Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01752/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01752-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.
Appellant
Calgon Carbon Corporation
Appellee
Car Go Worldwide, Inc.
Appellant
Carbon Activated Corporation
Appellant
Cherishmet Inc.
Appellant
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
Appellant
Jacobi Carbons AB
Appellant
Jacobi Carbons, Inc.
Appellant
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
Appellant
Norit Americas, Inc.
Appellee
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.
Appellant
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JACOBI CARBONS AB, JACOBI CARBONS, INC.,

NINGXIA GUANGHUA CHERISHMET ACTIVATED

CARBON CO., LTD., CHERISHMET INC., BEIJING 

PACIFIC ACTIVATED CARBON PRODUCTS CO., 

LTD., , DATONG MUNICIPAL YUNGUANG 

ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD., SHANXI 

INDUSTRY TECHNOLOGY TRADING CO., LTD., 

CARBON ACTIVATED CORPORATION, CAR GO 

WORLDWIDE, INC., TANGSHAN SOLID CARBON 

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, CALGON CARBON 

CORPORATION, NORIT AMERICAS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1752, 2014-1753, 2014-1754, 2014-1756

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:12-cv-00365-RKE, 1:12-cv-00372-RKE, 

1:12-cv-00377-RKE, 1:12-cv-00396-RKE, 1:12-cv-00401-

RKE, Senior Judge Richard K. Eaton.

______________________ 

Decided: August 3, 2015

______________________ 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2015
2 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

DANIEL L. PORTER, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & 

Mosle LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffsappellants Jacobi Carbons AB, Jacobi Carbons, Inc. Also 

represented by CHRISTOPHER DUNN, JAMES P. DURLING,

CLAUDIA DENISE HARTLEBEN.

KAVITA MOHAN, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, Washington, DC, argued for 

plaintiffs-appellants Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., et al. Also represented by 

FRANCIS J. SAILER, MARK PARDO, ANDREW THOMAS 

SCHUTZ. 

NANCY NOONAN, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, DC, for 

plaintiffs-appellants Carbon Activated Corporation, Car 

Go Worldwide, Inc. 

GREGORY S. MENEGAZ, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, 

Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellant Tangshan Solid 

Carbon Co., Ltd. Also represented by JAMES KEVIN 

HORGAN, JOHN J. KENKEL. 

ANTONIA RAMOS SOARES, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee 

United States. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER,

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, REGINALD T. BLADES, JR.; DEVIN S.

SIKES, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. 

ROBERT ALAN LUBERDA, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Calgon

Carbon Corporation, Norit Americas, Inc. Also represented by DAVID A. HARTQUIST, JOHN M. HERRMANN. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 3

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Appellants Jacobi Carbons AB and Jacobi Carbons, 

Inc. (collectively, “Jacobi”); Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. (“GHC”), Cherishmet Inc., 

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Datong

Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co. (“Datong 

Municipal”), and Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co.

(“Shanxi”) (collectively, “Cherishmet”); and Carbon Activated Corp., Car Go Worldwide, Inc., and Tangshan Solid

Carbon Co. (“Tangshan”) (collectively, “CAC”) appeal the 

decision of the United States Court of International Trade 

(“CIT”) sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

(“Commerce”) Final Results in the fourth administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated 

carbon from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011. For 

the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Congress has provided for the imposition of antidumping duties on foreign merchandise sold, or likely to be 

sold, at less than fair value in the United States. 19 

U.S.C. § 1673. Commerce determines antidumping duties 

based on the amount by which the “normal value” of 

merchandise (its price in its home market) exceeds its 

“export price” (its price in the United States). Id. 

§§ 1677(35)(A), 1677b(a) (2012). For nonmarket economies like the PRC, Commerce calculates normal value 

based on “the value of the factors of production utilized in 

producing the merchandise and . . . an [added] amount for 

general expenses and profit plus the cost of containers, 

coverings, and other expenses.” Id. § 1677b(c)(1)(B). 

On April 27, 2007, Commerce issued an antidumping 

duty order covering certain activated carbon from the

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/03/2015
4 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

PRC. Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China, 72 Fed. Reg. 20,988 (Dep’t of Commerce 

Apr. 27, 2007). After receiving requests seeking administrative review of the order, Commerce initiated the subject review on May 27, 2011. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,912, 30,913–16 (Dep’t of Commerce May 27, 2011). Commerce selected appellants 

Jacobi Carbons AB and GHC as two of the mandatory 

respondents for individual examination during the administrative review. Appellants Shanxi, Datong Municipal, 

and Tangshan subsequently filed separate rate certifications. 

Commerce published the preliminary results of the 

review on May 4, 2012. Certain Activated Carbon from 

the People’s Republic of China, 77 Fed. Reg. 26,496 (Dep’t 

of Commerce May 4, 2012) (“Preliminary Results”). For 

the Preliminary Results, Commerce selected Thailand as 

the primary surrogate country and therefore used Thai 

data to calculate surrogate values for the respondents’ 

factors of production. Commerce calculated weightedaverage dumping margins of $1.49 per kilogram for Jacobi

Carbons AB, $1.07 per kilogram for GHC, and $1.34 per 

kilogram for the separate rate companies. 

Following publication of the Preliminary Results, the 

respondents placed additional data from the Philippines 

on the record and urged Commerce to use this data to 

value the major material inputs. Jacobi Carbons AB v. 

United States, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1364 (Ct. Int’l Trade

2014). Commerce published the final results of the review

and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 

on November 9, 2012. Certain Activated Carbon from the 

People’s Republic of China, 77 Fed. Reg. 67,337 (Dep’t of 

Commerce Nov. 9, 2012) (“Final Results”); Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China

A-570-904 (Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty AdminisCase: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 5

trative Review) (Dep’t of Commerce Nov. 9, 2012) (“Issues 

and Decisions Memorandum”) (J.A. 371–400). In the 

Final Results, Commerce selected the Philippines over 

Thailand as the primary surrogate country and used 

Philippine data, rather than Thai data, to calculate the 

surrogate values for many of the respondents’ factors of 

production, including carbonized material and truck 

freight. In light of these changes, Commerce calculated 

weighted-average dumping margins of $0.44 per kilogram 

for Jacobi Carbons AB, $2.11 per kilogram for GHC, and

$1.04 per kilogram for the separate rate companies. 

Appellants challenged the Final Results at the CIT, 

arguing that Commerce did not use the best available 

information when it calculated the surrogate values for 

carbonized material and truck freight. The CIT disagreed, finding that substantial evidence supported each of 

Commerce’s surrogate value determinations. Jacobi 

Carbons, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 1374, 1377. Because the CIT 

found that substantial evidence supported Commerce’s 

surrogate value determinations, it sustained the agency’s 

separate rate calculation. Id. at 1377. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). 

DISCUSSION

We review decisions of the CIT de novo, applying the 

same standard used by the CIT. Downhole Pipe & Equip., 

L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 

2015). In antidumping duty proceedings, we uphold 

Commerce’s determinations unless they are “unsupported 

by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). 

“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla,” and 

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. 

Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). 

“Our review is limited to the record before Commerce in 

the particular review proceeding at issue,” Qingdao SeaCase: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/03/2015
6 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1385 

(Fed. Cir. 2014), and the burden of creating this record 

lies with the interested parties, not with Commerce, QVD 

Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 

2011). 

To determine the surrogate value for a factor of production from a nonmarket economy like the PRC, Congress directed Commerce to use the “best available 

information” from a comparable market economy country 

or countries. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1)(B). “Commerce has 

broad discretion to determine what constitutes the best 

available information, as this term is not defined by 

statute.” Qingdao, 766 F.3d at 1386. In doing so, it is 

Commerce’s practice to choose, where possible, data that 

reflects a broad market average and is publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the period of review, specific to the 

input in question, and exclusive of taxes on exports. See 

QVD Food Co. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 

1315 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010), aff’d, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 

2011). 

I. Surrogate Value for Carbonized Material

Carbonized material is a material input used to produce activated carbon. To determine the surrogate value 

for carbonized material, Commerce considered two data 

sources: (1) Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”) statistics for 

Philippine imports categorized under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (“HTS”) 4402, “Wood Charcoal (Including Shell 

or Nut Charcoal), Whether or Not Agglomerated,” and 

(2) pricing data for coconut charcoal contained in Cocommunity, a monthly publication of the Asian and Pacific 

Coconut Community organization.1 Commerce found that 

1 Commerce also considered a third data source not 

at issue on appeal consisting of Thai import statistics. 

Issues & Decision Memo. at 17 (J.A. 387). 

 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 7

the Cocommunity data was flawed for two reasons. First, 

Commerce found the prices were not representative of the 

Philippines as a whole because the data was from the 

Visayas region of the Philippines. Issues & Decision 

Memo. at 18 (J.A. 388). Second, Commerce found that it 

was not clear whether the Cocommunity prices were tax

and duty exclusive. Id. Commerce therefore used the 

Philippine import data from the GTA to calculate the 

surrogate value for carbonized material.

Appellants argue that substantial evidence does not 

support Commerce’s selection of the Philippine import 

data over the Cocommunity data. They argue the Philippine import data is flawed because it is less specific to the 

input in question than the Cocommunity data and because it results in an aberrationally high surrogate value 

compared to the surrogate value of carbonized material in 

prior reviews of the subject merchandise. Appellants also 

argue that the record did not support Commerce’s criticisms of the Cocommunity data. Finally, appellants argue 

that by selecting the Philippine import data over the

domestic Philippine Cocommunity data, Commerce violated its preference for using domestic data. Although a 

close case, substantial evidence supported Commerce’s 

selection of the Philippine import data as the best available information. 

A. Specificity

Appellants argue that the Philippine import data is 

less specific to the carbonized material used to produce 

the subject merchandise than the Cocommunity data. To 

determine whether a data source is product specific, 

Commerce compares the products covered by the data 

source with the material input in question. 

1. Material Input

The material input in question is carbonized material. 

The record shows that Jacobi’s and Cherishmet’s suppliCase: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/03/2015
8 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

ers used carbonized material made from coal to produce 

the subject merchandise. J.A. 110, 133 (questionnaire 

responses from two of Jacobi’s suppliers); J.A. 150, 155–

56, 290–301 (Cherishmet’s U.S. sales database during the 

period review); see also Jacobi’s Br. 6. The record also 

shows that one of Jacobi’s suppliers used carbonized 

material made from coconut shell charcoal to produce the 

subject merchandise, in addition to carbonized material 

made from coal. J.A. 111–15, 765–68. There is no evidence that any of Jacobi’s or Cherishmet’s suppliers used 

carbonized material made of wood to produce the subject 

merchandise.2 Thus, it appears based on the record that

the material input in question is carbonized material 

made of coal and coconut shell charcoal. 

2. Data Sources

The Cocommunity data is limited to coconut shell 

charcoal, while the Philippine import data includes all 

imports to the Philippines categorized under HTS 4402, 

“Wood Charcoal (Including Shell or Nut Charcoal), 

Whether or Not Agglomerated”—a broader basket category consisting of carbonized material made from wood and 

coconut shell. 

2 The CIT erred when it found that Jacobi and 

Cherishmet produced the subject merchandise during the 

period of review using carbonized material made of wood. 

See Jacobi Carbons, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 1372–73. Although it is possible to produce activated carbon using 

carbonized material made of wood, id. (citing J.A. 102, 

260), the record indicates that Jacobi and Cherishmet 

used only carbonized material made from coal and coconut shell charcoal, not wood, to produce the activated 

carbon shipped to the United States during the review 

period, see J.A. 110–15, 133, 150, 155–56, 290–301, 765–

68. The inputs used to produce the subject merchandise 

are the inputs most relevant to this review. 

 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 9

Appellants argue that the Philippine import data is 

not specific because there were no imports of coconut shell 

charcoal to the Philippines during the review period. 

Appellants contend that HTS 4402 consists of four subcategories, one of which—HTS 4402.00.00.01 (“Of Coconut 

Shell, Not Agglomerated”)—covers coconut shell charcoal.3 Jacobi’s Br. 32; Cherishmet’s Br. 30–31. Appellants further contend that the Philippine import data in

the HTS 4402.00.00.01 subcategory indicates that there 

were zero imports of coconut shell charcoal to the Philippines during the review period. Thus, appellants argue 

that although in theory the Philippine import data includes coconut shell charcoal, the pricing data for the 

review period is limited to wood charcoal, not coconut 

shell charcoal. This is a new argument not made, in any 

meaningful or detailed sense, to Commerce below. 

The unsupported, conclusory statement by Jacobi 

made below that there was “no data available for coconut 

shell charcoal from the Philippines imported under HTS 

4402.00.10,” J.A. 177, is insufficient. Jacobi presented 

Commerce with no evidence supporting the proposition 

that there were no imports of coconut shell charcoal to the 

Philippines during the period of review. Indeed, Jacobi 

incorrectly transcribed the HTS number, stating there 

was no data available for coconut shell charcoal from the 

Philippines under “HTS 4402.00.10” instead of HTS

4402.00.00.01, so Commerce could not verify Jacobi’s 

claim. This is compounded by the fact that the record 

does not support appellants’ claim that HTS 4402 consists 

of four ten-digit subcategories and that one of those 

3 The other three categories that appellants contend make up HTS 4402 are 4402.00.00.02 (“Of Wood, Not 

Agglomerated”); 4402.00.00.03 (“Of Wood (Including of 

Shell or Not Agglomerated)”); and 4402.00.00.04 (“Other”). Jacobi’s Br. 32; Cherishmet’s Br. 30–31. 

 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 9 Filed: 08/03/2015
10 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

subcategories is HTS 4402.00.00.01. Rather, the record 

indicates that HTS 4402 has only two subcategories, 

neither of which is limited to coconut shell charcoal: 

4402.10.00 (“Of bamboo”) and 4402.90.00 (“Other”). J.A. 

255. Thus, Jacobi presented to Commerce a single conclusory sentence which inaccurately references an HTS 

category, with no record evidence or data to support its 

claim. Without any record evidence that there were zero

imports of coconut shell charcoal to the Philippines during 

the period of review under HTS 4402.00.00.01, or even 

that HTS 4402.00.00.01 existed, Commerce could not 

evaluate Jacobi’s statement that there was “no data 

available for coconut shell charcoal from the Philippines.” 

It was Jacobi’s and Cherishmet’s responsibility to build an 

adequate record before Commerce, so any failure of proof 

lies with them. QVD Food, 658 F.3d at 1324. We will not 

reverse Commerce’s decision about the best available 

information on the basis of an argument not made and 

evidence not presented on the administrative record. 

Qingdao, 766 F.3d at 1385 (“Our review is limited to the 

record before Commerce in the particular review proceeding at issue.”). 

3. Commerce’s Past Practice

Appellants argue that Commerce’s past practice

demonstrates that coconut shell charcoal is a better 

match for coal-based carbonized material than the broader HTS 4402 category of wood charcoal. In past reviews of 

the instant antidumping duty order, Commerce found 

coconut shell charcoal comparable to coal-based carbonized material. For example, in the investigation to determine whether to impose antidumping duties on the 

subject merchandise, Commerce used coconut shell charcoal import data to value carbonized material because the 

“coconut shell charcoal value, although not identical to 

the coal-based carbonized material used by respondents, 

is comparable in that both products are a type of charcoal.” Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s RepubCase: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 10 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 11

lic of China A-570-904 (Issues and Decision Memorandum

for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC) 

(Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 23, 2007) (J.A. 48). Similarly, 

during the first period of review, Commerce wrote:

[C]oconut shell charcoal shares similar properties 

with carbonized material and . . . those similar 

properties are essential in the production of activated carbon. The expert’s report found that coalbased carbonized materials used by Cherishmet 

and coconut shell charcoal are similar in porosity 

and adsorption, which are both properties essential in the production of activated carbon. Thus, 

in this instance, between the two alternative . . . 

HTS categories, “Other Cokes of Coal” and “Coconut Shell Charcoal,” the Department determines 

that . . . “Coconut Shell Charcoal” results in a better, input-specific price for coal-based carbonized 

materials.

Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand at 10–11, Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 

No. 09-00524 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 26, 2011), ECF No. 36 

(footnotes omitted) (J.A. 55–56). And during the third 

period of review, Commerce explained that because “coconut shell charcoal shares similar properties with carbonized material and . . . those similar properties are 

essential in the production of activated carbon,” it would 

value carbonized material using imports categorized 

under HTS category “Coconut Shell Charcoal,” instead of 

HTS category “Other Cokes of Coal.” Certain Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of China A-570-904 

(Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results 

of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review) 

(Dep’t of Commerce Oct. 24, 2011) (J.A. 158–61). 

In these prior analyses, Commerce was choosing between coconut shell charcoal and the HTS category “Other 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 11 Filed: 08/03/2015
12 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

Cokes of Coal” to find a comparable surrogate for coalbased carbonized material. Commerce’s determination 

that coconut shell charcoal is better than “Other Cokes of 

Coal” does not mean that coconut shell data is better than 

wood charcoal. Wood charcoal is also a type of charcoal

and can also be used to create the subject merchandise. 

Thus for the same reasons articulated by Commerce in 

the earlier periods of review, wood charcoal would be a 

better surrogate than “Other Cokes of Coal.” There are no 

express findings or comparisons between wood charcoal 

and coconut shell charcoal, and this record does not 

establish any such conclusions. 

While coconut shell charcoal is more specific than 

“Other Cokes of Coal,” the record does not compare coconut shell charcoal and wood charcoal. Commerce’s past 

practice does not demonstrate that coconut shell charcoal 

is a better match for coal-based carbonized material than

the broader Philippine import data category, which includes wood charcoal and coconut shell charcoal. 

4. Conclusion

Here, the material input in question is carbonized 

material made of coal and coconut shell charcoal. With 

respect to the coconut shell subset of this material input, 

the Cocommunity data, which includes only coconut shell 

charcoal, is more specific than the Philippine import data, 

which includes other forms of wood charcoal in addition to 

coconut shell charcoal. With regard to the carbonized 

material made of coal, which constitutes the bulk of the 

subject merchandise, there is no evidence on this record 

comparing wood charcoal and coconut shell charcoal. 

There are no findings nor have we been presented with 

record evidence that coconut shell charcoal is a better 

surrogate for coal-based carbonized material than wood 

charcoal. Thus for the bulk of the imports at issue, there 

is no proof that coconut shell charcoal is a better surrogate. Neither of these data sources is specific to carbonCase: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 12 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 13

ized material made of coal and Commerce’s past selection 

of coconut shell charcoal as the best available surrogate 

was based on a comparison with “Other Cokes of Coal,” 

not wood charcoal. The imports at issue include coconut 

shell charcoal and coal-based carbonized material. Once 

again, we do not review Commerce’s determinations de 

novo. We cannot conclude on this record that Commerce’s 

decision that both data sources were specific to the inputs 

in question was not supported by substantial evidence. 

B. Aberrational Nature of Philippine Import Data

Cherishmet also faults the Philippine import data as

aberrational compared to the surrogate values for carbonized material in prior reviews of the subject merchandise. 

During this period of review, Commerce calculated a price 

of $1,203.90 per metric ton of carbonized material based 

on the Philippine import data. Cherishmet asserts that 

Commerce priced the surrogate value of carbonized material much lower in prior reviews: 

Period of 

Review Surrogate Value 

1st $32.99/MT

2nd

$66.256/MT (coconut shell charcoal);

$435.62/MT (coal-based carbonized material)

3rd $83.45/MT

Cherishmet’s Br. 32–33 (citations omitted). It argues that

the Cocommunity data, with a price of $255 per metric 

ton, maps more closely to Commerce’s prior valuations of 

carbonized material than the Philippine import data, with 

a price almost five times as high. 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 13 Filed: 08/03/2015
14 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

The surrogate values presented by Cherishmet suggest that the Philippine import data is aberrational. And 

Commerce may opt to disregard data where there is 

record evidence that it is aberrational. Here, however, we 

cannot conclude that Commerce should have disregarded 

the Philippine import data as aberrational. 

The government argues that there is an explanation 

for the apparently aberrational nature of the Philippine 

import data. Commerce selected India as the surrogate 

country in the first three periods of review. See J.A. 733–

35. In the fourth period of review, Commerce found that 

India was not at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC, and therefore selected a different surrogate country. See id.; see also J.A. 94–96. Thus, the first 

three surrogate values were calculated with reference to a 

different level of economic development than the current 

surrogate value. 

Looking at the table above, it is not entirely clear 

which measure is appropriate for comparison to determine whether the Philippine import data is aberrationally 

high. Commerce’s price of $1203.90 is more than thirty 

times more than the surrogate value calculated for the 

first period of review ($32.99/MT) and nearly fifteen times 

higher than the surrogate value calculated for the third 

period of review ($83.45/MT). Both of these comparisons 

lead toward a conclusion that the Philippine import data 

is aberrational, and it seems unlikely that the switch from 

India to the Philippines could account for this dramatic 

change in pricing. However, in the second period of 

review, Commerce separated the pricing for coconut shell 

charcoal ($66.256/MT) and coal-based carbonized material 

($435.62/MT). The price for coal-based carbonized material is an order of magnitude higher than the price for 

coconut shell charcoal. Given that the bulk of the imports 

in question are produced using coal-based carbonized 

material, the price from this review is only 2.8 times 

higher than the surrogate value for coal-based carbonized 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 14 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 15

material from the second period of review. Perhaps this 

disparity would have been enough to cause Commerce to 

reach a different conclusion regarding the best available 

information. Or perhaps Commerce would have concluded that the Cocommunity data for coconut shell charcoal, 

which was priced at $255/MT, was too low. Its prior 

determination during the second period of review that 

coal-based carbonized material was much more expensive 

than coconut shell charcoal may have only reinforced its 

conclusion here that the Philippine data was the best 

available information. We do not know how Commerce 

would have evaluated this complicated issue because it 

was not raised below. 

Neither Jacobi nor Cherishmet presented any evidence or made any arguments that the Philippine import 

data was aberrational during the administrative review. 

This is another new argument made for the first time at 

the CIT on judicial review of Commerce’s decision, not to 

Commerce itself. If all of the arguments made on appeal

had been made to Commerce and the record made to 

support them, Commerce may well have reached a different conclusion regarding the best available information. 

We will not create a new record, entertain new arguments, and reverse Commerce on the basis of them. 

C. Regional Data

Jacobi argues that substantial record evidence does

not support Commerce’s determination that the Cocommunity data describes “regional” prices from a single state 

in the Philippines, not national prices. We disagree. The 

record shows that the Cocommunity data covers only a 

single region of the Philippines. The chart from which the 

Cocommunity data is taken indicates that the price of 

coconut shell charcoal is for “Philippines (Domestic), 

Visayas, Buyer.” J.A. 191. The Visayas is one of three 

principal geographical regions of the Philippines. By 

contrast, other entries on the Cocommunity chart indicate 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 15 Filed: 08/03/2015
16 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

that they are national, not regional. Id. (listing coconut 

shell charcoal from “Sri Lanka (Domestic)” and desiccated 

coconut from “Philippines (Domestic)”). This constitutes 

substantial record evidence that the Cocommunity data is

regional, not national. 

Appellants did not show in the record for this administrative review that the Cocommunity coconut shell 

charcoal prices are representative, despite being regional. 

Jacobi Carbons, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 1369. For example, 

the record does not show that the Visayas region is a 

substantial portion of the market for coconut shell charcoal or that prices in the Visayas are reflective of the 

national Philippine market. Without record evidence to 

the contrary, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supported Commerce’s finding that the Cocommunity

prices were less representative of a broad market average 

than the Philippine import data. 

D. Tax and Duty Exclusivity

Appellants challenge Commerce’s finding that the Cocommunity data was flawed because there was no indication whether that data was free of taxes and duties. They 

argue that the burden lay on Commerce to show that the 

Cocommunity data was distorted by taxes and duties. 

The government disagrees. We need not resolve the 

parties’ dispute here. Even if Commerce erred when it 

critiqued the Cocommunity data for lacking information 

about whether the prices were tax and duty exclusive, 

substantial evidence still supports the selection of the 

Philippines import data. 

E. Conclusion

Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s selection 

of the Philippine import data to calculate the surrogate 

value for carbonized material. Commerce was forced to 

select between two flawed data sets, and selected the 

Philippine import data because it was product-specific, 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 16 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 17

publicly available, reflected a broad market average, and 

was contemporaneous with the period of review. 

Appellants fault Commerce for violating its preference 

for using domestic data when it selected the Philippine 

import data instead of the domestic Cocommunity data. 

Commerce determines what constitutes the “best available information” without reference to any such preference. 

See Qingdao, 766 F.3d at 1386. (“Commerce generally 

selects, to the extent practicable, surrogate values that 

are publicly available, are product-specific, reflect a broad 

market average, and are contemporaneous with the 

period of review.”). At best, statements to the contrary 

indicate that Commerce prefers domestic prices over 

import prices “all else being equal.” Rhodia Inc. v. United 

States, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001). 

All else is not equal here. Both the Cocommunity data and the Philippine import data are flawed. Such is the 

nature of surrogate data, which is likely never a perfect 

substitute. The selection of a data source is highly situational and requires weighing numerous factors; no factor 

is necessarily more important than any other factor and 

no factor is necessarily dispositive. Commerce considered

both data sets and determined that the Philippine import 

data constituted the best available information for determining the surrogate value for carbonized material on the 

administrative record for this review period. That Commerce may have found the Cocommunity the best available information in more recent periods of review does not 

mean that substantial evidence did not support Commerce’s decision that the Philippine import data was the 

best available information. Commerce selects the best 

available information based on the record before it at the 

time of the decision, not a hypothetical record or the 

record created for other periods of review. 

We may not agree with Commerce’s selection, particularly in light of the evidence and arguments not made to 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 17 Filed: 08/03/2015
18 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

Commerce below. However, Jacobi and Cherishmet did 

not make these arguments or place this evidence before 

Commerce. We cannot say that Commerce’s selection of 

the Philippine import data was unreasonable based on 

arguments made and the administrative record created by 

Jacobi and Cherishmet. 

II. Surrogate Value for Truck Freight

Because Commerce selected Thailand as the primary 

surrogate country for the Preliminary Results, it initially 

based the surrogate value for truck freight on publicly 

available data from a Thai consulting company of the 

price to transport goods by truck from Bangkok to five 

other provinces in Thailand in 2005 (“Thai freight data”). 

Preliminary Results, 77 Fed. Reg. at 26,505. At the 

urging of appellants, Commerce selected the Philippines 

instead of Thailand as the primary surrogate country in 

the Final Results. It therefore based the surrogate value 

for truck freight on the average reported rate of transporting goods by truck in the Philippines from Manila to 

Legazpi City (“Philippine freight data”). 

On appeal, Cherishmet and CAC argue that substantial evidence did not support Commerce’s use of the 

Philippine freight data instead of the Thai freight data to 

calculate the surrogate value for truck freight. Specifically, Cherishmet and CAC criticize the Philippine freight 

data as (1) unrepresentative of a broad market average; 

(2) nonspecific to the actual transportation costs; and 

(3) aberrational compared to the surrogate value for truck 

freight calculated during other periods of review of the 

subject merchandise.

We disagree. It is true that the Philippine freight data, which Commerce calculated based on the cost of 

transporting goods over a single route, is less representative of a broad market average than the Thai freight data, 

which is based on ten different values representing the 

cost of transporting goods from Bangkok to five other Thai 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 18 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 19

provinces. Although the Philippine freight data covers 

only a single route, it consists of data reported by multiple 

trucking companies. It is therefore broader than Cherishmet and CAC suggest. Furthermore, the Philippines is 

made up of many islands. A more representative sample 

would include overseas routes in addition to overland 

routes, and likely be less comparable to freight costs in 

the PRC. 

Cherishmet and CAC argue that the Philippine 

freight data is not specific to actual transportation costs 

because it represents “loose cargo,” while the respondents’ 

shipments were containerized. Cherishmet’s Br. 53 n.14; 

CAC’s Br. 15. However, the record does not clearly show 

that the respondents’ shipments were containerized. 

Cherishmet’s invoice, which indicates that Cherishmet’s 

products were shipped in a container, is for a shipment to 

the United States, not within the PRC. See J.A. 101 

(packing slip with final address in New Jersey). It therefore does not speak to how Cherishmet’s products were 

shipped within the PRC. And the fact that Commerce 

calculated a surrogate value for packaging materials does 

not mean that all of Cherishmet’s and Jacobi’s shipments 

were transported in containers. See J.A. 404–05. 

Cherishmet and CAC also argue that the Philippine 

freight data is aberrational compared to the surrogate 

value for truck freight calculated during other periods of 

review of the subject merchandise. The surrogate value 

for freight calculated from the Philippine freight data is

$0.3152 per metric ton per kilometer. Cherishmet’s Br. 

48. Cherishmet calculates the surrogate values for prior 

periods of review as follows:

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 19 Filed: 08/03/2015
20 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

Period of 

Review Surrogate Value 

1st $0.0393/MT/km

2nd $0.0413/MT/km

3rd $0.0396/MT/km

Id. at 47–48 (citations omitted). Cherishmet argues that 

the past surrogate values are more in line with the Thai 

freight data, which has a surrogate value of $0.0379 per 

metric ton per kilometer for truck freight. Id. at 48. 

However, this argument was not made to Commerce 

during the review period, and Cherishmet and CAC point 

to no evidence in the administrative record supporting it. 

Furthermore, as discussed earlier, Commerce selected 

India as the surrogate country for past review periods of 

the subject merchandize, so the surrogate values cited by 

Cherishmet and CAC are based on the cost of transporting freight in India. See J.A. 733–35. It is not surprising 

that the cost of transporting goods by truck was higher in 

the Philippines than it was in India. The record does not 

support all of Cherishmet and CAC’s critiques of the 

Philippine freight data. 

Moreover, the Thai freight data is also flawed. First,

the Thai freight data is dated August 8, 2005, more than 

four years before the period of review. J.A. 316–20. The 

Thai freight data is thus not contemporaneous with the 

period of review, unlike the Philippine freight data. 

Second, 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2) provides that Commerce 

“normally will value all factors [of production] in a single 

surrogate country.” Cherishmet and CAC do not challenge Commerce’s selection of the Philippines as the 

surrogate country. 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 20 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 21

In summary, in selecting the surrogate value for truck 

freight, Commerce was faced with two imperfect data 

sources. Substantial evidence supported Commerce’s 

selection of the contemporaneous, albeit less representative, Philippine freight data over the Thai freight data. 

Moreover, Commerce’s selection of the Philippine freight 

data was in accord with its preference for valuing all 

factors of production from a single surrogate country.4 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the CIT’s decision sustaining Commerce’s 

Final Results. 

AFFIRMED

4 We need not address the arguments related to 

separate rate calculations as they are predicated on the 

arguments regarding Commerce’s choice of surrogate 

values for carbonized material and truck freight. Because 

we find that substantial evidence supports Commerce’s 

calculation of the surrogate values for carbonized material 

and truck freight, we affirm the CIT’s decision sustaining 

the Final Results. 

 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 21 Filed: 08/03/2015
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JACOBI CARBONS AB, JACOBI CARBONS, INC.,

NINGXIA GUANGHUA CHERISHMET ACTIVATED

CARBON CO., LTD., CHERISHMET INC., BEIJING 

PACIFIC ACTIVATED CARBON PRODUCTS CO., 

LTD., DATONG MUNICIPAL YUNGUANG 

ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD., SHANXI 

INDUSTRY TECHNOLOGY TRADING CO., LTD., 

CARBON ACTIVATED CORPORATION, CAR GO 

WORLDWIDE, INC., TANGSHAN SOLID CARBON 

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, CALGON CARBON 

CORPORATION, NORIT AMERICAS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1752, -1753, -1754, -1756

______________________ 

BRYSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I agree with the majority that it was permissible for 

the Commerce Department to use Thai data as the basis 

for selecting a surrogate value for truck freight. As to the 

use of Philippine import data as the basis for the surrogate value for the carbonized materials used in the production of the subject imports, however, I do not agree. 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 22 Filed: 08/03/2015
2 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

The majority concludes that the Department’s decision can be upheld in light of the deference due to the 

agency in its valuation determinations and the plaintiffs’ 

failure to preserve their claims of error below. I part 

company with the majority on both points.

1. Waiver

The majority holds that two of the plaintiffs’ arguments have been waived because the plaintiffs failed to 

present evidence in support of those arguments to Commerce during the administrative review proceeding. The 

two arguments are (1) that the Philippine import data 

does not actually contain imports of coconut shell charcoal 

during the review period, and (2) that the Philippine 

import data is aberrational compared to data used in 

previous administrative reviews. 

The plaintiffs could no doubt have done a better job of 

making a record in this case on certain issues, such as 

whether the price listed in the Philippine publication 

Cocommunity, on which they rely, was a national price, 

rather than a regional price, and whether that price 

excluded duties and taxes. However, their failure to raise 

objections to the use of Philippine import data during the 

administrative review process is entirely understandable, 

because the Commerce Department did not indicate its 

intention to rely on that data at any point before issuing 

the final results in this case, at which point it was too late 

for the plaintiffs to object.

The Court of International Trade made exactly that 

point when it rejected the government’s waiver argument 

below. The court said: 

[I]t was not until after the submission of the parties’ case briefs that Commerce made its determination to select the Philippines as the primary 

surrogate country, and articulated its basis for its 

selection of sources to value carbonized material 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 23 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 3

and truck freight (i.e., Philippine HTS 4402 and 

Cost of Doing Business). It is simply too much to 

ask of the parties to anticipate (1) that Commerce 

would change the surrogate country between the 

preliminary and Final Results, (2) the reasons that 

the Department would state for deciding to change 

surrogate countries, and (3) precisely how Commerce would value the various inputs. Under similar circumstances, it has been held that a party “is 

not required to predict that Commerce would accept other parties’ arguments and change its decision.” Qingdao, 33 CIT at 1093, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 

1237. Accordingly, because plaintiffs had no realistic opportunity to present their arguments before 

the Department, the court finds that plaintiffs did 

not fail to exhaust their administrative remedies.

Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States, 992 F. Supp. 2d 

1360, 1367 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014). Accordingly, I conclude 

that the two arguments the majority characterizes as 

inadequately preserved below have not been waived.

2. Aberrational Data

Notwithstanding its waiver ruling, the majority addresses the merits of the plaintiffs’ contention that the 

Philippine import data is aberrational. 

The government argues that any apparent aberration 

in the data can be explained by the fact that the first 

through third reviews used India as a surrogate country 

whereas the fourth review used the Philippines. The 

majority correctly rejects that argument, recognizing that 

it is “unlikely that the switch from India to the Philippines could account for [the] dramatic change in pricing.” 

Nonetheless, the majority concludes that it was permissible for Commerce to disregard the discrepancy. 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 24 Filed: 08/03/2015
4 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

If we compare the surrogate values used in the various administrative reviews (including two more recent 

administrative reviews), it is clear the Philippine import 

data used in the administrative review at issue in this 

case departs wildly from the surrogate value relied on by 

Commerce in other administrative reviews in this case, so 

much so that it is highly suspect. Not only is the surrogate value derived from the Philippine import data much 

greater than the Indian data used in the first through 

third periods of review, but it is also significantly greater 

than the data used in the fifth and sixth periods of review, 

which used data from the Philippines. 

The surrogate value of $1203.80 per metric ton is almost three times as high as the highest other surrogate 

value determined in any of the other periods of review, 

and it is more than fourteen times as high as the surrogate value for the immediately preceding period of review. 

Meanwhile, the Cocommunity data on which the plaintiffs 

rely (indicated by “CoCo” in the table below), showed a 

price of $255 per metric ton, which was much more in line 

with the surrogate values found in the prior and subsequent administrative reviews. While there might in some 

circumstances be an explanation for data that is as grossly anomalous as the Philippine import data, no such 

explanation appears in the record in this case.

Period of 

Review Surrogate Value 

1st $32.99/MT

2nd

$66.256/MT (coconut shell charcoal);

$435.62/MT (coal-based carbonized

material)

3rd $83.45/MT

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 25 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 5

4th $1,203.80/MT

CoCo $255/MT

5th $391.67/MT

6th $346.25/MT

3. Specificity

The plaintiffs argue that the Cocommunity data is 

more specific than the Philippine import data because the 

Cocommunity data relates to coconut shell charcoal, while 

the Philippine import data relates to “Wood Charcoal 

(Including Shell or Nut Charcoal).” The plaintiffs contend 

that coconut shell charcoal is comparable to the coalbased charcoals used by the Chinese manufacturers, and 

that wood-based charcoal is not comparable to coconut 

shell or coal-based charcoal. The majority rejects the 

plaintiffs’ argument, finding that there is no express 

determination in the record that coconut shell charcoal is 

more comparable to coal-based charcoal than to wood 

charcoal. I believe the majority reads the available evidence too narrowly.

The majority quotes a statement made by Commerce

before the trial court in a previous administrative review: 

“[C]oconut shell charcoal shares similar properties with 

carbonized material and . . . those similar properties are 

essential in the production of activated carbon. The 

expert’s report found that coal-based carbonized materials 

used by Cherishmet and coconut shell charcoal are similar in porosity and adsorption, which are both properties 

essential in the production of activated carbon.” Final 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand at 

10–11, Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, No. 09-

00524 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 26, 2011), ECF No. 36 (footnotes omitted). While that statement was used to justify 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 26 Filed: 08/03/2015
6 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

the selection of coconut shell charcoal over “other cokes of 

coal,” the statement is pertinent in this case (where “other 

cokes of coal” are not involved) because it clearly states 

that coconut charcoal is comparable to coal-based charcoal. Because the evidence before Commerce established 

that coconut shell charcoal is comparable to coal-based 

charcoal, whereas the evidence does not show the same 

for wood-based charcoal, the Cocommunity data, which 

was directed to coconut shell charcoal, was more specific 

than the Philippine import data, which was directed to 

both wood-based charcoal and charcoal obtained from 

coconut shell.

4. Defects in the Cocommunity Data

Commerce found that the Cocommunity data was 

flawed in fundamental ways that rendered it unusable in 

determining surrogate value. The majority agrees. I do 

not regard the perceived flaws in the Cocommunity data 

as nearly so serious.

To begin with, it is true that the Cocommunity data is 

not a perfect match for the value of the carbonized materials used in the production of the plaintiffs’ products. 

But data used to calculate surrogate value seldom is. By 

its nature, such data is intended to serve as an approximation—as the “best available information.” 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677b(c)(1). In this case, however, the evidence fairly 

shouts that the Philippine import data used by the Commerce Department was not a good surrogate for the value 

of the carbonized materials used in manufacturing the 

subject imports. The flaws in the Cocommunity data are 

trivial in comparison. 

The aberrational nature of the surrogate value selected by Commerce should have given Commerce pause and 

caused it to evaluate the flaws it found in the competing 

Cocommunity data—that the Cocommunity price was not 

shown to be net of duties and taxes, and that the Cocommunity price was not shown to be a national price, as 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 27 Filed: 08/03/2015
JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 7

opposed to a regional price. Further consideration would 

have led Commerce to the following conclusions:

First, the Cocommunity price was necessarily exclusive of duties, since the price was for domestic product, 

not imported goods. 

Second, there was no evidence before Commerce that 

the Cocommunity price included taxes, and Jacobi represented to Commerce that it did not. But even if, contrary 

to Jacobi’s representations, the Cocommunity price included taxes, a higher price could only work to the detriment of the plaintiffs because it would increase the 

dumping margin, not reduce it. It does not make sense to 

refuse the plaintiffs’ request to use the Cocommunity data

on the ground that the data is subject to a flaw that might 

be prejudicial to them.

Third, the document from which the Cocommunity data was derived stated: “In the Philippines, the average 

price of coconut shall charcoal [for April 2010] was $230 

[per metric ton].”1 In the table that listed the prices, 

however, the reference to the Philippines was accompanied by a reference to “Visayas,” which is a region of the 

Philippines. While the document suggests that the price 

was a national price, the reference to “Visayas” provides 

some support for Commerce’s conclusion that the Cocommunity price is limited to the Visayas region of the Philippines. Even accepting that view of the evidence, 

however, it is highly unlikely that the price in that region 

is significantly different from the “national” price, since 

the Visayas region, as the trial court observed, is one of 

the three principal geographical divisions of the Philippines, occupying the entire central portion of the country. 

1 The evidence showed that the average price for the 

entire period of review was $255 per metric ton. 

 

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 28 Filed: 08/03/2015
8 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US

Finally, it is noteworthy that in the two subsequent 

administrative reviews (the fifth and sixth), Commerce 

selected the Cocommunity data over the Philippine import 

data, finding that the Cocommunity data was both representative (even though it referenced only a single region) 

and that it was exclusive of duties and taxes. 

A fair view of the Cocommunity data thus shows that 

any flaws with that data are modest. In light of the 

serious doubts raised by the use of the Philippine import 

data that includes wood charcoal and that produced a 

price far in excess of any price used by Commerce in 

earlier or later reviews of this antidumping duty order, I 

would hold that it was unreasonable for Commerce to 

reject the use of the Cocommunity data in favor of the 

Philippine import data in calculating the surrogate value 

for the carbonized materials used in producing the subject 

imports. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Case: 14-1752 Document: 110-2 Page: 29 Filed: 08/03/2015