70208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices 

1Norit Americas Inc. and Calgon Carbon 

Corporation. 

2See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

31690 (July 2, 2009). 

3See Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

47558 (September 16, 2009). 

This order is issued and published in 

accordance with section 706(a) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.211(b). 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

Carole A. Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29120 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–904] 

Certain Activated Carbon From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Second Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

second administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

activated carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Certain 

Activated Carbon From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Results of the Second Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, and 

Preliminary Rescission in Part, 75 FR 

26927 (May 13, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. Based upon our 

analysis of the comments and 

information received, we made changes 

to the margin calculations for the final 

results. We continue to find that certain 

exporters have sold subject merchandise 

at less than normal value during the 

period of review (‘‘POR’’), April 1, 2008, 

through March 31, 2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 17, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Palmer and Katie Marksberry, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–9068 and (202) 

482–7906 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 29, 2009, the Department 

initiated this review with respect to 187 

companies upon which an 

administrative review was requested. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 74 FR 25711 (May 29, 2009). 

Subsequently, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), the Department rescinded 

the administrative review with respect 

to 155 companies, based upon 

Petitioners’ 1 timely withdrawal of 

review requests.2 On September 16, 

2009, the Department rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to an 

additional 13 companies, based on 

Petitioners’ timely withdrawal of review 

requests.3 Thus, 19 companies remained 

subject to this review. 

On June 2, 2010, Jacobi Carbons AB 

(‘‘Jacobi’’) and Ningxia Huahui Activated 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huahui’’), the 

mandatory respondents in this review, 

and Petitioners submitted additional 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) information. On 

June 14, 2010, Petitioners submitted 

rebuttal SV information. 

At the Preliminary Results, we set the 

deadline for interested parties to submit 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs to June 14, 

2010, and June 21, 2010, respectively. 

On June 7, 2010, we extended the 

deadlines for case and rebuttal briefs to 

June 21, 2010, and June 28, 2010, 

respectively. Additionally, on June 25, 

2010, we extended the deadline for 

rebuttal briefs by an additional two days 

to June 30, 2010. On June 21, 2010, 

Petitioners, Jacobi, and Huahui filed 

case briefs. On June 21, 2010, Ningxia 

Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘GHC’’) filed comments on the 

Department’s wage rate methodology. 

On June 28, 2010, Shanxi DMD 

Corporation (‘‘Shanxi DMD’’) filed a 

rebuttal brief. On June 30, 2010, Huahui 

filed a rebuttal brief. On July 1, 2010, 

Jacobi and Petitioners filed rebuttal 

briefs. On August 3, 2010, the 

Department placed wage rate data to 

value the input of labor on the record 

for comment by interested parties. On 

September 27, 2010, the Department 

issued industry-specific wage rate data 

for comment. On October 4, 2010, the 

Department issued a memorandum 

regarding the Department’s industryspecific wage rate methodology for 

comment. On October 7, 2010, the 

Department issued a correction to the 

October 4, 2010, data. On October 4, 

2010, Huahui provided comments on 

the September 27, 2010, data. On 

October 13, 2010, Petitioners, Jacobi, 

and Huahui provided comments on the 

October 4, 2010, and October 7, 2010, 

memoranda. On October 18, 2010, 

Huahui provided rebuttal comments. 

The Department did not hold a public 

hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), 

as any hearing requests made by 

interested parties were withdrawn. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to these 

reviews are addressed in the ‘‘Certain 

Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Second Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review,’’ which is dated 

concurrently with this notice (‘‘Decision 

Memo’’). A list of the issues which 

parties raised and to which we respond 

in the Decision Memo is attached to this 

notice as an Appendix. The Decision 

Memo is a public document and is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, main 

Commerce building, Room 7046, and is 

accessible on the Department’s Web site 

at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is certain activated carbon. Certain 

activated carbon is a powdered, 

granular, or pelletized carbon product 

obtained by ‘‘activating’’ with heat and 

steam various materials containing 

carbon, including but not limited to coal 

(including bituminous, lignite, and 

anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive 

stones, and peat. The thermal and steam 

treatments remove organic materials and 

create an internal pore structure in the 

carbon material. The producer can also 

use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place of 

steam in this process. The vast majority 

of the internal porosity developed 

during the high temperature steam (or 

CO2 gas) activated process is a direct 

result of oxidation of a portion of the 

solid carbon atoms in the raw material, 

converting them into a gaseous form of 

carbon. 

The scope of the order covers all 

forms of activated carbon that are 

activated by steam or CO2, regardless of 

the raw material, grade, mixture, 

additives, further washing or postactivation chemical treatment (chemical 

or water washing, chemical 

impregnation or other treatment), or 

product form. Unless specifically 

excluded, the scope of the order covers 

all physical forms of certain activated 

carbon, including powdered activated 

carbon (‘‘PAC’’), granular activated 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices 70209 

4Petitioners and Jacobi both submitted Kalpalka’s 

2007–2008 financial statements in their postpreliminary SV submissions, which we will rely 

upon for the final results as they are more 

contemporaneous than the 2006–2007 Kalpalka 

financial statements. See Petitioners’ Post-Prelim 

SV Submission, dated June 2, 2010 at Attachment 

18; see also Jacobi’s Post-Prelim SV Submission, 

dated June 2, 2010 at Exhibit 1. 

5See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and 

Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546, 19549 (April 

22, 2002); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and the 

United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation of 

Orders in Part, 66 FR 36551 (July 12, 2001); Honey 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 38873 (July 6, 2005); 

and Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 34082 (June 13, 

2005). 

6See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Second Administrative Review, 72 FR 13242 (March 

21, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

7See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from, Bob 

Palmer, Case Analyst, Office 9, ‘‘Calculation of PerKilogram PRC–Wide Rate,’’ dated November 9, 

2010. 

8See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 20988 (April 27, 2007). 

carbon (‘‘GAC’’), and pelletized activated 

carbon. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are chemically activated carbons. The 

carbon-based raw material used in the 

chemical activation process is treated 

with a strong chemical agent, including 

but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc 

chloride sulfuric acid or potassium 

hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in 

the raw material, and results in the 

formation of water that is removed from 

the raw material by moderate heat 

treatment. The activated carbon created 

by chemical activation has internal 

porosity developed primarily due to the 

action of the chemical dehydration 

agent. Chemically activated carbons are 

typically used to activate raw materials 

with a lignocellulosic component such 

as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, 

paper mill waste and peat. 

To the extent that an imported 

activated carbon product is a blend of 

steam and chemically activated carbons, 

products containing 50 percent or more 

steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are 

within the scope, and those containing 

more than 50 percent chemically 

activated carbons are outside the scope. 

This exclusion language regarding 

blended material applies only to 

mixtures of steam and chemically 

activated carbons. 

Also excluded from the scope are 

reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons 

are previously used activated carbons 

that have had adsorbed materials 

removed from their pore structure after 

use through the application of heat, 

steam and/or chemicals. 

Also excluded from the scope is 

activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon 

cloth is a woven textile fabric made of 

or containing activated carbon fibers. It 

is used in masks and filters and clothing 

of various types where a woven format 

is required. 

Any activated carbon meeting the 

physical description of subject 

merchandise provided above that is not 

expressly excluded from the scope is 

included within the scope. The 

products subject to the order are 

currently classifiable under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 

3802.10.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on a review of the record as 

well as comments received from parties 

regarding our Preliminary Results, we 

have made revisions to certain SVs and 

the margin calculations for Jacobi and 

Huahui in the final results. Specifically, 

we have updated the SV for labor and 

the calculation of the surrogate financial 

ratios.4 See Decision Memo at Comment 

4. For all changes to the margin 

calculations, see Decision Memo and 

the company specific analysis 

memoranda. 

Wage Rate Methodology 

Pursuant to a recent decision by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit, we have calculated a 

revised hourly wage rate to use in 

valuing Jacobi’s and Huahui’s reported 

labor. The revised wage rate is 

calculated by averaging earnings and/or 

wages in countries that are 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and that are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. See Decision 

Memo at Comment 4f; see also 

Memorandum to the File, through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, Import Administration, from 

Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, Office 9, 

Import Administration, Subject: Second 

Administrative Review of Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Values for the Final 

Results, dated November 9, 2010, for the 

details of the calculation and supporting 

data. 

Per-Unit Assessment 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

analyzed Jacobi’s submitted entered 

values because Petitioners argued that 

the Department should calculate 

specific, per-kilogram cash deposit and 

importer-specific assessment rates for 

all respondents in this review based on 

an allegation that parties are selling the 

subject merchandise (or importing it) at 

prices significantly below prevailing 

market prices to evade assessment of 

antidumping duties. At the time of the 

Preliminary Results, we did not find 

that there was a substantial difference 

between the average U.S. sales price for 

activated carbon and the average 

entered value reported to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for 

Jacobi. However, since the Preliminary 

Results, Jacobi has submitted revised 

entered value data and, based on a 

further analysis of the record of this 

review, we have determined that there 

is a substantial difference between 

Jacobi’s net unit price for its entries of 

certain activated carbon and the entered 

value reported to CBP. While the 

Department normally directs CBP to 

collect cash deposits and liquidate 

entries on an ad valorem basis, we are 

not required to do so by statute or by 

our regulations, and have in the past 

used quantity-based rates where 

appropriate.5 Furthermore, the 

Department has determined in past 

cases that it would be extremely 

burdensome to determine whether to 

apply an ad valorem or a per-unit rate 

on a company-specific basis.6 Therefore, 

consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we are calculating per-unit 

cash deposit and assessment rates for 

the mandatory respondents, separate 

rate companies and companies that are 

part of the PRC-wide entity. See 

Decision Memo at Comment 3. To arrive 

at a per-kilogram rate for the PRC-wide 

rate entity, we began with the ad 

valorem PRC-wide rate of 228.11 

percent. The Department then 

multiplied the ad valorem rate of 228.11 

percent by the average unit value 

(‘‘AUV’’) for all imports of subject 

merchandise into the United States 

during the POR. For the PRC-wide 

entity, this calculation results in a perkilogram assessment rate of $2.42.7 The 

quantity-based collection and 

assessment method will begin upon 

completion of these final results, and 

will be employed thereafter for all 

future reviews of this order.8

Separate Rates 

In our Preliminary Results, we 

determined that the following 

companies met the criteria for separate 

rate status: Datong Juqiang Activated 

Carbon Co., Ltd., Datong Municipal 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices 

9 In the previous administrative review, the 

Department found Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon 

Products Co., Ltd., GHC, and Ningxia Guanghua 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. as a single entity and 

because there were no changes from the previous 

review, we will assign this rate to the companies 

in the single entity See Certain Activated Carbon 

From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Extension of Time 

Limits for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317 (May 7, 

2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of 

Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995 

(November 10, 2009). Additionally, in a previous 

review, the Department found that Cherishmet Inc. 

is affiliated with GHC, however, it has not been 

found to be part of the single entity. See 

Memorandum to The File, from Robert Palmer, Case 

Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 

Manager; regarding First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 

from the People’s Republic of China: Affiliation 

Memorandum of Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., dated April 30, 2009. 

Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., 

Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, 

Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.,9 Ningxia 

Mineral & Chemical Limited, Shanxi 

DMD, Shanxi Industry Technology 

Trading Co., Ltd., and Shanxi Qixian 

Foreign Trade Corporation. 

Additionally, in the Preliminary 

Results, we also noted that the 

Department received completed 

responses to the Section A portion of 

the non-market economy questionnaire 

from the individually reviewed 

respondents (Jacobi and Huahui), which 

contained information pertaining to the 

companies’ eligibility for a separate rate. 

With respect to Jacobi, we preliminarily 

determined that there is no PRC 

ownership of this company and, 

because the Department has no evidence 

indicating that Jacobi is under the 

control of the PRC, a separate rates 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control. With respect to 

Huahui, we preliminarily granted 

separate rate status to it based on the 

submitted information. We also 

preliminarily determined that one of the 

exporters under review not selected for 

individual examination, Tangshan Solid 

Carbon Co., Ltd., reported that it is 100- 

percent foreign owned. Accordingly, the 

Department also preliminarily granted 

separate rate status to Tangshan Solid 

Carbon Co. Ltd. See Preliminary Results. 

With the exception of comments 

regarding the Department’s treatment of 

Shanxi DMD, we have not received any 

information since the issuance of the 

Preliminary Results that provides a basis 

for the reconsideration of these 

preliminary determinations. Therefore, 

the Department continues to find that 

Jacobi, Huahui, Datong Juqiang 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Datong 

Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd., Jilin Bright Future Chemicals 

Company, Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua 

Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., 

Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited, 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading 

Co., Ltd., Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade 

Corporation, and Tangshan Solid 

Carbon Co., Ltd. meet the criteria for a 

separate rate. 

With respect to Shanxi DMD, for the 

Preliminary Results the Department 

found that Shanxi DMD had cooperated 

to the best of its ability and, 

accordingly, we did not apply adverse 

facts available (‘‘AFA’’) by assigning the 

PRC-wide rate to Shanxi DMD. Since 

the Preliminary Results, Petitioners filed 

comments in their case brief and Shanxi 

DMD filed a rebuttal brief concerning 

whether the Department should apply 

total AFA to Shanxi DMD for these final 

results. After full consideration of the 

facts on the record of this review, we 

have determined that it is not 

appropriate to apply total AFA to 

Shanxi DMD. Therefore, because we 

continue to find that Shanxi DMD 

cooperated to the best of its ability, we 

are continuing to grant Shanxi DMD 

separate rate status. For a full discussion 

of parties’ arguments and the 

Department’s position on this matter, 

please see Decision Memo at Comment 

10. 

Additionally, in the Preliminary 

Results, we stated that, United 

Manufacturing International (Beijing) 

Ltd. (‘‘UMI’’), Datong Yunguang 

Chemicals Plant, Hebei Foreign Trade 

and Advertising Corporation, and 

Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., all 

companies with an active review 

request, did not timely submit either a 

separate rate application or certification. 

Thus, we preliminarily determined that 

these companies did not demonstrate 

their eligibility for separate rate status, 

and were included as part of the PRCwide entity. See Preliminary Results at 

26932 and 26933. Because we have not 

received any information since the 

issuance of the Preliminary Results that 

provides a basis for a reconsideration of 

that finding, we continue to find UMI, 

Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant, 

Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising 

Corporation, and Shanxi Newtime Co., 

Ltd., did not meet the criteria for a 

separate rate for the final results. Thus, 

these companies will be subject to the 

PRC-wide entity rate. 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department determined that those 

companies which did not demonstrate 

eligibility for a separate rate are 

properly considered part of the PRCwide entity. Since the Preliminary 

Results, none of the companies which 

did not file separate rate applications or 

certifications submitted comments 

regarding these findings. Therefore, we 

continue to treat these entities as part of 

the PRC-wide entity. 

Final Partial Rescission 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily rescinded this 

review with respect to Ningxia 

Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Lingzhou’’) because the Department 

preliminarily determined that it had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. 

Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, 

Petitioners pointed out that Lingzhou 

submitted its certification of no 

shipments past the deadline established 

by the Department. However, no party 

submitted information on the record 

indicating that Lingzhou made sales to 

the United States of subject 

merchandise during the POR. The 

Department acknowledges that it erred 

in not noticing the submission was late 

and rejecting it at the time of filing. 

However, because the Department 

actually reviewed the submission, 

confirmed with CBP that Lingzhou did 

not have any shipments during the 

instant POR, and preliminarily 

rescinded the review with respect to 

Lingzhou, the Department now finds 

that it would be unfair to the respondent 

to reject the submission for being 

untimely filed it after it has been on the 

record for over a year. Therefore, in this 

particular instance, the Department will 

allow Lingzhou’s no shipment 

certification to remain on the record. 

Thus, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our 

practice, we are rescinding this review 

with respect to Lingzhou. For a full 

discussion of parties’ comments and the 

Department’s determination with regard 

to Lingzhou’s no shipments 

certification, see Decision Memo at 

Comment11. 

Duty Absorption 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

conducted a duty absorption inquiry 

with regard to Jacobi, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), and 

preliminarily found that Jacobi has 

absorbed antidumping duties on U.S. 

sales made through its affiliated 

importer. See Preliminary Results. We 

have not received any further 

information which would provide a 

basis for the reconsideration of our 

determination. Therefore, the 

Department continues to find that Jacobi 

has absorbed antidumping duties on 

U.S. sales made through its affiliated 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices 70211 

14We divided the total dumping margins 

(calculated as the difference between normal value 

and export price or constructed export price) for 

each importer by the total quantity of subject 

merchandise sold to that importer during the POR 

to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. 

importer, pursuant to section 751(a)(4) 

of the Act. 

Final Results of Review 

The dumping margins for the POR are 

as follows: 

CERTAIN ACTIVATED CARBON FROM

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Margin 10

(dollars per 

kilogram) 

Jacobi Carbons AB11 ........... 0.11 

Ningxia Huahui Activated 

Carbon Co., Ltd ................ 0.44 

Datong Juqiang Activated 

Carbon Co., Ltd ................ 0.28 

Datong Municipal Yunguang 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 0.28 

Jilin Bright Future Chemicals 

Company, Ltd .................... 0.28 

Ningxia Guanghua 

Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 12 .................. 0.28 

Ningxia Mineral & Chemical 

Limited ............................... 0.28 

Shanxi DMD Corporation ..... 0.28 

Shanxi Industry Technology 

Trading Co., Ltd ................ 0.28 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade 

Corporation ....................... 0.28 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., 

Ltd ..................................... 0.28 

PRC–Wide Rate 13 ............... 2.42 

10For the separate rate calculation, see 

Memorandum to the File, from Bob Palmer, 

Case Analyst Office IX, re: Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results Simple-Average Per-Unit Rate 

for Separate Rate Respondents, dated November 9, 2010. 11 In the Preliminary Results, we found that 

Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) (‘‘JCC’’) and 

Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Tianjin Jacobi’’) both act as export facilitators 

for Jacobi Carbons AB. Therefore, as we have 

done in earlier segments of this antidumping 

duty order, we are continuing to find it appropriate that Jacobi Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi 

and JCC receive the antidumping duty rate assigned to Jacobi Carbons AB. 12As stated above, GHC is a single entity 

with Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products 

Co., Ltd. and Ningxia Guanghua Activated 

Carbon Co., Ltd. 13As discussed in the Separate Rates section of this notice, the PRC–Wide entity includes Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant, 

Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., and United 

Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b). We have calculated 

importer-specific duty assessment rates 

on a per-unit basis.14 In this and future 

reviews, we will direct CBP to assess 

importer-specific assessment rates based 

on the resulting per-unit (i.e., perkilogram) rates by the weight in 

kilograms of each entry of the subject 

merchandise during the POR. The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of the final 

results of this administrative review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for each of the reviewed 

companies that received a separate rate 

in this review will be the rate listed in 

the final results of review (except that 

if the rate for a particular company is de 

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no 

cash deposit will be required for that 

company); (2) for previously 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period of review; (3) if 

the exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the original 

less than fair value investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will be the PRC-wide rate 

of $2.42 per kilogram. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

administrative review and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: November 9, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Decision Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Assignment of Combination 

Rates 

Comment 2: Treatment of Sales with 

Negative Margins 

Comment 3: Per-Unit Assessment Rates 

Comment 4: Surrogate Values 

a. Coconut Shell Charcoal 

b. Steam Coal 

c. Electricity 

d. Steam 

e. Expense Exclusion in Kalpalka Financial 

Ratios 

f. Wage Rate Methodology 

Company-Specific Issues 

Jacobi 

Comment 5: Issues Regarding Ningxia 

Guanghua Activated Carbon 

a. Facts Available for Water 

b. Transport Bag Surrogate Value 

Comment 6: Corrections to Submitted Data 

a. Treatment of Indirect Labor 

b. Treatment of U.S. Indirect Selling 

Expenses 

Comment 7: Freight Revenue Expense 

Calculation 

Huahui 

Comment 8: Ministerial Error for Truck 

Freight Unit of Measure 

Comment 9: Treatment of Domestic Freight 

Expenses 

Shanxi DMD 

Comment 10: Application of Total Adverse 

Facts Available 

Ningxia Lingzhou 

Comment 11: Status of No Shipment 

Certification 

[FR Doc. 2010–29017 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES