explanation as to
why the range of gross national income
(GNI) reflected on the Surrogate Country
Memorandum 5 demonstrates economic
comparability to China, including why
the Philippines’s GNI did not, (2)
reconsider and further explain
Commerce’s determination that
Thailand is a significant producer of
activated carbon, including the
significance of Thailand’s ranking as the
sixth largest exporter in terms of its
effect on global trade, and (3) further
explain and reconsider Commerce’s
VAT calculation with respect to Jacobi
in the AR6 Final Results.
On August 10, 2017, Commerce filed
Remand I with the Court.6 Commerce
addressed and clarified these issues
without making any changes to the
margin calculations for Jacobi.7
On April 19, 2018, the Court in Jacobi
AR7 II sustained Commerce’s economic
comparability determination but again
remanded Commerce’s determination
that Thailand is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise and its
determination on the irrecoverable VAT
adjustment, as well as its SV selections
for financial ratios and carbonized
material.8 Although the Court in Jacobi
AR7 II held that Commerce ‘‘provided a
reasoned explanation of how it
generated the surrogate country list,
including why it considers those
countries on the list to be at the same
level of economic development’’ as
China, which is supported by
substantial evidence,9 the Court
4 See Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States, 222 F.
Supp. 3d 1159 (CIT 2017) (Jacobi AR7 I).
5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Activated Carbon
from the People’s Republic of China: Request for
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments
and Information,’’ dated July 25, 2014 (Surrogate
Country Memorandum).
6 See Jacobi Carbons AB et al. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 15–00286, Slip Op. 17–39, Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, dated August 7, 2017 (Remand I).
7 See Remand I at 1–2, 42.
8 See Jacobi Carbons AB. v. United States, 313 F.
Supp. 3d 1308 (CIT 2018) (Jacobi AR7 II).
9 Id. at 11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:44 Dec 26, 2019
Jkt 250001
ultimately found that the current record
did not support Commerce’s significant
producer determination on the basis of
net exports. As a result, the Court
remanded the matter and ordered
Commerce to further explain or
reconsider its significant producer
determination.10 The Court also
remanded the irrecoverable VAT
adjustment for Commerce to address
whether it is using gross or net prices to
calculate the adjustment, and requested
Commerce address and clarify the issues
arising from the selection of the
Carbokarn 2011 financial statements for
the calculation of financial ratios and
address the carbonized material SV.11
On October 24, 2018, Commerce filed
Remand II with the Court.12 Commerce
affirmed its determination that Thailand
is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise and its selection of Thai
import data as the SV for carbonized
material.13 Commerce selected a
different Thai source to value financial
ratios and reconsidered the basis for its
VAT adjustment while continuing to
adjust Jacobi’s CEP for VAT.14 As a
result, Commerce revised its surrogate
financial ratios and revised the VAT
calculation formula using only entered
value. Consequently, Jacobi’s final
margin was revised to $1.76/kg. The
separate rate was revised to $1.76/kg for:
(1) Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon
Products Co., Ltd. (Beijing Pacific); (2)
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. (CA
Tianjin); (3) Datong Municipal
Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
(Yunguang); (4) Jilin Bright Future
Chemicals Co., Ltd. (Jilin Bright); (5)
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Cherishmet);
(6) Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd. (Huahui); (7) Ningxia Mineral
and Chemical Ltd. (Ningxia Mineral); (8)
Shanxi DMD Corp. (Shanxi DMD); (9)
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading
Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Technology); (10)
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.
(Sincere); (11) Tancarb Activated
Carbon Co., Ltd. (Tancarb); and (12)
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.
(Maijin). Commerce used the same
methodology for calculating the separate
rate that was used in the AR7 Final
Results.15
On March 4, 2019, the Court in Jacobi
AR7 III sustained Commerce’s VAT
adjustment but again remanded
10 Id.
at 14.
at 14–23.
12 See Jacobi Carbons AB et al. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 15–00286, Slip Op. 18–46, Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, dated October 23, 2018 (Remand II).
13 Id. at 3–8, 15–20.
14 Id. at 9–15, 20–32.
15 See Remand II at 54.
11 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commerce’s determination that
Thailand is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise and directed
Commerce to reconsider its selection of
a primary surrogate country, and
remanded Commerce’s SV selection for
carbonized material and financial ratios
on the basis that they were from
Thailand.16 The Court in Jacobi AR7 III
held that Commerce’s determination
that Thailand is a significant producer
of activated carbon was not sufficiently
supported by substantial evidence, and
further held that the record does not
support the selection of Thailand as a
surrogate country.17
On October 24, 2018, Commerce filed
Remand III with the Court.18 Commerce
selected, under protest, Indonesia as the
primary surrogate country and revisited
the selected SV for carbonized
materials, while calculating the
financial ratios using the viable
Philippine financial statements on the
record, in addition to selecting new SVs
for other relevant factors of
production.19 As a result, Commerce
revised its SV for financial ratios and
carbonized materials.20 Consequently,
Jacobi’s final margin was revised to
$0.12/kg.21 The separate rate was
revised to $0.12/kg for: (1) Beijing
Pacific; (2) CA Tianjin; (3) Yunguang;
(4) Jilin Bright; (5) Cherishmet; (6)
Huahui; (7) Ningxia Mineral; (8) Shanxi
DMD; (9) Shanxi Technology; (10)
Sincere; (11) Tancarb; and (12) Maijin.22
Commerce used the same methodology
for calculating the separate rate that was
used in AR7 Final Results and Remand
II, discussed above. On December 17,
2019, the Court sustained Remand III in
Jacobi AR7 IV.23
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,24 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,25 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), Commerce must publish a notice
of a court decision that is not ‘‘in
16 See Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States, 365 F.
Supp. 3d 1323 (CIT 2019) (Jacobi AR7 III).
17 Id. at 12–17.
18 See Jacobi Carbons AB et al. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 15–00286, Slip Op. 19–27, Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, dated June 17, 2019 (Remand III).
19 Id. at 5–12.
20 Id.
21 See Remand III at 25.
22 Id. at 26.
23 See Jacobi AR7 IV, Consol. Court No. 15–
00286, Slip Op. 19–159 (CIT 2019).
24 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337,
341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
25 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
71371
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Notices
harmony’’ with a Commerce
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The
Court’s December 17, 2019, judgment
sustaining Remand III in Jacobi AR7 IV
constitutes a final decision of the Court
that is not in harmony with Commerce’s
AR7 Final Results. This notice is
published in fulfillment of the
publication requirement of Timken.
Accordingly, Commerce 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, Commerce amends the AR7
Final Results with respect to the
companies identified below. Based on
Remand III, as sustained by the Court in
Jacobi AR7 IV, the revised weightedaverage dumping margins for the
companies listed below during the
period April 1, 2013 through March 31,
2014, are as follows:
Margin
(dollars per kilogram) 26
Exporter
Jacobi Carbons AB ............................................................................................................................................................
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd ..........................................................................................................
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd .....................................................................................................................................
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd .....................................................................................................................
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ..............................................................................................
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................
Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited ..............................................................................................................................
Shanxi DMD Corporation ...................................................................................................................................................
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd .....................................................................................................................................
Tancarb Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
In the event that the CIT’s ruling is
not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld
by a final and conclusive court decision,
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties on unliquidated
entries of subject merchandise produced
and/or exported by the companies
identified above using the assessment
rates calculated by Commerce in the
remand redeterminations, as listed
above.
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: December 20, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–28127 Filed 12–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Cash Deposit Requirements
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
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 AR11 Final Results, which is
$0.89/kg for Jacobi, $1.02/kg for CA
Tianjin, and $0.89/kg for Beijing Pacific,
Yunguang, Jilin Bright, Cherishmet,
Huahui, Ningxia Mineral, Shanxi DMD,
Shanxi Technology, Sincere, Tancarb,
and Maijin.27
International Trade Administration
26 In the second administrative review, Commerce
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 AR7 Final Results,
80 FR at 61174 n.21.
27 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2017–2018, 84 FR
68881 (December 17, 2019) (AR11 Final Results).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:44 Dec 26, 2019
Jkt 250001
[C–475–819]
Certain Pasta from Italy; Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2018
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) is rescinding the
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on
certain pasta from Italy for the period of
review (POR) January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018, based on the timely
withdrawal of the requests for review.
DATES: Applicable December 27, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theodore Pearson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2631.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2019, Commerce published
a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the CVD order
on certain pasta from Italy for the POR
January 1, 2018 through December 31,
2018.1 On July 30 and 31, 2019,
Commerce received timely-filed
requests from Pastificio Fratelli DeLuca
S.r.l. (DeLuca),2 Tesa S.r.l. (Tesa),3 and
Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A.
(Indalco),4 for administrative reviews of
themselves, in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.213(b). Commerce received no other
requests for administrative review.
On September 9, 2019, pursuant to
these requests and in accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce
published a notice initiating an
administrative review of the CVD order
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 84 FR 31295
(July 1, 2019).
2 See DeLuca’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Dry Pasta from
Italy; C–475–819; Request for Administrative
Review (Revised),’’ dated July 30, 2019.
3 See Tesa’s Letter, ‘‘Pasta from Italy; Request for
Administrative Review,’’ dated July 31, 2019.
4 See Indalco’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Pasta from Italy:
Request for Administrative Review on Behalf of
Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A.,’’ dated July
31, 2019.
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71369-71371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28127]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: On December 17, 2019, the Court of International Trade (the
Court) issued a final judgment in Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 15-00286; Slip Op. 19-159 (CIT December 17, 2019)
(Jacobi AR7 IV), sustaining the Department of Commerce's (Commerce's)
third remand results pertaining to the seventh administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the
People's Republic of China (China) covering the period of April 1, 2013
through March 31, 2014. Commerce 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 Commerce is amending the final results
with respect to certain producers and/or exporters identified herein.
DATES: Applicable December 27, 2019.
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 October 9, 2015, Commerce issued the AR7 Final Results.\1\
Jacobi Carbons AB (Jacobi), a mandatory respondent, and Jacobi Carbons,
Inc., its affiliated U.S. importer of subject merchandise,\2\
challenged certain aspects of the AR7 Final Results. Jacobi challenged
Commerce's final results regarding: (1) The selection of Thailand as
the primary surrogate country for the mandatory respondents,\3\ (2) the
selection of Thai surrogate values (SV) used to value financial ratios
and carbonized material, and (3) the reduction of Jacobi's constructed
export price (CEP) by an amount for irrecoverable value added tax
(VAT). On April 7, 2017, the Court in Jacobi AR7 I remanded Commerce's
AR7 Final Results with respect to
[[Page 71370]]
Commerce's surrogate country selection (specifically, its
determinations regarding economic comparability generally and
significant production of comparable merchandise by Thailand in
particular). The Court also sustained Commerce's authority to deduct
irrecoverable VAT from CEP, while ruling that Commerce's calculation
methodology lacked substantial evidence and remanding to Commerce on
that issue. The Court deferred resolving Jacobi's arguments regarding
Thai SVs pending the results of Commerce's remand redetermination.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2013-2014, 80 FR 61172 (October 9, 2015) (AR7 Final Results) and
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ In the third administrative review of the Order, Commerce
found that Jacobi, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd.,
and Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) are a single entity and,
because there were no changes to the facts which supported that
decision since that determination was made, we continued to find
these companies part of a single entity for this administrative
review. 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 (October 31, 2011) (AR3
Final Results); Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic
of China; 2010-2011; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 77 FR 67337 (November 9, 2012) (AR4 Final
Results); Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2011-2012, 78 FR 70533 (November 26, 2013) (AR5 Final Results); and
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).
\3\ The mandatory respondents are Jacobi and Datong Juqiang
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Juqiang).
\4\ See Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States, 222 F. Supp. 3d 1159
(CIT 2017) (Jacobi AR7 I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobi AR7 I ordered Commerce: (1) To provide a reasoned
explanation as to why the range of gross national income (GNI)
reflected on the Surrogate Country Memorandum \5\ demonstrates economic
comparability to China, including why the Philippines's GNI did not,
(2) reconsider and further explain Commerce's determination that
Thailand is a significant producer of activated carbon, including the
significance of Thailand's ranking as the sixth largest exporter in
terms of its effect on global trade, and (3) further explain and
reconsider Commerce's VAT calculation with respect to Jacobi in the AR6
Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum, ``Certain Activated Carbon from the People's
Republic of China: Request for Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value
Comments and Information,'' dated July 25, 2014 (Surrogate Country
Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 10, 2017, Commerce filed Remand I with the Court.\6\
Commerce addressed and clarified these issues without making any
changes to the margin calculations for Jacobi.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Jacobi Carbons AB et al. v. United States, Consol. Court
No. 15-00286, Slip Op. 17-39, Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, dated August 7, 2017 (Remand I).
\7\ See Remand I at 1-2, 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2018, the Court in Jacobi AR7 II sustained Commerce's
economic comparability determination but again remanded Commerce's
determination that Thailand is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise and its determination on the irrecoverable VAT adjustment,
as well as its SV selections for financial ratios and carbonized
material.\8\ Although the Court in Jacobi AR7 II held that Commerce
``provided a reasoned explanation of how it generated the surrogate
country list, including why it considers those countries on the list to
be at the same level of economic development'' as China, which is
supported by substantial evidence,\9\ the Court ultimately found that
the current record did not support Commerce's significant producer
determination on the basis of net exports. As a result, the Court
remanded the matter and ordered Commerce to further explain or
reconsider its significant producer determination.\10\ The Court also
remanded the irrecoverable VAT adjustment for Commerce to address
whether it is using gross or net prices to calculate the adjustment,
and requested Commerce address and clarify the issues arising from the
selection of the Carbokarn 2011 financial statements for the
calculation of financial ratios and address the carbonized material
SV.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Jacobi Carbons AB. v. United States, 313 F. Supp. 3d
1308 (CIT 2018) (Jacobi AR7 II).
\9\ Id. at 11.
\10\ Id. at 14.
\11\ Id. at 14-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2018, Commerce filed Remand II with the Court.\12\
Commerce affirmed its determination that Thailand is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise and its selection of Thai import
data as the SV for carbonized material.\13\ Commerce selected a
different Thai source to value financial ratios and reconsidered the
basis for its VAT adjustment while continuing to adjust Jacobi's CEP
for VAT.\14\ As a result, Commerce revised its surrogate financial
ratios and revised the VAT calculation formula using only entered
value. Consequently, Jacobi's final margin was revised to $1.76/kg. The
separate rate was revised to $1.76/kg for: (1) Beijing Pacific
Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. (Beijing Pacific); (2) Carbon
Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. (CA Tianjin); (3) Datong Municipal Yunguang
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Yunguang); (4) Jilin Bright Future
Chemicals Co., Ltd. (Jilin Bright); (5) Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Cherishmet); (6) Ningxia Huahui Activated
Carbon Co., Ltd. (Huahui); (7) Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Ltd.
(Ningxia Mineral); (8) Shanxi DMD Corp. (Shanxi DMD); (9) Shanxi
Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Technology); (10) Shanxi
Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. (Sincere); (11) Tancarb Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd. (Tancarb); and (12) Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.
(Maijin). Commerce used the same methodology for calculating the
separate rate that was used in the AR7 Final Results.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Jacobi Carbons AB et al. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 15-00286, Slip Op. 18-46, Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, dated October 23, 2018 (Remand II).
\13\ Id. at 3-8, 15-20.
\14\ Id. at 9-15, 20-32.
\15\ See Remand II at 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2019, the Court in Jacobi AR7 III sustained Commerce's
VAT adjustment but again remanded Commerce's determination that
Thailand is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and
directed Commerce to reconsider its selection of a primary surrogate
country, and remanded Commerce's SV selection for carbonized material
and financial ratios on the basis that they were from Thailand.\16\ The
Court in Jacobi AR7 III held that Commerce's determination that
Thailand is a significant producer of activated carbon was not
sufficiently supported by substantial evidence, and further held that
the record does not support the selection of Thailand as a surrogate
country.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 3d
1323 (CIT 2019) (Jacobi AR7 III).
\17\ Id. at 12-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2018, Commerce filed Remand III with the Court.\18\
Commerce selected, under protest, Indonesia as the primary surrogate
country and revisited the selected SV for carbonized materials, while
calculating the financial ratios using the viable Philippine financial
statements on the record, in addition to selecting new SVs for other
relevant factors of production.\19\ As a result, Commerce revised its
SV for financial ratios and carbonized materials.\20\ Consequently,
Jacobi's final margin was revised to $0.12/kg.\21\ The separate rate
was revised to $0.12/kg for: (1) Beijing Pacific; (2) CA Tianjin; (3)
Yunguang; (4) Jilin Bright; (5) Cherishmet; (6) Huahui; (7) Ningxia
Mineral; (8) Shanxi DMD; (9) Shanxi Technology; (10) Sincere; (11)
Tancarb; and (12) Maijin.\22\ Commerce used the same methodology for
calculating the separate rate that was used in AR7 Final Results and
Remand II, discussed above. On December 17, 2019, the Court sustained
Remand III in Jacobi AR7 IV.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Jacobi Carbons AB et al. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 15-00286, Slip Op. 19-27, Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, dated June 17, 2019 (Remand III).
\19\ Id. at 5-12.
\20\ Id.
\21\ See Remand III at 25.
\22\ Id. at 26.
\23\ See Jacobi AR7 IV, Consol. Court No. 15-00286, Slip Op. 19-
159 (CIT 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\24\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\25\ 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), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not
``in
[[Page 71371]]
harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of
entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's December
17, 2019, judgment sustaining Remand III in Jacobi AR7 IV constitutes a
final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's AR7
Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\25\ 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, Commerce amends the
AR7 Final Results with respect to the companies identified below. Based
on Remand III, as sustained by the Court in Jacobi AR7 IV, the revised
weighted-average dumping margins for the companies listed below during
the period April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014, are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin (dollars per
Exporter kilogram) \26\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobi Carbons AB............................. 0.12
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., 0.12
Ltd..........................................
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd............. 0.12
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon 0.12
Co., Ltd.....................................
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.... 0.12
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon 0.12
Co., Ltd.....................................
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd...... 0.12
Ningxia Mineral and Chemical Limited.......... 0.12
Shanxi DMD Corporation........................ 0.12
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd... 0.12
Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd............ 0.12
Tancarb Activated Carbon Co., Ltd............. 0.12
Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd............ 0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed,
is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping
duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and/or
exported by the companies identified above using the assessment rates
calculated by Commerce in the remand redeterminations, as listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In the second administrative review, Commerce 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 AR7 Final Results, 80 FR at 61174
n.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 AR11 Final Results,
which is $0.89/kg for Jacobi, $1.02/kg for CA Tianjin, and $0.89/kg for
Beijing Pacific, Yunguang, Jilin Bright, Cherishmet, Huahui, Ningxia
Mineral, Shanxi DMD, Shanxi Technology, Sincere, Tancarb, and
Maijin.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2017-2018, 84 FR 68881 (December 17, 2019) (AR11 Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: December 20, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-28127 Filed 12-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
