A-570-904
RemandSlip Op. 20-187
POR: 4/1/16—3/31/17
PUBLIC DOCUMENT
E&C/OVIII: MJA
Calgon Carbon Corporation et al. v. United States
Consol. Court No. 18-00232, Slip Op. 20-187 (CIT December 21, 2020)
FINAL RESULTS OF REDETERMINATION PURSUANT TO COURT REMAND
Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China

I.

SUMMARY
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has prepared these final results ofredetermination pursuant to the remand order of the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Calgon
Carbon Corporation et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 18-00232 (CIT December 21,2020) (Second Remand Order). These second final remand results concern Certain ActivatedCarbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2016-2017, 83 FR 53214 (October 22, 2018) (AR10 Final Results), and theaccompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM), and Commerce’s first remand
redetermination (First Remand Redetermination), ECF No. 75-1,1 issued in accordance with the
CIT’s prior decision.2
In the Second Remand Order, the CIT directed Commerce to reconsider Commerce’s
determination to continue to include the imports from France in the Thai surrogate value (SV)for carbonized material.3 The CIT stated that evidence in this current review (i.e., AR10)

1

See “Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand,” dated August 4, 2020, available athttps://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/20-65.pdf; see also “Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand,” dated August 4, 2020 (Access barcode 4010933-01).
2
See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 443 F. Supp. 3d 1334 (2020) (Calgon AR10 I).
3
See Second Remand Order at 5.

combined with Commerce’s finding in the two immediately preceding reviews (i.e., AR84 andAR9)5 create a reasonable inference that all Thai imports of carbonized material from France
were wood-based charcoal, a material dissimilar from the input used by the mandatory
respondents in the production of the subject merchandise, and thus Commerce’s decision to use
Thai data inclusive of imports from France was not supported by substantial evidence.6
As set forth in detail below, pursuant to the CIT’s Second Remand Order, we have, underrespectful protest,7 removed the data pertaining to the imports from France in the Thai SV for
carbonized material. Consequently, for the purpose of these final results of redetermination on
remand, Commerce has made certain changes to the mandatory respondents’ margin
calculations,8 and consequently, to the rate of Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet (GHC).9II.

REMANDED ISSUE

Inclusion of Imports from France in the Thai Import Data for Carbonized Material
Surrogate Value
Background
In AR10 Final Results, Commerce valued carbonized material using Thai import data
under harmonized schedule (HS) subheading 4402.90.1000, with an average unit value (AUV) of
32.22 Baht/kilogram (kg) ($916.92 U.S. dollars (USD)/metric ton (MT)). The Thai import data
under HS subheading 4402.90.1000 include, among other countries, imports from France

4

See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR 62088 (September 8, 2016) (AR8), and accompanying IDM.
5
See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 82 FR 51607 (November 7, 2017) (AR9), and accompanying IDM.
6
See Second Remand Order at 12.
7
See Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Viraj).
8
The mandatory respondents in this administrative review are: Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (Datong
Juqiang) and Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. (Carbon Activated).
9
GHC was not selected for individual examination during the review, but qualified for a separate rate, and isparticipating in the litigation.

2

($1,270.37 USD/MT) and Japan ($25,923.71 USD/MT).10 In Calgon AR10 I, the CIT held thatin the AR10 Final Results, Commerce had not sufficiently explained its reasoning for including
the imports from France and Japan in the Thai SV for carbonized material and remanded theissue for further explanation and reconsideration.11
Based on the CIT’s order, in the First Remand Redetermination, Commerce removed theimports from Japan from the Thai SV for carbonized material.12 However, regarding the imports
from France, Commerce explained that while the evidence placed on the record by the
mandatory respondents indicates that some of the exports from France to Thailand during theperiod of review (POR) were wood-based charcoal, the evidence fails to fully account for theentire quantity of those Thai imports under HS 4402.90.1000 during the POR because it only
covers a part of the POR (April 2016 – July 2016).13 Therefore, Commerce explained that,
because it is unable to conclude, based on the record evidence, that the entirety of the Thai
imports of carbonized material from France under HS subheading 4402.90.1000 during the POR
were not the kind of carbonized material used in the production of subject merchandise,
Commerce cannot discard the data.14
In the Second Remand Order, the CIT sustained Commerce’s removal of the Thai
imports from Japan from the Thai carbonized material SV, but held that evidence in this current
review (i.e., AR10) combined with Commerce’s findings in AR8 and AR9 create a reasonable

10

See Memorandum, “Tenth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic ofChina: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,” dated May 3, 2018, and accompanying Excel SV sheet (Tab:“Calculated_SV_Data”) at Attachment 1 (SV for carbonized material using Thai import data under HS subheading
4402.90.1000), unchanged in AR10 Final Results). We note that the quantities and values comprising the POR Thai
import data under HS subheading 4402.90.1000 are as follows: France: 141,130 kg (6,300,491 Baht); Laos:
129,424 kg (2,403,256 Baht); Japan: 16 kg (14,525 Baht); Germany: 0 kg (202 Baht).
11
See Calgon AR10 I at 1349-50.
12See First Remand Redetermination at 22.
13
Id. at 5 and 21-22.
14
Id. at 20-21.

3inference that all imports of carbonized material from France into Thailand during the POR of
the instant review (i.e., AR10) were wood-based charcoal, a type of charcoal that is not specificto the input used by the mandatory respondents in the production of activated carbon.15 The CIT
further held that Commerce failed to cite any evidence rebutting that inference, and thus failed toprovide a reasonable explanation for its decision to use the Thai data inclusive of the imports
from France.16 The CIT also held that the record does not provide any affirmative evidence thatanything had changed with respect to the Thai imports from France to suggest that it was
reasonable for Commerce to find that, after more than two years of shipping only wood-based
charcoal to Thailand, France was suddenly shipping anything other than wood-based charcoal.17
Therefore, the CIT held that Commerce’s inclusion of the imports from France is not supported
by substantial evidence, and thus, unlawful.18 Accordingly, the issue was remanded toCommerce for further explanation and reconsideration.19
Analysis
In light of the CIT’s Second Remand Order, Commerce has reconsidered its
determination to continue to include imports from France in the Thai GTA import data under HS
subheading 4402.90.1000 used to value carbonized material. Commerce respectfully disagrees
with the CIT’s holding in the Second Remand Order regarding Commerce’s inclusion of theFrench import data in the Thai SV for carbonized material, and believes that the rationale laidout in the First Remand Redetermination is sufficient for finding that there is an insufficientbasis, given the evidence on the current record, for Commerce to reasonably conclude that the15

See Second Remand Order at 11-12.
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id. at 12-13.
16

4

French import data are distortive. However, in light of the CIT’s Second Remand Order, andbased on the following analysis, under respectful protest,20 Commerce has determined to exclude
French imports from the Thai GTA import data under HS subheading 4402.90.1000 used tovalue carbonized material. We explain in detail below.
Commerce has a practice of not disaggregating the data to avoid “cherry-picked importdata in a{} {surrogate value} calculation.”21 Further, it is a long-standing Commerce practicethat a party arguing that data are aberrational must provide evidence to support its argument.22
When there is insufficient evidence to find certain data aberrational, Commerce does not discard
the data.23 Also, Commerce evaluates import data using other commercial data on the record,
provided: (1) there is direct and substantial evidence reflecting the imports from a particularcountry in the commercial data; (2) a significant portion of the overall imports under the relevant
HS category is represented by the commercial data; and (3) distortions of the AUV in question
should be able to be demonstrated by the commercial data.24 Also, each administrative review isa separate exercise of Commerce’s authority and allows for different conclusions based on
different facts on the record.25

20

See Viraj, 343 F.3d at 1376.
See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from the People’s Republic ofChina, 82 FR 29033 (June 27, 2017) (Crystalline Silicon), and accompanying IDM at 54.
22
See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 36630 (June 28, 2010) (Carbazole Violet Pigment), and accompanying IDM at
Comment 4; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 34448 (June 14, 2005), and accompanying IDM at Comment 2 (“We reviewed theallegations regarding surrogate values as presented by the interested parties and decided whether the parties hadprovided sufficient evidence to merit further consideration.”); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from thePeople’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission ofReview, 73 FR 14216 (March 17, 2008), and accompanying IDM at Comment 6 (Polyethylene Retail CarrierBags)(“{w}e find that the burden is on the respondents to demonstrate that the Indian import statistics are in fact
aberrational”).
23
See Carbazole Violet Pigment IDM at Comment 6.
24
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 844 (January 6, 2010)(TRBs from China), and accompanying IDM at Comment 2.
25
See Jiaxing Brother Faster Co. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289, 1299 (April 21, 2016) (Jiaxing Brother); see also
Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1387 (September 10, 2014).
21

5

The evidence placed on the record by the mandatory respondents contains sales
summaries from the French affiliate of Jacobi Carbons, AB, a participant in previous
administrative reviews, that cover the period of December 2015 to November 2016; an email
from the French affiliate of Jacobi Carbons, AB, stating that the sales summaries represent thequantities of wood charcoal that it exported from France to Thailand; data on Thai imports from
France under HS code 4402.9010 up to August 2016; and data on French exports to Thailand
under HS 4402.9000 (i.e., unspecified charcoal) up to July 2016.26 We note that this is the public
version of the same evidence provided by the mandatory respondents in the immediately
preceding segment (AR9) in business proprietary version. While these data indicate that certainof the exports from France to Thailand during the POR were wood-based charcoal, the data failto fully account for the entire quantity of the Thai imports from France under HS 4402.90.1000
during the POR because the French sales data placed on the record by the mandatory respondents
only cover a part of the POR (April 2016-July 2016). Therefore, as Commerce stated in the First
Remand Redetermination, Commerce is unable to conclude, based on the record evidence, thatthe entirety of the French imports into Thailand under HS subheading 4402.90.1000 during the
POR were wood-based charcoal.27 As stated above, when there is insufficient evidence to findcertain data aberrational, Commerce does not discard the data.28
However, in Second Remand Order, the CIT held that the evidence in this review,combined with Commerce’s findings in AR8 and AR9, creates a reasonable inference that all

26

See First Surrogate Value Comments by Datong Juqiang and Carbon Activated, dated September 15, 2017
(Respondents’ SV Comments) at Exhibit 4A.
27
See First Remand Redetermination at 21.
28
See Carbazole Violet Pigment IDM at Comment 6.

6

Thai imports of carbonized material from France were wood-based charcoal.29 The CIT further
held that Commerce failed to cite any evidence rebutting that inference.30
As stated above, each administrative review is a separate exercise of Commerce’s
authority and allows for different conclusions based on different facts on the record.31 In thisreview, the mandatory respondents put on the record the same evidence that they put on therecord for AR9. In AR9, Commerce was able to find based on this evidence, that all Thai imports
from France during the POR in AR9 consisted of wood-based charcoal, as the evidence
accounted for the entirety of the AR9 POR. However, as this same evidence does not cover theentirety of the POR for the instant review (i.e., from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017), theevidence fails to support the mandatory respondents’ contention that the entirety of the Thai
imports from France during this POR are wood-based charcoal.32
As we stated in our decision in the First Remand Redetermination, requiring Commerce
to consider record evidence that does not account for the entirety of imports from particularcountries within an SV for the elimination of such imports, or even for the elimination of a partof such imports, would open the doors for parties to challenge the viability of underlying importdata, on not only a country-specific basis, but also, for example, on a month-by-month or
shipment-by-shipment basis, based only on partial evidence, which would introduce a
tremendous additional administrative burden on Commerce and would render the SV selection
process un-administrable.33 Commerce cannot affirmatively question the accuracy of eachunderlying value that contributes to an average SV for a particular country, and has required that29

See Second Remand Order at 12.
Id.
31
See Jiaxing Brother at 1299.
32
See Respondents’ SV Comments at Exhibit 4A.
33
See First Remand Redetermination at 21.
30

7

parties provide complete evidence, covering the entire period under consideration, so that it canfocus its resources on addressing situations where the evidence is compelling and complete.34
For this reason, the burden must be on the party arguing that data are unreliable to demonstratethat all of the data under consideration are unreliable.35
We note that we have previously considered commercial data that cover a part of the
POR to find distortion of an SV. In AR1 Litigation, citing Globe Metallurgical, the CIT held that
Commerce must consider whether the commercial data on the record covers a definite andsubstantial percentage of overall imports in order to consider an SV distorted.36 In response to
the CIT’s holding in AR1 Litigation, Commerce found that half (i.e., 50 percent) of the imports
under the Indian tariff heading at issue did not relate to the merchandise that was identified underthat tariff heading, and thus this finding was sufficient to impeach the SV.37 However, as we
noted in the First Remand Redetermination, the CIT’s order in that case applied to the evaluationof whether an SV generally can be used, not to the consideration of reliability of import datareported from particular countries within an SV.38 The dispute in the AR1 Litigation waswhether the use of a certain tariff heading was appropriate, and the discussion was on thesufficiency of record evidence that covers 50 percent of imports under an Indian tariff heading,the SV the respondents were attempting to impeach. Here, the CIT requests that Commerce
consider record evidence which does not account for the entirety of Thai imports from France

34

Id.
Id. (citing Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags IDM at Comment 6).
36
See Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 35 C.I.T. 235 (2011) (AR1 Litigation) at 246 (citing Globe
Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 33 CIT 435 (May 5, 2009) (Globe Metallurgical)).
37
See “Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand,” dated July 25, 2011, available at:https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/11-21.pdf.
38
Id. at 20.
35

8

within the Thai carbonized material SV, in order to eliminate such imports, which is the kind of
disaggregation of data and cherry-picking within data that Commerce tries to avoid.39
Because the parties failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the entirety of
the French import data should not be included in the calculation of the Thai SV for carbonizedmaterial, consistent with Commerce’s practice, we continue to find that there is an insufficientbasis for Commerce to reasonably conclude that the French import data within the Thai SV for
carbonized material should be excluded. However, because the CIT concluded that “evidence inthis current review combined with Commerce’s finding in AR8 and AR9 create a reasonable
inference that all French imports into Thailand during the POR for this instant review (i.e.,
AR10) were wood-based charcoal, the type of coal not specific to the input used by the
mandatory respondents{, }”40 we have, under respectful protest, excluded the French imports
from the Thai SV for carbonized material.
This determination under protest is limited to the circumstances in the AR10 Final
Results. The evidence put on the record for AR10 is the same evidence put on the record for
AR9, where we found that the entirety of carbonized material imports from France into Thailand
during the POR in AR9 consisted entirely of wood-based charcoal.41 Further, in AR8 we foundthat the entirety of carbonized material imports from France into Thailand during the POR
consisted of wood-based charcoal.42 Because of these specific circumstances limited to the factsof this case, the CIT concluded it is possible to infer that the imports from France were woodbased charcoal.

39

See Crystalline Silicon IDM at 54.
See Second Remand Order at 11-12.
41
See AR9 IDM at Comment 5.
42
See AR8 IDM at Comment 5.
40

9Therefore, for this final remand redetermination, in accordance with the CIT’s Second
Remand Order, and under respectful protest,43 we have removed the French import quantity andvalue from the Thai import data under HS subheading 4402.90.1000 in our computation of the
SV for carbonized material.
III.

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS ON DRAFT
REMAND RESULTS
Commerce released the Draft Remand Results to parties for comment on January 26,

2021.44 Carbon Activated, Datong Juqiang, and GHC (collectively, the respondents) filed
comments on the Draft Remand Results on February 1, 2021.45 No other parties filed commentson the Draft Remand Results. As explained below, we made certain corrections for minor errors
in Datong Juqiang’s margin calculation memorandum, and continue to reach the sameconclusions that we reached in the Draft Remand Results. We address each of the respondents’comments and provide our analysis in turn.
1. Inclusion of Imports from France in the Thai Import Data for Carbonized Material
Surrogate Value
Respondents’ Comments46•

The respondents support Commerce’s preliminary exclusion of imports from France from theThai import data for the carbonized material SV, and request that Commerce finalize thisdecision in the final remand.47•

However, the respondents do not support Commerce’s intention to limit this determination to43

See Viraj, 343 F.3d at 1376.
See Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Calgon Carbon Corporation et al. v. UnitedStates, Consol. Court No. 18-00232, dated January 26, 2021 (Draft Remand Results).
45
See Respondents’ Letter, “Respondents’ Comments on Draft Remand Redetermination Pursuant to Court Orderfor the Tenth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Activated Carbon from thePeople’s Republic of China,” dated February 1, 2021 (Respondents’ Comments).
46
See Respondents’ Comments at 2.
47
Id.
44

10

the unique set of facts underlying this proceeding, as the well-established law unambiguouslycompels a conclusion to exclude the entire French import quantity from the Thai SV for
carbonized material.48•

To support its intention to limit this determination to the unique set of facts underlying thisproceeding, Commerce first proffers the rationale that “Commerce has a practice of not
disaggregating the data to avoid ‘cherry-picked import data in a{}... {surrogate value}calculation.”49 To support this proposition, Commerce points to Crystalline Silicon,50 where
Commerce declined to exclude the allegedly anomalous U.S. data reported in the Thai SV.

•

In Crystalline Silicon, Commerce articulated a preference for using the entire import dataset
in order to fully adhere to the criterion of the broadest market average. However, such
adherence to a single criterion at the expense of the overall reliability of the underlying data
directly contradicts the statutory mandate to determine an SV based on the “best available
information,” which compels the exclusion of potentially anomalous, distorted, andunreliable data.51•

Commerce’s claimed prohibition against “cherry picking” country-specific data reported in asurrogate country’s import database is belied by the agency’s well-established andlongstanding “aberrational outlier policy,” through which Commerce eliminates any
aberrational or outlier data in order to cure an imperfect import dataset, and thereafter uses
the remaining data to obtain a more accurate SV.52 This Commerce policy has been affirmed

48

Id.
Id. at 4 (citing Draft Remand Results at 5).
50
Id. at 4-6 (citing Draft Remand Results at 5 and n.21 and Crystalline Silicon IDM at 54).
51
Id. at 5.
52
Id. at 6-7 (citing Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope from India
and the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 12759 (February 28, 2001) (Steel Wire Rope); ChlorinatedIsocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 70 FR 24502 (May 10, 2005) (Chlorinated Isocyanurates), and accompanying IDM).
49

11

in various CIT and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) precedents.53•

Extensive agency and judicial precedent confirm Commerce’s well-established practice toexclude aberrational price data from a dataset to obtain a usable SV. Contrary to the position
advanced in the Draft Remand Results, Commerce does not follow an “all or nothing” policy,
but rather, Commerce endeavors to salvage an otherwise usable dataset by purging the
portion that is demonstrably aberrational or unreliable.54•

Second, Commerce cites to Carbazole Violet Pigment to establish a general proposition that“when there is insufficient evidence to find certain data aberrational, Commerce does notdiscard the data.”55 However, in Carbazole Violet Pigment, of the three factors consideredby Commerce to evaluate the aberrancy of data (i.e., two other benchmark data and overall
Indian World Trade Atlas (WTA) import volume), none of them constituted direct evidence
demonstrating the distortive or aberrant character of the underlying WTA Indian import
data.56 By contrast, the record in this case contains direct evidence establishing that the
French imports during April 2016 to August 2016 were wood-based charcoal to be used inanimal feed, the kind not used in the production of the subject merchandise.57•

Third, Commerce cites to a three-part test from TRBs from China to explain its evidentiary
rationale.58 However, in TRBs from China, Commerce rejected as a corroboration tool the53

Id. at 5-7 (citing SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 962 F.3d 1351(June 24, 2020; see also Guangdong
Chems. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1367-73 (CIT 2006) (Guangdong Chems); seealso Hebei Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 1185 (July 19, 2004) (Hebei Metals)).
54
Id. at 8.
55
Id. (citing Draft Remand Results at 5 and Carbazole Violet Pigment).
56
Id. (citing Carbazole Violet Pigment IDM at Comment 4).
57
Id.
58
Id. at 9-10 (citing Draft Remand Results at 5 (“Commerce evaluates import data using other commercial data on
the record, provided: (1) there is direct and substantial evidence reflecting the imports from a particular country inthe commercial data; (2) a significant portion of the overall imports under the relevant HTS category is represented
by the commercial data; and (3) distortions of the AUV in question should be able to be demonstrated by thecommercial data.”); and TRBs from China, and accompanying IDM at Comment 2).

12use of India Infodrive data pertaining to the imports reported in the WTA data, because theIndia Infodrive data for specific countries were discrepant with regard to the value, quantity,
and AUV reported in the WTA data. On the other hand, in the record for AR10 Final
Results, there are no such discrepancies in the corroborative French export data, in that
Commerce has already established a direct quantitative correlation between French exports toThailand under HS 4402.9000 and Thai imports from France under HS 4401.9010, during
April-August 2016.59 Commerce’s findings confirm the non-scope and non-comparable
nature of goods imported from France under Thai HS 4401.90.1000, and explain the reason
for a 140% higher AUV distortion in the French import data as compared to the AUV ofremaining imports from the other countries ($1270.37/MT as compared to the remaining
imports valued at $528.47/MT). Therefore, TRBs from China is distinguishable and does notsupport Commerce’s assertion that there is an insufficient basis for Commerce to reasonably
conclude that the French import data within the Thai SV for carbonized material should be
excluded.60•

Further, Commerce should not hedge its remand determination in AR10 to any otherconsiderations such as historical evidence from AR8 or AR9.61 In AR1 Litigation, the CIT
opined, “when data is placed on the record to impeach as opposed to corroborate
Commerce’s determination, a lower threshold may exist.”62 Therefore, this establishedjudicial precedent informs that a substantial proportion (i.e., more than 50 percent of total
import quantity) of detracting evidence from within AR10 itself is sufficient to undermine
the reliability of the entire quantity of the Thai imports from France in AR10. Because the59

Id. (citing Draft Remand Results at 6).
Id. at 11.
61
Id. at 13.
62
Id. at 16-17 (citing AR1 Litigation).
60

13French export data were placed on the record to impeach, it cannot be rejected simply
because it does not account for the entirety of the French imports.63•

In consideration of the CIT’s guidelines in the above cases, Commerce is not allowed toburden the respondents to unambiguously establish that the remaining 48 percent of the data
is distorted as well.64 Therefore, in the final remand redetermination, Commerce should
modify its findings in the Draft Remand Redetermination and exclude the entirety of French
import data within the Thai SV based on the evidence solely from AR10.

Commerce’s Position: Commerce disagrees with the respondents’ contention that the standalone AR10 evidence is sufficient to undermine the reliability of the entire French import data
within the Thai SV.
Commerce’s practice, when selecting the best available information for valuing factors of
production (FOPs), in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,(the Act), is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are input-specific, representative of abroad-market average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR, and tax – and dutyexclusive.65 Further, Commerce undertakes its analysis of valuing the FOPs on a case-by-casebasis, carefully considering the available evidence in light of the particular facts of each industry
and available record evidence.66
The respondents contend that Commerce’s preference for using the entire import dataset
in order to fully adhere to the criterion of the broadest market average contradicts the statutory
mandate to determine an SV based on the “best available information,” which compels the63

Id. at 11.
Id. at 12.
65
See, e.g., First Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 1336 (January 11, 2010), and accompanying IDM
at Comment 1.
66
See, e.g., Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 47176 (August 12, 2005), and accompanying IDM at Comment 1.
64

14

exclusion of potentially anomalous, distorted, and unreliable data.67 The respondents then cite tovarious CAFC, CIT, and Commerce decisions, and assert that these decisions refute Commerce’s
preference to not disaggregate the data to avoid “cherry-picked import data in an SV
calculation.”68 However, in the cases cited by the respondents, the dispute regarding the subset
of data within the SV was on the numerical aberrance of the value of the subset of data.
Therefore, elimination of aberrational values has been held to be a “reasonable means forcompensating for flaws in a data set.”69 Notably, when the elimination of import data reported
from certain countries into the primary surrogate country was considered to cure aberrancy of anSV, the import data that was removed was several times higher than the import data for the othercountries whose products were imported into the primary surrogate country.70
In contrast, in this review, the dispute regarding the subset of data within the SV is notnumerical aberrance of the value of the French imports, but “input-specificity”—i.e., whether all
the imports from France consist of wood-based charcoal. Therefore, the respondents’ reliance onthese cases to support their assertions that Commerce has previously eliminated data in order tocure an imperfect import dataset is inapposite.
In addition, contrary to the respondents’ assertion that TRBs from China does not support
Commerce’s view that there is an insufficient basis to reasonably conclude the French importdata within the Thai SV for carbonized material should be excluded, Commerce in TRBs from67

See Respondents’ Comments at 5-7.
Id.
69
See Guangdong Chems at 1370; see also Hebei Metals; see also Steel Wire Rope IDM at Comment 1.
70
See Chlorinated Isocyanurates IDM at 49-50 (“the price of Belgian imports into India was 10 times higher than
the import data for the three other countries whose products were imported into India.”); see also Hebei Metals at
1199 (“The price for Swedish steel tube imports, 1,134% greater than the average price from all other countries andrepresenting a fraction of the quantity of total imports, increased the overall average value by 24%.”); Steel Wire
Rope IDM at Comment 1 (“the unit values of Malaysian imports in the Indian Import Statistics for the period inquestion are aberrational, as they are many times higher than the import values from other countries,”); andGuangdong Chems at 1370, n.5 (“Commerce excluded imports from the United States, the price of which was tentimes greater than the price of imports from other countries during the POR.).
68

15

China stated that it will consider Infodrive data (i.e., commercial data put on the record by the
respondent in TRBs from China) to further evaluate import data provided, “a significant portionof the overall imports under the relevant HTS category is represented by the Infodrive data.”71
In the instant case, a significant portion of the Thai SV for carbonized material is not represented
by the evidence presented by the respondents.72
Further, citing the CIT decision in AR1 Litigation, the respondents argue that record
evidence that covers less than a hundred percent of total imports from France under Thai HS
4402.90.1000 may be enough to impeach the whole import quantity from France.73 However, incontrast to the situation in AR1 Litigation where the CIT decided a lower threshold may exist to
impeach an overall SV, the respondents are not seeking to impeach the entire Thai SV, but only
to impeach a subset of data within it. Further, unlike in AR1 Litigation where the CIT found that
evidence covering 52 percent of the overall quantity of an SV was sufficient to impeach theentire SV,74 the evidence in this case covers only 42.8 percent of the French import quantity
within the Thai SV.75 Therefore, the respondents’ reliance on the CIT decision in AR1 Litigation
to argue that record evidence that covers less than a hundred percent of a subset of data within
the entire Thai SV is enough to impeach the entirety of the subset data, is unavailing.

71

See TRBs from China IDM at Comment 2
See Respondents’ SV Comments at Exhibit 4A; see also Memorandum, “Draft Second Remand Redetermination
Results in the Tenth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China:
Surrogate Values for the Draft Remand Redetermination,” dated January 25, 2021 at Attachment 1 Excel worksheet
Tab, “Remand Carbmat.”73
See Respondents’ Comments at 11.
74
See AR1 Litigation at 246.
75
Commerce notes that with evidence placed on the record by the mandatory respondents we can only determinethat 60,480 kg of French imports into Thailand during the POR (out of a total of 141,130 kg of imports from France)
were wood-based charcoal. (See Respondents’ SV Comments at Exhibit 4A on pdf page 53 (Export quantities on the2016 sales summary from the French exporter of wood-based charcoal match the data on French exports to Thailand
under HTS 4402.9000 (i.e., unspecified charcoal) which, in turn, match the Thai import quantities from France
under HTS code 4402.9010 up to August 2016.)).
72

16

By requiring Commerce to consider record evidence that does not account for the entire
import quantity from specific countries within an SV in order to eliminate such imports, the CIT
ruling will open the door for parties to challenge the viability of the underlying import data based
only on partial evidence, which would introduce a tremendous additional administrative burden
on Commerce and would render the SV selection process un-administrable. For this reason, theburden must be on the party arguing that data are unreliable to demonstrate that all of the data
under consideration are unreliable,76 and we find that the respondents have not fulfilled their
obligation to meet the burden because they have not provided data on French imports into
Thailand covering the entirety of the POR.
However, as noted above, the evidence put on the record for AR10 is the same evidence
put on the record for AR9, where we found that the entirety of carbonized material imports from
France into Thailand during the POR in AR9 consisted of wood-based charcoal.77 Further, in
AR8 we found that the entirety of carbonized material imports from France into Thailand during
the POR consisted of wood-based charcoal.78 Because of these specific circumstances limited to
the facts of this case, and despite the fact that the evidence in AR10 fails to fully account for theentire quantity of the Thai imports from France under HS 4402.90.1000 during the POR, the CIT
concluded that it is possible to infer that the entirety of imports from France during the POR in
AR10 was wood-based charcoal. Therefore, for this final remand redetermination, although wefind that there is insufficient record evidence to conclude that the entirety of the French importdata within the Thai SV for carbonized material is not input-specific, in accordance with the
CIT’s Second Remand Order, and under respectful protest,79 we have removed the French import

76

See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags IDM at Comment 6.
See Respondents’ SV Comments at Exhibit 4A; see also AR9 IDM at Comment 5.
78
See AR8 IDM at Comment 5.
79
See Viraj, 343 F.3d at 1376.
77

17quantity and value from the Thai import data under HS subheading 4402.90.1000 in our
computation of the SV for carbonized material. As noted above, this determination under protest
is limited to the circumstances in the AR10 Final Results because of its specific factual
circumstances.
2. Correction of Minor Errors in Datong Juqiang’s Margin Calculation
Respondents’ Comments80•

In Datong Juqiang’s Calculation Memorandum, Commerce incorrectly stated the total
amount of dumping using the wrong comparison method (i.e., Average-to-Transaction),where it should have stated the total amount of dumping using the Average-to-Average (Ato-A) comparison method, as zero percent of Datong Juqiang’s U.S. sales pass the Cohen’s dtest.81 Therefore, Commerce should correct the total amount of dumping and thecomparison method identified in Datong Juqiang’s Calculation Memorandum for the final
remand redetermination.

Commerce’s Position: Commerce agrees with the respondents that in Datong Juqiang’s
Calculation Memorandum, Commerce identified the total amount of dumping using the wrong
comparison method and stated the incorrect comparison method. Therefore, for the final remand
redetermination, Commerce has corrected these minor errors and clarifies that Datong Juqiang’s
total amount of dumping during the POR is zero dollars.82

80

See Respondents’ Comments at 13.
See Memorandum, “Draft Second Remand Redetermination Results Calculation Memorandum for Datong
Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the Tenth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from thePeople’s Republic of China,” dated January 25, 2021 (Datong Juqiang’s Calculation Memorandum).
82
See Memorandum, “Final Second Remand Redetermination Results Calculation Memorandum for Datong
Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. in the Tenth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from thePeople’s Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this final remand redetermination.
81

18

IV.

RESULTS OF FINAL REDETERMINATION
Consistent with the Second Remand Order, we have, under respectful protest,

reconsidered our inclusion of French imports in the Thai SV for carbonized material and haveaddressed this issue in this final remand redetermination. Based on the foregoing explanations,
we excluded imports from France from the Thai import data used to calculate the SV for
carbonized material. Accordingly, we revised the margin calculations for the mandatory
respondents, Carbon Activated and Datong Juqiang, from the First Remand Redetermination,and calculated a rate that is zero percent for each respondent. Thus, we also revised the separate
rate margin for GHC, the non-individually examined respondent that qualified for a separate rate
and participated in the litigation, and also assigned it a rate of zero percent.83 Further, we
corrected certain minor errors in Datong Juqiang’s calculation memorandum. Based on thesechanges, the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Carbon Activated, Datong

83

See AR10 Final Results, 83 FR 53214-15 (explaining method for determining rate for non-examined separate rate
respondents), unchanged in Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Resultsof Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016–2017, 83 FR 58229 (November 19, 2018); see also First Remand
Redetermination; Draft Redetermination Results Calculation Memorandum for Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd.
in the Tenth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China, dated
January 25, 2021; Draft Redetermination Results Calculation Memorandum for Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd. in the Tenth Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China,
dated January 25, 2021. For the Draft Remand Results, unchanged in this final redetermination, we calculated a ratethat is zero percent for both mandatory respondents (i.e., Datong Juqiang and Carbon Activated). When theweighted-average dumping margins established for all individually investigated respondents are zero, de minimis, orbased entirely on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act permits Commerce to “use any reasonable method
to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including
averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individuallyinvestigated.” The Statement of Administrative Action explains that “{t}he expected method in such cases will beto weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided
that volume data is available.” See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) at 873. Therefore, for this final redetermination, we assigned tothe company that has not been individually examined but qualified for a separate rate and participated in thelitigation (i.e., GHC), a rate equal to the weighted average of the rate calculated for Datong Juqiang and the rate
calculated for Carbon Activated. See Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, for this final redetermination, we are assigning a dumping margin of zero percent to GHC.

19

Juqiang, and GHC for the POR, April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, are listed in the chart
below.

Exporter or
Producer

WeightedAverage Dumping
Margin from AR10
Final Results(USD/kg)
0

WeightedAverage Dumping
Margin for the First
RemandRedetermination(USD/kg)
0

WeightedAverage Dumping
Margin for
Second Remand
Redetermination(USD/kg)
0Datong Juqiang
Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd.
Carbon ActivatedTianjin Co., Ltd.
Ningxia Guanghua
Cherishmet

0.23

0.13

0

0.23

0.13

0

3/15/2021

X
Signed by: CHRISTIAN MARSH_______________________
Christian Marsh
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Enforcement and Compliance20