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 second redetermination in antidumping duty review sustained.] 

Dated: January 27, 2017 

David A. Hartquist, John M. Herrmann, II, Melissa M. Brewer, and R. Alan Luberda, 

Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. 

Peter A. Gwynne, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With him on the brief were Benjamin 

C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and 

Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Michael T. Gagain, Attorney, 

Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement 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 Alexandra H. Salzman, deKieffer & Horgan 

PLLC, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor Carbon Activated Corporation.

Daniel L. Porter, Claudia D. Hartleben, and Tung A. Nguyen, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, 

Colt & Mosle LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors Jacobi Carbons AB and 

Jacobi Carbons, Inc.

Restani, Judge: This matter is before the court following a second remand to the United 

States Department of Commerce (“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 Commerce’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 the rate ultimately assigned to Shanxi DMD.” Id. at *3; see also

Calgon I, 145 F. Supp. 3d at 1319–23 (discussing the separate rate issue).

In the Final Results of [Second] Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand 5–6, ECF 

No. 128 (“Second Remand Results”), Commerce relied on its import volume selection 

methodology to select an SV for anthracite coal of $0.19 per kilogram, using Global Trade Atlas 
Consol. 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 remanded Commerce’s selection of an SV for anthracite coal.

Initially, it remanded Commerce’s selection of the $0.05 per kilogram SV based on Philippine 

GTA data contemporaneous with the preceding fifth 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 kilogram SV based on POR6-contemporaneous Thai 

GTA data in the Final Results of [First] Redetermination Pursuant 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. Second Remand Results at 6–7. As a result of these changes, 

Commerce also recalculated the separate rate margin and applied a margin of $0.22 per kilogram 

for all separate rate companies, including 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 partLHV 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 Commerce’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 Results comply with the court’s remand order and are 

supported by substantial evidence. First, Commerce relied on the POR6-contemporaneous 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. Commerce 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, Commerce 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 margin of $0.22 per kilogram for all separate rate 

companies).

For these reasons, the court sustains Commerce’s Second Remand Results. Judgment 

will enter accordingly. 

/s/ Jane A. Restani 

Jane A. Restani

 Judge 

Dated: January 27, 2017 

New York, New York