[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70208-70211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29017]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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351.213(d)(1), the Department rescinded the administrative review with 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of review requests.\2\ On September 16, 2009, the Department rescinded 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Norit Americas Inc. and Calgon Carbon Corporation.
    \2\ See 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).
    \3\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 industry-specific 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 (CO<INF>2</INF>) in place 
of steam in this process. The vast majority of the internal porosity 
developed during the high temperature steam (or CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF>, regardless of the raw 
material, grade, mixture, additives, further washing or post-activation 
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

[[Page 70209]]

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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Petitioners and Jacobi both submitted Kalpalka's 2007-2008 
financial statements in their post-preliminary 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 per-kilogram 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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).
    \6\ See 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.
    \7\ See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from, Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, Office 9, 
``Calculation of Per-Kilogram PRC-Wide Rate,'' dated November 9, 
2010.
    \8\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Activated 
Carbon From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 20988 (April 27, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 70210]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PRC-wide 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 PRC-wide 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

[[Page 70211]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Margin \10\
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                    (dollars per
                                                             kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobi Carbons AB \11\..................................            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               0.28
 \12\...................................................
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For 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.
\12\ As stated above, GHC is a single entity with Beijing Pacific
  Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. and Ningxia Guanghua Activated
  Carbon Co., Ltd.
\13\ As 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., per-kilogram) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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