Slip Op. 17-6
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CALGON CARBON CORPORATION, and CABOT NORIT AMERICAS, INC., Plaintiffs,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, ALBEMARLE CORPORATION, NINGXIA HUAHUI ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD., NINGXIA GUANGHUA CHERISHMET ACTIVATED CARBON COMPANY, LTD., CARBON ACTIVATED CORPORATION, JACOBI CARBONS AB, and JACOBI CARBONS, INC., Defendant-Intervenors. Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge
Consol. Court No. 14-00326

OPINION [Commerce’s final results of se cond redetermination in antidum ping duty review sustained.] Dated: January 27, 2017 David A. Hartquist, John M. Herrmann, II, Me lissa M. Brewer, and R. Alan Luberda, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. Peter A. Gwynne, Trial Atto rney, Commercial Litigation Br anch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for de fendant. With him on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke, Assistant Direct or. Of counsel on the brief was Michael T. Gagain, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enfor cement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC. Jeffrey S. Grimson, Jill A. Cramer, Kristin H. Mowry, Sarah M. Wyss, Yuzhe PengLing, and James C. Beaty, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors Albemarle Corporation and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.Consol. Court No. 14-00326 Page 2
Francis J. Sailer and Dharmendra N. Choudary, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Company, Ltd. Gregory S. Menegaz, J. Kevin Horgan, and Al exandra H. Salzman, deKieffer & Horgan PLLC, of Washington, DC, for defendant- intervenor Carbon Activated Corporation. Daniel L. Porter, Claudia D. Hartleben, an d Tung A. Nguyen, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, of Washington, DC, for defe ndant-intervenors Jac obi Carbons AB and Jacobi Carbons, Inc.
Restani, Judge: This matter is before the court following a second remand to the United States Department of Commer ce (“Commerce”) in Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 16-107, 2016 WL 6819732 (Nov. 18, 2016) (“Calgon II ”). The court presumes familiarity with its prior decisions concerning the sixth annual administrative review of the antidumping (“AD”) duty order on certain activated carbon from the People’s Republic of China. Id.; Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1328 (CIT 2016) (“Calgon I”). In Calgon II, the court remanded to Commerce its selection of a surrogate value (“SV”) for anthracite coal to either “further explain[] its selection methodology and bas[e] that explanation on the record evidence” or “choos[e] its other selection methodology based on import volume.” 2016 WL 6819732, at *13. And, although the court sustained Comme rce’s assignment of a separate rate to Shanxi DMD Corporation (“Shanxi DMD”), it clarified that if Commerce changed its selection of an SV for anthracite coal, then “any resulting changes resulting to the value of the separate rate should be reflected in th e rate ultimately assigned to Shanxi DMD.” Id. at *3; see also Calgon I, 145 F. Supp. 3d at 1319–23 (discussi ng the separate rate issue). In the Final Results of [Second] Redeter mination Pursuant to Court Remand 5–6, ECF No. 128 (“Second Remand Resu lts”), Commerce relied on its import volume selection methodology to select an SV for anthracite co al of $0.19 per kilogram, using Global Trade AtlasConsol. Court No. 14-00326 Page 3
(“GTA”) data from South Africa that is contemporaneous with the present sixth period of review (“POR6-contemporaneous”). See Calgon II, 2016 WL 6819732, at *9. By comparison, the court had twice previously re manded Commerce’s sel ection of an SV for anthracite coal. Initially, it remanded Co mmerce’s selection of the $0.05 per kilogram SV based on Philippine GTA data contemporaneous with the preceding fif th POR in Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012- 2013, 79 Fed. Reg. 70,163, 70,163 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 25, 2014) and later remanded Commerce’s selection of the $0.33 per kilogramSV based on POR6-contemporaneous Thai GTA data in the Final Results of [First] Redetermination Purs uant to Court Remand, ECF No. 97. Due to its current use of the POR6-contemporaneous South African GTA data, Commerce calculated an AD duty margin for both mandatory respondents, resulting in a margin of $0.18 per kilogram for Jacobi Carbons AB and $0.28 per kilogram for Ningxia Guanhua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. S econd Remand Results at 6–7. As a result of these changes, Commerce also recalculated the sepa rate rate margin and applied a margin of $0.22 per kilogram for all separate rate companies, in cluding Shanxi DMD. Id. at 5, 11–12. Before the court, no party filed comments challenging Commerce’s Second Remand Results. Instead, defendant-intervenors Albemarle Corporation and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. were the only part LHV to timely file comments, 1 in which they “concur[red] with . . . Commerce’s Second Remand Results” and “request[ed] that the Court affirm Commerce’s Second Remand Results on an expedited basis.” Def.-Intrvnrs. Albemarle Corp. & Ningxia

1 The deadline to file objections to Commer ce’s Second Remand Results was January 23, 2017. Calgon II, 2016 WL 6819732, at *13.Consol. Court No. 14-00326 Page 4

Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. Cmts. on Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand 1, ECF No. 130. Commerce’s Second Remand Resu lts comply with the court’s remand order and are supported by substantial evidence. First, Co mmerce relied on the POR6-c ontemporaneous South African GTA data for anthracite coal as the best available information by using a tie-breaking selection methodology based on import volume to select between equally reliable SV data sources. Second Remand Results at 5. Comme rce properly reasoned that under this methodology South Africa had the highest volume of imports of anthracite coal during the POR, thereby “demonstrat[ing] a much broader market average for this input” as compared to other potential SV sources. Id. at 5–6 & n.26. Second, Co mmerce complied with the court’s direction to recalculate the separate rate, resulting from any changes due to the selection of a new SV for anthracite coal. Id. at 5, 11–12 (calculating a marg in of $0.22 per kilogram for all separate rate companies). For these reasons, the court sustains Co mmerce’s Second Remand Results. Judgment will enter accordingly. /s/ Jane A. Restani Jane A. Restani Judge Dated: January 27, 2017 New York, New York