Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 26927 

1Norit Americas Inc. and Calgon Carbon 

Corporation. 

2These companies are: Datong Municipal 

Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Datong 

Yunguang Chemicals Plant; Datong Juqiang 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Cherishment Inc.; Hebei 

Foreign Trade Advertisement Company; Ningxia 

Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia 

Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral 

& Chemical Limited.; Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., 

Ltd.; Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.; 

Jacobi Carbons AB; Tianjin Jacobi International 

Trading Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Beijing Pacific 

Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Qixian 

Foreign Trade Corporation; Shanxi Newtime Co., 

Ltd.; Shanxi DMD Corporation; Shanxi Industry 

Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; and United 

Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. 

3Companies have the opportunity to submit 

statements certifying that they did not ship the 

subject merchandise to the United States during the 

POR. 

4See Letter from the Department to United 

Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. dated 

April 5, 2010. 5See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding 

respondent selection, in general. 

Dated: May 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11463 Filed 5–12–10; 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: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the Second 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, and Preliminary Rescission in 

Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the second 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

activated carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period 

April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by the 

respondents examined in this 

administrative review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Palmer or Kathleen Marksberry, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–9068 or (202) 482– 

7906, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department received timely 

requests by Petitioners 1 and certain PRC 

and other companies, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the 

anniversary month of April, to conduct 

a review of certain activated carbon 

producers and/or exporters from the 

PRC. On May 29, 2009, the Department 

initiated this review with respect to all 

requested companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 25711 

(May 29, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On June 18, 2009, Petitioners 

withdrew the request for review with 

respect to 155 of the 187 originally 

requested companies. On July 2, 2009, 

the Department published a notice of 

rescission in the Federal Register for 

those 155 companies for which the 

request for review was withdrawn. 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) (‘‘First Rescission’’). On 

August 21, 2009, Petitioners withdrew 

the request for review with respect to an 

additional thirteen companies. On 

September 16, 2009, the Department 

published a second notice of rescission 

in the Federal Register for those 

thirteen companies. 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) (‘‘Second 

Rescission’’). Following the two partial 

rescissions, nineteen companies 

remained subject to this review.2 On 

September 11, 2009, Ningxia Lingzhou 

Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Lingzhou’’) 

submitted a letter certifying it had no 

shipments during the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’).3

On March 4, 2010, nine months after 

the publication of the Initiation Notice, 

United Manufacturing International 

(Beijing) Ltd. (‘‘UMI’’) requested 

permission to file a late separate rate 

certification, because UMI asserted that 

it was not properly served notice of this 

review at the time that the request was 

made by Petitioners. The Department 

fully considered UMI’s request in light 

of UMI not being properly served with 

Petitioners’ request. However, it is the 

Department’s practice that the Initiation 

Notice constitutes public notice to all 

potential separate rate applicants of the 

initiation of an investigation or review 

and the deadline for providing separate 

rate information. Based upon this 

practice, the Department concludes that 

because UMI did not file a separate rate 

certification in a timely manner or 

request an extension within the time 

period for filing a separate rate 

certification, we are not now granting 

additional time for UMI to file a 

separate rate certification in this 

review.4

On November 24, 2009, the 

Department published a notice 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results by 120 days to 

April 30, 2009. See Certain Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

61330 (November 24, 2009). 

Additionally, as explained in the 

memorandum from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, the Department has 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5, 

through February 12, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. Pursuant to that memorandum, all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

preliminary results of this review is now 

May 7, 2010. 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise.5 However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in the review. 

On May 29, 2009, the Department 

released CBP data for entries of the 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) to all 

interested parties having access to 

materials released under APO inviting 

comments regarding the CBP data and 

respondent selection. On June 4, 2009, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
26928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 

6See letter to All Interested Parties from 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office IX, 

dated June 4, 2009. 

7See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9; 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Activated Carbon From the PRC: Selection 

of Respondents for Individual Review, dated 

August 10, 2009 (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

8See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Katie 

Marksberry, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, Office 9; Administrative Review of Certain 

Activated Carbon From the PRC: Selection of 

Additional Mandatory Respondent, dated 

September 18, 2009 (‘‘Additional Respondent 

Selection Memo’’). 

9See Letter from the Department to Shanxi DMD 

Corporation, regarding Second Administrative 

Review of Certain Activated Carbon From the 

People’s Republic of China: Respondent Selection 

Comments (July 13, 2009); see also Letter From the 

Department to Jacobi, regarding Second 

Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 

From the People’s Republic of China: Respondent 

Selection Comments (July 13, 2009). 

10See Memorandum to the File, from Katie 

Marksberry, Case Analyst Office IX, re: Shanxi DMD 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Entry 

Documentation, dated December 1, 2009. 11See Respondent Selection Memo at 8–9. 

the Department extended the deadline 

for comments regarding the CBP data.6

The Department received comments and 

rebuttal comments between June 15, 

2009 and July 21, 2009. 

On August 10, 2009, the Department 

issued its respondent selection 

memorandum after assessing its 

resources, considering the number of 

individual producers and/or exporters 

of activated carbon for which a review 

had been requested, and determining 

that it could reasonably examine two 

exporters subject to this review. 

Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the 

Act, the Department selected Jacobi 

Carbons AB (‘‘Jacobi’’) and Calgon 

Carbon (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. (‘‘CCT’’) as 

mandatory respondents.7 The 

Department sent its antidumping 

questionnaire to CCT and Jacobi on 

August 10, 2009. On August 19, 2009, 

CCT withdrew its request for review, 

and on August 21, 2009, Petitioners 

withdrew their request for review of 

CCT. Since both withdrawal requests 

were timely, and no other party 

requested a review of CCT, in 

accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations, the 

Department rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

CCT. See Second Rescission. 

Consequently, on September 18, 2009, 

in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of 

the Act and because the Department 

determined it could review two 

mandatory respondents, the Department 

selected Ningxia Huahui Activated 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huahui’’) for 

individual examination in this review 

because Huahui was the next largest 

exporter by volume during the POR, 

based on CBP data of U.S. imports.8

Treatment of Shanxi DMD Corporation 

(‘‘Shanxi DMD’’) 

On June 19, 2009, in comments 

regarding the CBP data placed on the 

record for respondent selection, Shanxi 

DMD argued that the CBP data used in 

respondent selection overstated the total 

volume of its POR entries of subject 

merchandise. Additionally, Shanxi 

DMD claimed that it had sales of nonsubject merchandise during the POR 

which fell under the same Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule subheading as the 

subject merchandise. On July 13, 2009, 

the Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Shanxi DMD requesting 

that Shanxi DMD provide sales and 

shipment data for the POR and for a 

period of two months preceding the 

POR to estimate entries made during the 

POR.9 On July 20, 2009, the Department 

received a response from Shanxi DMD 

containing sales and shipment data for 

the POR and the two months preceding 

the POR. Based upon Shanxi DMD’s 

response to our questionnaire, the 

Department selected Jacobi and Huahui 

as mandatory respondents in this 

administrative review. The Department 

requested from CBP entry 

documentation for all entries made by 

Shanxi DMD and on December 1, 2009, 

placed that entry documentation on the 

record and requested comments from 

interested parties.10 The POR entry data 

the Department received from CBP 

differed from the data provided by 

Shanxi DMD. Parties submitted 

comments and rebuttal comments on 

the CBP entry documentation between 

December 11, 2009 and December 28, 

2009. 

Shanxi DMD explains that it provided 

POR quantity and value data by 

purchase order and invoice date because 

these dates are normally used to 

establish the legal date of sale, and that 

date of sale is used to determine the 

sales universe for any respondent in any 

investigation or review. Additionally, 

Shanxi DMD contends that its invoice 

date is the correct date of sale and that 

Shanxi DMD provided to the 

Department a table with shipment dates 

and invoice dates of invoices dating 

backwards 60 days prior to the POR. 

Shanxi DMD contends that there is 

nothing in the December 1, 2009 CBP 

release that contradicts the earlier data 

submissions of Shanxi DMD. 

Petitioners argue the Department 

should apply total adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) to Shanxi DMD 

because CBP entry documentation 

demonstrates that Shanxi DMD 

underreported its total POR entry 

volume, and Petitioners contend that 

Shanxi DMD was attempting to 

manipulate the respondent selection 

process. Petitioners argue that the 

Department’s selection of mandatory 

respondents is dependent on the 

volume of subject merchandise sold by 

the respondents that entered the United 

States during the POR. Instead, 

Petitioners argue, Shanxi DMD limited 

its reporting to only sales that were 

invoiced during the POR in order to 

avoid selection as a mandatory 

respondent. Therefore, Petitioners 

conclude that the Department should 

apply the PRC-wide rate to Shanxi DMD 

as AFA because Shanxi DMD did not 

address certain entry documents that 

indicate that it underreported its POR 

exports to the United States. 

In the Respondent Selection Memo, 

the Department determined to use 

Shanxi DMD’s submitted sales and 

shipment data, based on the data 

available at the time, because the 

Department determined the data to be a 

more accurate approximation of Shanxi 

DMD’s entries during the POR. 11 After 

receiving CBP entry documentation, it 

became clear that Shanxi DMD’s claims 

about the inaccuracy of CBP data at the 

time of respondent selection were 

unfounded. However, Shanxi DMD did 

provide the Department with all the 

information requested and in a timely 

manner. Therefore, because Shanxi 

DMD cooperated with the Department 

in providing all the requested 

information, application of total AFA 

would be inappropriate and contrary to 

the Act. Accordingly, we are not 

applying the PRC-wide rate to Shanxi 

DMD as total adverse facts available. 

Per-Unit Assessment 

On December 22, 2009, Petitioners 

requested the Department calculate 

specific, per-kilogram cash deposit and 

importer-specific assessment rates for 

all respondents in this review, because 

Petitioners allege parties are selling the 

subject merchandise (or importing it) at 

prices significantly below prevailing 

market prices to evade assessment of 

antidumping duties. See Petitioners’ 

Request for Establishment of Specific 

Rates, dated December 22, 2009 at 2. 

Petitioners state that because the 

Department calculates antidumping 

duty margins on a U.S. price that is 

different from the entered value, this 

results in an under collection of duties 

if the importer reports an improperly 

low entered value. Petitioners argue that 

per-unit assessment rates do not 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 26929 

12See Petitioners’ Request for Establishment of 

Specific Rates, dated December 22, 2009 at 

Attachment I. 13Published by Global Trade Information 

Services, Inc. 

prejudice respondents in anyway and 

that the per-unit assessment rate 

prevents the potential for abuse. 

Petitioners used the Global Trade 

Information Services, Inc. (‘‘World Trade 

Atlas’’ or ‘‘WTA’’) average unit value 

(‘‘AUV’’) of U.S. imports of activated 

carbon from the PRC to determine if the 

per-unit price of sales made by 

respondents indicates that those 

respondents are undervaluing their 

shipments to lower the antidumping 

duty deposits at the U.S. port of entry.12

The Department has analyzed the 

information on the record of this review 

submitted by Jacobi, the only 

respondent who submitted the entered 

value of its U.S. sales. Based on this 

analysis, the Department has not found 

that there is a substantial difference 

between the average U.S. sales price for 

activated carbon and the average 

entered value reported to CBP for Jacobi. 

See 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) (‘‘Honey 2005’’) and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 7. Normally, 

the difference between entered value 

and the U.S. prices is relatively small, 

as in this case. See id. With regard 

Huahui, who did not report entered 

value because its sales were made on an 

EP basis, the Department finds that a 

comparison of its gross unit price and 

the WTA data 13 for U.S. imports of 

activated carbon from the PRC, which 

Petitioners provided, is not appropriate. 

This is because that HTS category is a 

basket category that includes nonsubject merchandise and Petitioners 

could not provide evidence that the 

non-subject merchandise was removed. 

Therefore, a comparison would not be 

on an apples-to-apples basis. 

Therefore, because there is 

insufficient evidence on the record to 

warrant a change to a per-unit importerspecific assessment and cash deposit 

rate, the Department preliminarily 

determines that it will continue to 

calculate ad valorem cash deposit and 

importer-specific assessment rates as in 

the past review. 

Questionnaires 

On August 10, 2009, the Department 

issued its initial non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) antidumping duty 

questionnaire to the mandatory 

respondent Jacobi. On September 21, 

2009, the Department issued its initial 

NME antidumping duty questionnaire to 

the mandatory respondent Huahui. 

Huahui and Jacobi timely responded to 

the Department’s initial and subsequent 

supplemental questionnaires between 

September 2009 and April 2010. 

Period of Review 

The POR is April 1, 2008, through 

March 31, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this 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 this 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 this order covers 

all physical forms of certain activated 

carbon, including powdered activated 

carbon (‘‘PAC’’), granular activated 

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 this scope, and those containing 

more than 50 percent chemically 

activated carbons are outside this 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 this 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 this order is 

dispositive. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission 

As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section above, Lingzhou filed a no 

shipment certification indicating that it 

did not export subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. In 

order to examine this claim, we 

reviewed the CBP data used for 

respondent selection and found no 

discrepancies with the statement made 

by Lingzhou. Additionally, we sent an 

inquiry to CBP asking if any CBP office 

had any information contrary to the no 

shipments claim, and to alert the 

Department within ten days of receiving 

our inquiry. CBP received our inquiry 

on September 30, 2009. We have not 

received a response from CBP with 

regard to our inquiry which indicates 

that CBP did not have information that 

was contrary to the claim of Lingzhou. 

Therefore, because the record indicates 

that Lingzhou did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR, we are preliminarily 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to this company. See, e.g., 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
26930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 

14See the Department’s Letter to All Interested 

Parties; Second Administrative Review of Certain 

Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of 

China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 

Surrogate Value Comments, dated September 30, 

2009, at Attachment I (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

15See the Department’s Letter to All Interested 

Parties; Second Administrative Review of Certain 

Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of 

China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 

Surrogate Value Comments, dated September 30, 

2009. 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Third Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), 

unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission, 73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 

24, 2008) (‘‘Third Fish Fillets Review’’). 

Non-Market Economy (‘‘NME’’) Country 

Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). None of the parties to this 

proceeding has contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, the Department 

continues to treat the PRC as an NME 

and calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country and 

available information does not permit 

the Department to determine NV, 

pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, 

then, pursuant to section 773(c)(1), the 

Department determines NV on the basis 

of the factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) 

utilized in producing the merchandise. 

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act directs the 

Department to value an NME producer’s 

FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or 

more market-economy countries that (1) 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country, 

and (2) are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. Pursuant to 

this statutory directive, the Department 

determined that India, Indonesia, 

Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, and 

Peru are countries comparable to the 

PRC in terms of economic 

development.14

On September 30, 2009, the 

Department sent interested parties a 

letter inviting comments on surrogate 

country selection and information 

regarding valuing factors of 

production.15 On February 24, 2010, the 

Department received information to 

value FOPs from Huahui, Jacobi, and 

Petitioners. On March 8, 2010, Huahui 

and Petitioners filed rebuttal surrogate 

value comments. All the surrogate 

values placed on the record were 

obtained from sources in India. No 

parties provided comments with respect 

to selection of a surrogate country. 

Based on publicly available 

information placed on the record (e.g., 

production data), the Department 

determines India to be a reliable source 

for surrogate values because India is at 

a comparable level of economic 

development to the PRC pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 

significant producer of subject 

merchandise, and has publicly available 

and reliable data for which to value the 

respondents’ FOPs. Accordingly, the 

Department has selected India as the 

surrogate country for purposes of 

valuing the FOPs because it meets the 

Department’s criteria for surrogate 

country selection. 

Duty Absorption 

On June 29, 2009, Petitioners 

requested that the Department 

determine whether antidumping duties 

had been absorbed for U.S. sales of 

certain activated carbon made during 

the POR by the respondents selected for 

review. If a duty absorption inquiry is 

requested, section 751(a)(4) of the Act 

directs the Department to determine 

during an administrative review 

initiated two or four years after 

publication of the order, whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by a foreign producer or exporter, if the 

subject merchandise is sold in the 

United States through an affiliated 

importer. Because the antidumping duty 

order underlying this review was issued 

in 2007, and this review was initiated in 

2009, the request for the Department to 

conduct a duty absorption inquiry is 

timely requested. Therefore, we are 

conducting a duty absorption inquiry 

for this segment of the proceeding 

pursuant to the Petitioners request. 

Petitioners requested that the 

Department investigate whether Jacobi 

Carbons AB, Ningxia Guanghua 

Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., 

a separate rate company in this review, 

and any other separate rate company 

with affiliated U.S. importers had 

absorbed duties. As discussed above 

and pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B), 

because of the large number of 

companies subject to this review, the 

Department selected two companies as 

mandatory respondents and thus only 

issued its complete questionnaire to 

these two companies. In determining 

whether antidumping duties have been 

absorbed, the Department requires 

certain specific data (i.e., U.S. sales 

data) to ascertain whether those sales 

have been made at less than NV. Since 

U.S. sales data are only obtained from 

the complete questionnaire (i.e., only 

mandatory respondents submit U.S. 

sales data), and no other companies 

were required to provide U.S. sales data, 

we do not have the information 

necessary to assess whether any other 

companies absorbed duties. 

Accordingly, for those companies not 

selected as mandatory respondents, we 

cannot make duty absorption 

determinations with respect to those 

companies. Therefore, between Jacobi 

and Huahui, Jacobi is the only 

mandatory respondent with an affiliated 

importer in the United States, as 

required by section 751(a)(4) of the Act. 

In determining whether the 

respondent has absorbed antidumping 

duties, we make a rebuttable 

presumption that the duties will be 

absorbed for constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) sales that have been made at less 

than NV. This presumption can be 

rebutted with evidence (e.g., an 

agreement between the affiliated 

importer and unaffiliated purchaser) 

that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay 

the full duty ultimately assessed on the 

subject merchandise. See, e.g., Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind 

in Part, 70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 

2005); unchanged in Notice of Final 

Results and Final Rescission in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, 70 FR 

73727 (December 13, 2005). 

On January 28, 2010, the Department 

sent Jacobi a letter requesting Jacobi to 

provide evidence to demonstrate that its 

unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately 

pay any antidumping duties assessed on 

entries during the POR. Jacobi did not 

provide any such evidence as it did not 

submit a response to our request. 

Because Jacobi did not rebut the duty 

absorption presumption with evidence 

that the unaffiliated U.S. purchaser will 

pay the full duty ultimately assessed on 

the subject merchandise, we 

preliminarily find that Jacobi has 

absorbed antidumping duties on all U.S. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 26931 

16See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Activated Carbon From the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 59721 (October 

11, 2006); unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

9508 (March 2, 2007). 

17See Jacobi’s Response to the Department’s 

Supplemental A and C Questionnaire, dated 

December 14, 2009 at 2. 

18See Jacobi’s Response to the Department’s 

Supplemental Questionnaire Regarding Jacobi’s 

Antidumping Duty Rate, dated April 20, 2010, at 1. 

sales made through its affiliated 

importer of record. 

Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the 

Act provide that, if necessary 

information is not available on the 

record, or if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information 

requested in the requested form and 

manner, together with a full explanation 

and suggested alternative forms in 

which such party is able to submit the 

information,’’ the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all 

or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information and meeting 

the requirements established by the 

Department; and (5) the information can 

be used without undue difficulties. 

However, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘finds that 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the administering 

authority or the Commission, the 

administering authority or the 

Commission * * *, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also Statement 

of Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 

(1994) (SAA), reprinted in 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198–99. Adverse 

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ Id. An 

adverse inference may include reliance 

on information derived from the 

petition, the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record. See section 776(b) of the Act. 

Jacobi’s Excluded Producers 

On August 24, 2009, Jacobi requested 

to be excused from reporting FOP data 

for certain Chinese producers. On 

September 2, 2009, Jacobi provided 

detailed information regarding its 

producers and production quantities. 

On September 17, 2009, the Department 

notified Jacobi that due to the large 

number of producers that supplied 

Jacobi during the POR, Jacobi would be 

excused from reporting certain FOP 

data. See the Department’s Letter to 

Jacobi dated September 17, 2009. 

Specifically, the Department did not 

require Jacobi to report FOP data for its 

five smallest producers. Additionally, 

the Department notified Jacobi that it 

was not required to report FOP data for 

products that were purchased and not 

produced by Jacobi’s suppliers, as 

indicated in Jacobi’s August 24, 2009 

letter. Thus, the Department determined 

that upon Jacobi’s acceptance of the 

exclusion terms, the Department would 

determine the appropriate facts 

available to apply, in lieu of the actual 

FOP data, to the corresponding U.S. 

sales of subject merchandise. 

In accordance with section 776(a)(1) 

of the Act, the Department is applying 

facts available to determine the NV for 

the sales corresponding to the FOP data 

that Jacobi was excused from reporting. 

Due to the proprietary nature of the 

factual information concerning these 

producers, these issues are addressed in 

a separate business proprietary 

memorandum where a detailed 

explanation of the facts available 

calculation is provided. See 

Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, Case 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Preliminary Results Analysis 

Memorandum for Jacobi Carbons AB in 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Activated Carbon 

From the People’s Republic of China, 

dated May 7, 2010 (‘‘Jacobi Prelim 

Analysis Memo’’). 

Assignment of Jacobi Carbons AB’s 

Antidumping Duty Rate 

We note that in the less-than-fairvalue investigation of this antidumping 

duty order, we stated that ‘‘where Jacobi 

Tianjin acted as an export facilitator for 

Jacobi AB, those exports are also eligible 

for Jacobi AB’s antidumping duty cash 

deposit rate.’’ 16 In this review Jacobi 

stated that only Jacobi Carbons AB made 

exports of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR.17

Additionally, Jacobi stated that during 

the POR, both Tianjin Jacobi 

International Trading Co. Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin 

Jacobi’’) and Jacobi Carbons Industry 

(Tianjin) (‘‘JCC’’) ‘‘acted to facilitate 

exports to the United States.’’ 18 In its 

April 30, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response, Jacobi 

submitted a selling functions chart 

which indicates that Tianjin Jacobi and 

JCC perform the same functions. 

Therefore, for these preliminary results, 

we find that JCC and Tianjin Jacobi both 

act as export facilitators for Jacobi 

Carbons AB. Additionally, we find it 

appropriate for Jacobi Carbons AB, 

Tianjin Jacobi and JCC to receive the 

antidumping duty rate assigned to 

Jacobi Carbons AB. 

Separate Rates 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department. See section 

771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. In proceedings 

involving NME countries, it is the 

Department’s practice to begin with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
26932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 

19For a full discussion of United Manufacturing 

International (Beijing) Ltd.’s separate rate status, see 

supra at p 2–3. 

20See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of 

the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001), 

unchanged in Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and 

Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 

2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From 

the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104 

(December 20, 1999). 

21See Huahui’s Section A Questionnaire 

Response dated October 21, 2009, at pages 2–6. 

22These companies are: Beijing Pacific Activated 

Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; 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 DMD 

Corporation; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading 

Co., Ltd.; and Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade 

Corporation. 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53080 

(September 8, 2006); Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 

(May 22, 2006). 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate rate 

status in NME reviews. See Initiation 

Notice. It is the Department’s policy to 

assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to investigation in an NME 

country this single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent so as 

to be entitled to a separate rate. Id. 

Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. Id. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign-owned 

or located in a market economy, then a 

separate rate analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control. See, e.g., Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax 

Candles From the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 

13, 2007). 

Excluding the companies selected for 

individual review, the Department 

received separate rate applications or 

certifications from the following 

companies: Beijing Pacific Activated 

Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; 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 DMD Corporation; 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading 

Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade 

Corporation; and Tangshan Solid 

Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Additionally, the Department 

received completed responses to the 

Section A portion of the NME 

questionnaire from Huahui and Jacobi, 

which contained information pertaining 

to the companies’ eligibility for a 

separate rate. However, Datong 

Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei 

Foreign Trade and Advertising 

Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., 

and United Manufacturing International 

(Beijing) Ltd., companies upon which 

the Department initiated administrative 

reviews that have not been rescinded, 

did not submit either a separate-rate 

application or certification in a timely 

manner.19 Therefore, because Datong 

Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei 

Foreign Trade and Advertising 

Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., 

and United Manufacturing International 

(Beijing) Ltd. did not demonstrate their 

eligibility for separate rate status in a 

timely manner, we have determined it is 

appropriate to consider these companies 

as part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Separate Rate Recipients 

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned 

Jacobi reported that it is wholly 

owned by a company located in a 

market-economy country, Sweden. See 

Jacobi’s Section A Questionnaire 

Response dated September 10, 2008, at 

page 3. Therefore, there is no PRC 

ownership of Jacobi, 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.20 Additionally, one of the 

exporters under review not selected for 

individual review, Tangshan Solid 

Carbon Co., Ltd., reported in its 

separate-rate certification that it is 100 

percent foreign owned. See Tangshan 

Solid Carbon Co. Ltd.’s Separate Rate 

Certification dated June 29, 2010, at 4. 

Accordingly, the Department has 

preliminarily granted separate rate 

status to Jacobi and Tangshan Solid 

Carbon Co. Ltd. 

2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and 

Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies 

Huahui 21 and nine 22 of the separate 

rate applicants in this administrative 

review stated that they are either joint 

ventures between Chinese and foreign 

companies or are wholly Chineseowned companies. In accordance with 

its practice, the Department has 

analyzed whether the separate-rate 

applicants have demonstrated the 

absence of de jure and de facto 

governmental control over their 

respective export activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence 

provided by Huahui and nine separate 

rate applicants supports a preliminary 

finding of de jure absence of 

government control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) there 

are formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

See, e.g., Huahui’s Section A 

Questionnaire Response dated October 

21, 2009, at pages 2–6; Beijing Pacific 

Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.’s 

Separate Rate Certification dated June 

29, 2009, at 5; Shanxi Industry 

Technology Trading Co., Ltd.’s Separate 

Rate Certification dated June 25, 2009, 

at 5–6. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 26933 

23See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 

8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008)). 

24See Memorandum to the File, Re: Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results Simple-Average Margin for 

Separate Rate Respondents, dated May 7, 2010. 

25See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10. 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. The evidence provided 

by Huahui and nine separate rate 

applicants supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

government control based on the 

following: (1) The companies set their 

own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) the 

companies have authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) the companies have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) there 

is no restriction on any of the 

companies’ use of export revenue. See, 

e.g., Huahui’s Section A Questionnaire 

Response dated October 21, 2009, at 

pages 2–6; and Datong Municipal 

Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 

dated July 23, 2009, at 7. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that 

Huahui and nine separate-rate 

applicants have established that they 

qualify for a separate rate under the 

criteria established by Silicon Carbide 

and Sparklers. 

Separate Rate Calculation 

As stated previously, this review 

covers nineteen companies. Of those, 

the Department selected two exporters, 

Huahui and Jacobi (including affiliates), 

as mandatory respondents in this 

review. As stated above, four 

companies, Datong Yunguang 

Chemicals Plant, Hebei Foreign Trade 

and Advertising Corporation, Shanxi 

Newtime Co., Ltd., and United 

Manufacturing International (Beijing) 

Ltd. are part of the PRC–Wide entity, 

and thus, are not entitled to a separate 

rate. Additionally, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review with respect to 

Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., 

Ltd. because we determined that it had 

no shipments of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. The 

remaining nine companies submitted 

timely information as requested by the 

Department and remain subject to this 

review as cooperative separate rate 

respondents. 

For the exporters subject to this 

review that were determined to be 

eligible for separate rate status, but were 

not selected as mandatory respondents, 

the Department generally weightaverages the rates calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, excluding any 

rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on FA.23 Consequently, because 

the Department has calculated positive 

margins for both mandatory 

respondents, Huahui and Jacobi, in 

these preliminary results, and consistent 

with our practice, we have preliminarily 

established a margin for the separate 

rate respondents based on a simple 

average of the rates we calculated for the 

two mandatory respondents. Because 

there are only two respondents for 

which a company-specific margin was 

calculated in this review, the 

Department has calculated a simple 

average margin to ensure that the total 

import quantity and value for each 

company is not inadvertently 

revealed.24 The rate established for the 

separate rate respondents is 27.28 

percent. Entities receiving this rate are 

identified by name in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review’’ section of this notice. 

Date of Sale 

Huahui and Jacobi reported the 

invoice date as the date of sale because 

they claim that, for their U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise made during the 

POR, the material terms of sale were 

established on the invoice date. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and 

the Department’s long-standing practice 

of determining the date of sale,25 the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the invoice date is the most 

appropriate date to use as Huahui’s and 

Jacobi’s date of sale. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of certain 

activated carbon to the United States by 

Huahui and Jacobi were made at less 

than fair value, the Department 

compared either export price (‘‘EP’’) or 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, the Department calculated the 

EP for Huahui’s sales to the United State 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

party was made before the date of 

importation and the use of CEP was not 

otherwise warranted. The Department 

calculated EP based on the price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the 

Department deducted from the starting 

price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign 

inland freight and brokerage and 

handling. Each of these services was 

either provided by an NME vendor or 

paid for using an NME currency. Thus, 

the Department based the deduction of 

these movement charges on surrogate 

values. Additionally, for international 

freight provided by a market economy 

provider and paid in U.S. dollars, the 

Department used the actual cost per 

kilogram of the freight. See 

Memorandum to the File through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office IX, from Bob Palmer, Analyst, re; 

Second Administrative Review of 

Certain Activated Carbon from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Values for the Preliminary Results dated 

May 7, 2010 (‘‘Prelim Surrogate Value 

Memo’’) for details regarding the 

surrogate values for movement 

expenses. 

Constructed Export Price 

For all of Jacobi’s sales, the 

Department based U.S. price on CEP in 

accordance with section 772(b) of the 

Act, because sales were made on behalf 

of the Chinese-based companies by a 

U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States. For these sales, the 

Department based CEP on prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, the 

Department made deductions from the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
26934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 

26See Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 

F.3d 1442, 1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming 

the Department’s use of market-based prices to 

value certain FOPs). 27 Indian import data in the World Trade Atlas 

began identifying the original reporting currency for 

India as the U.S. Dollar. See Memorandum to the 

File, through Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, Office IX, 

re: Memorandum to the File from Edward Yang, 

Senior Executive Coordinator, AD/CVD Operations, 

China/NME Unit from Jennifer Moats, Senior 

Special Assistant, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME 

Unit, regarding Indian Import Statistics Currency 

Denomination in the World Trade Atlas, dated May 

7, 2010. 28See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005), 

unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

First Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 

21, 2006); China National Machinery Import & 

Export Corporation v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 

2d 1334 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal 

Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

starting price (gross unit price) for 

foreign movement expenses, 

international movement expenses, U.S. 

movement expenses, and appropriate 

selling adjustments, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, the Department also 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States. The 

Department deducted, where 

appropriate, commissions, inventory 

carrying costs, interest revenue, credit 

expenses, warranty expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses. For those 

expenses that were provided by a 

market economy provider and paid for 

in a market economy currency, the 

Department used the reported expense. 

Due to the proprietary nature of certain 

adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed 

description of all adjustments made to 

U.S. price for each company, see the 

company specific analysis 

memorandums, dated May 7, 2010. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using a FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of non-market economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

FOP Reporting Exclusions 

As stated above, the Department 

granted exclusions for certain nominal 

producers to be excused from providing 

FOP data for Jacobi. As the 

corresponding U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise supplied by the excused 

producers were reported in the U.S. 

sales listing, the Department has applied 

the calculated average normal value of 

the subject merchandise produced by 

Jacobi, as facts available, to those sales 

observations associated with the 

excluded producers. See Jacobi Prelim 

Analysis Memo. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to value the FOPs, but 

when a producer sources an input from 

a market economy country and pays for 

it in a market economy currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input.26

During the POR, Jacobi reported that it 

purchased certain inputs from a market 

economy supplier and paid for the 

inputs in a market economy currency. 

See Jacobi’s Section D Questionnaire 

Response dated October 15, 2009, at 5 

and Exhibit 2. The Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that market 

economy input prices are the best 

available information for valuing an 

input when the total volume of the 

input purchased from all market 

economy sources during the period of 

investigation or review exceeds 33 

percent of the total volume of the input 

purchased from all sources during the 

period. See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717–18 

(October 19, 2006) (‘‘Antidumping 

Methodologies’’). In these cases, unless 

case-specific facts provide adequate 

grounds to rebut the Department’s 

presumption, the Department will use 

the weighted average market economy 

purchase price to value the input. 

Alternatively, when the volume of an 

NME firm’s purchases of an input from 

market economy suppliers during the 

period is below 33 percent of its total 

volume of purchases of the input during 

the period, but where these purchases 

are otherwise valid and there is no 

reason to disregard the prices, the 

Department will weight-average the 

market economy purchase price with an 

appropriate surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) 

according to their respective shares of 

the total volume of purchases, unless 

case-specific facts provide adequate 

grounds to rebut the presumption. See 

Antidumping Methodologies. When a 

firm has made market economy input 

purchases that may have been dumped 

or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are 

otherwise not acceptable for use in a 

dumping calculation, the Department 

will exclude them from the numerator 

of the ratio to ensure a fair 

determination of whether valid market 

economy purchases meet the 33-percent 

threshold. See Antidumping 

Methodologies. 

The Department used the Indian 

Import Statistics to value the raw 

material and packing material inputs 

that Huahui and Jacobi used to produce 

the subject merchandise under review 

during the POR, except where listed 

below.27 With regard to both the Indian 

import-based surrogate values and the 

market economy input values, the 

Department has disregarded prices that 

the Department has reason to believe or 

suspect may be subsidized. The 

Department has reason to believe or 

suspect that prices of inputs from 

Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 

may have been subsidized. The 

Department has found in other 

proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all 

exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized.28 The 

Department is also guided by the 

statute’s legislative history that explains 

that it is not necessary to conduct a 

formal investigation to ensure that such 

prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus 

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 

Conference Report to accompany H.R. 

Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in 

1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24; see 

also Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China, 72 FR 30758, 30763 n.6 (June 

4, 2007) unchanged in Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China, 72 

FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). Rather, the 

Department bases its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged 

in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

55039 (September 24, 2008). Therefore, 

the Department has not used prices from 

these countries in calculating the Indian 

import-based surrogate values. 

Additionally, the Department 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 26935 

29See Letter from Kelley Drye to the Department, 

regarding Second Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: 

Petitioner’s Comments on Supplemental 

Questionnaire Responses of Jacobi Carbons AB, 

dated January 11, 2010. 

30See Jacobi’s Supplemental Section D 

Questionnaire Response for Jacobi Tianjin, dated 

March 29, 2010. 

31See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587, August 

14, 2008; and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

32See Memorandum to the File, through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office IX, from Katie Marksberry, Case 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX: 

Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for 

Jacobi Carbons AB in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon 

from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘Jacobi’s 

Prelim Analysis Memo’’), dated May 7, 2010. 

disregarded prices from NME countries. 

Finally, imports that were labeled as 

originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’ 

country were excluded from the average 

value, as the Department could not be 

certain that they were not from either an 

NME country or a country with general 

export subsidies. See id. 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, for subject merchandise 

produced by Huahui and Jacobi, the 

Department calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Huahui and Jacobi for 

the POR. The Department used data 

from the Indian Import Statistics and 

other publicly available Indian sources 

in order to calculate surrogate values for 

Huahui and Jacobi FOPs (direct 

materials, energy, and packing 

materials) and certain movement 

expenses. To calculate NV, the 

Department multiplied the reported perunit factor quantities by publicly 

available Indian surrogate values 

(except as noted below). The 

Department’s practice when selecting 

the best available information for 

valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are 

product-specific, representative of a 

broad market average, publicly 

available, contemporaneous with the 

POR and exclusive of taxes and duties. 

See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese 

Dioxide From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 

(August 18, 2008) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

As appropriate, the Department 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to render the prices 

delivered prices. Specifically, the 

Department added to Indian import 

surrogate values a surrogate freight cost 

using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for Huahui and Jacobi, see Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

In those instances where the 

Department could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

to the POR with which to value factors, 

the Department adjusted the surrogate 

values using, where appropriate, the 

Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund, a printout of which is attached to 

the Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at 

Exhibit 2. Where necessary, the 

Department adjusted surrogate values 

for inflation, exchange rates, and taxes, 

and the Department converted all 

applicable items to a per-kilogram or 

per-metric ton basis. 

For bituminous coal used as a 

feedstock in the production of the 

subject merchandise, the Department 

used Indian import prices for coking 

coal, because certain respondents 

reported using low-ash content 

bituminous coal as a feedstock in the 

production of the subject merchandise 

and Coal India Limited (‘‘CIL’’) data does 

not provide price data for low-ash 

content bituminous coal. See Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. The Department 

used CIL data to value steam coal and 

bituminous coal used as an energy 

source, where the manufacturers 

provided Useful Heat Values (‘‘UHV’’) of 

their bituminous energy coal and steam 

coal. However, where manufactures of 

the subject merchandise indicate they 

do not track UHV and were unable to 

report this information, the Department 

used the Indian import prices for steam 

coal. The Department finds that CIL data 

has specific grades of non-coking energy 

coal, measured in UHV, which 

correspond to the types of steam and 

bituminous coal used by the 

respondents as energy coals, therefore, 

CIL is more specific to the reported 

input. The Department used CIL’s prices 

dated from December 12, 2007, effective 

throughout the POR. For further details 

regarding the Department’s use of CIL 

data, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. 

The Department notes that Petitioners 

have argued that Jacobi’s unaffiliated 

suppliers should report the transport 

bags that are used to transport subject 

merchandise from the affiliates to Jacobi 

Tianjin for further packing prior to 

being exported to the United States.29

Jacobi argues that its bags are reused 

and therefore should be considered an 

overhead expense and not included as 

a packing input.30 In past cases we have 

determined that certain consumables 

that were regularly replaced and 

required in the production process 

should be considered FOPs, even if they 

are considered to be an overhead 

expense in the company’s normal 

course of business.31 Therefore, because 

Jacobi regularly replaces these bags and 

they are necessary to Jacobi’s 

production process, we have 

determined that the transport bags used 

by Jacobi’s affiliates should be included 

as packing FOPs based on the reported 

useful life of the bags. Accordingly, we 

are including Jacobi’s transport bags as 

an FOP for the preliminary results of 

review.32

The Department valued electricity 

using price data for small, medium, and 

large industries, as published by the 

Central Electricity Authority of the 

Government of India (‘‘CEA’’) in its 

publication titled ‘‘Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India,’’ dated March 2008. 

These electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. We 

did not inflate this value because utility 

rates represent current rates, as 

indicated by the effective dates listed for 

each of the rates provided. See Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

Because water is essential to the 

production process of the subject 

merchandise, the Department is 

considering water to be a direct material 

input, and not as overhead, and valued 

water with a surrogate value according 

to our practice. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 

(October 28, 2003) and accompanying 

Issue and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 11. The Department valued 

water using data from the Maharashtra 

Industrial Development Corporation 

(www.midcindia.org) as it includes a 

wide range of industrial water tariffs. 

This source provides 386 industrial 

water rates within the Maharashtra 

province from April 2009 through June 

2009, of which 193 for the ‘‘inside 

industrial areas’’ usage category and 193 

for the ‘‘outside industrial areas’’ usage 

category. Because the value was not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the surrogate value. See Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), 

we valued direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, using the most recently calculated 

regression-based wage rate, which relies 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
26936 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 

33See Letter from Troutman Sander, Certain 

Activated Carbon form the People’s Republic of 

China: Second Administrative Review; Submission 

of Publicly Available Information to Value Factors 

of Production, dated February 24, 2010 at Exhibit 

15; see also Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 

2006); Certain Lined Paper Products from India: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 17149 (April 14, 2009); Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Review, 73 FR 31961 

(June 5, 2008); and Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 5268 (February 5, 

2007). 34The FY 07–08 financial statements for 

Quantum were submitted by Huahui on February 

24, 2010 and the FY 06–07 financial statements for 

Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. were placed on the record 

by the Department. See Prelim Surrogate Value 

Memo. 35See Annual Report Core Carbons Private 

Limited 2007–2008, at 17 contained in Petitioners’ 

February 24, 2010 Surrogate Value comments at 

Exhibit 49. 

36See Annual Report of Indo-German 2008–2009 

contained in Petitioners’ March 8, 2010 Surrogate 

Value Rebuttal comments at Exhibit 7. 

37See Commodity Matchbooks from India: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 

FR 54547 (October 22, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Commodity Matchbooks from India at IV.A.3; see 

also, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 

Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 6634 (February 

10, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at III.A.1. 

. 

on 2007 data. This wage rate can 

currently be found on the Department’s 

Web site on Import Administration’s 

home page, Reference Material, 

Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries, revised in December 2009, 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/07wages/ 

final/final-2009-2007-wages.html. The 

source of these wage-rate data on the 

Import Administration’s Web site is the 

2006 and 2007 data in Chapter 5B of the 

International Labour Statistics. Because 

this regression-based wage rate does not 

separate the labor rates into different 

skill levels or types of labor, the 

Department has applied the same wage 

rate to all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by the respondents. See Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

The Department calculated the 

surrogate value for purchased steam 

based upon the April 2008–March 2009 

financial statement of Hindalco 

Industries Limited (‘‘Hindalco’’). See 

Jacobi’s Surrogate Value Comments: 

Certain Activated Carbon form China, 

dated February 24, 2010 at Exhibit SV– 

7. For a detailed explanation of our 

reasons for using Hindalco’s financial 

statements as the source of the surrogate 

value for purchased steam, see Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

The Department valued truck freight 

expenses using a per-unit average rate 

calculated from data on the Infobanc 

Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/ 

logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics 

section of this Web site contains inland 

freight truck rates between many large 

Indian cities. See Prelim Surrogate 

Value Memo at Attachment 8. 

To value brokerage and handling, the 

Department calculated a simple average 

of the brokerage and handling costs that 

were reported in public submissions 

that were filed in three antidumping 

duty cases.33 Specifically, the 

Department averaged the public 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot-rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. The Department inflated the 

brokerage and handling rate using the 

appropriate WPI inflator. See Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses, and profit, the Department 

used the average of the audited financial 

statements of two Indian activated 

carbon producing companies; those 

being, Kalpalka Chemicals Ltd. for FY 

2006–2007 (‘‘Kalpalka’’) and Quantum 

Active Carbon Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Quantum’’) for 

2007–2008.34

Petitioners submitted the 2007–2008 

financial statements of Core Carbons 

Private Limited (‘‘Core Carbons’’) and 

Jacobi submitted the 2008–2009 

financial statements of Indo-German 

Carbon Ltd. (‘‘Indo-German’’) for the 

Department’s use in calculating 

surrogate financial ratios. We have 

determined not to rely on the 2007– 

2008 financial statements of Core 

Carbons and the 2008–2009 financial 

statements Indo-German because both 

sets of financial statements indicate that 

they received a ‘‘packing credit’’ i.e., PreShipment and Post-Shipment Export 

Financing. Core Carbons’ financial 

statements indicate they received 

‘‘working capital from SBI, Cbe Packing 

Credit’’ under Schedule C.35 IndoGerman’s financial statements indicate 

they received ‘‘Packing Credit/Letter of 

Credit/Cash Credit-State Bank of 

India.’’ 36 India’s packing credit, PreShipment and Post-Shipment Export 

Financing has been found by the 

Department as a countervailable 

subsidy.37 Consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we prefer not to 

use financial statements of a company 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may have received subsidies, because 

financial ratios derived from that 

company’s financial statements may not 

constitute the best available information 

with which to value financial ratios. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results and Rescission, In Part, of 

2004/2005 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 19174 (April 17, 

2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decisions Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.408(c), the Department 

preliminarily determines that the 2007– 

2008 financial statements of Quantum 

and the 2006–2007 financial statements 

of Kalpalka provide the best available 

information with which to calculate 

surrogate financial ratios, because they 

are complete and publicly available. 

Additionally, both of these companies 

produce comparable merchandise and 

use an integrated carbonization 

production process which closely 

mirrors that of both respondents. While 

the Department recognizes Quantum 

and Kalpalka’s financial statements both 

pre-date the POR, we prefer to use more 

than one financial statement where 

possible to replicate the experience of 

producers of certain activated carbon in 

the surrogate country. See Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 

2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decisions Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Moreover, we find that neither 

company’s financial statements pre-date 

the POR so significantly as not to be 

useful. See Hebei Metals v. United 

States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1275 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2005). Therefore, the 

Department has used these financial 

statements to value factory overhead, 

SG&A, and profit, for these preliminary 

results. 

Currency Conversion 

Where appropriate, the Department 

made currency conversions into U.S. 

dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 26937 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist: 

CERTAIN ACTIVATED CARBON FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted average 

margin 

(percent) 

Jacobi Carbons AB38 .......................................................................................................................................................... 3.23 

Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................... 51.33 

Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................... 27.28 

Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .................................................................................................... 27.28 

Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd ....................................................................................................................... 27.28 

Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 39 ............................................................................................. 27.28 

Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited ................................................................................................................................... 27.28 

Shanxi DMD Corporation ..................................................................................................................................................... 27.28 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................... 27.28 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ........................................................................................................................... 27.28 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................... 27.28 

PRC-Wide Rate 40 ............................................................................................................................................................... 228.11 

38The Department is assigning this rate to Jacobi Carbons AB and Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd. 39 In the previous administrative review, the Department found Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua 

Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., and their U.S. affiliate, Cherishmet Inc. 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 21319, 

(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). 40The PRC-Wide entity includes Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., 

Ltd., and United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs and/or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments may be filed no later than 

five days after the deadline for filing 

case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 

(2) a brief summary of the argument; 

and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c) and (d). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Additionally, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who 

wish to request a hearing, or to 

participate if one is requested, must 

submit a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

Room 1117, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain: (1) The party’s name, 

address and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. Id. Issues raised 

in the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the respective case and 

rebuttal briefs. The Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of the issues raised 

in any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review excluding 

any reported sales that entered during 

the gap period. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Where the 

respondent has reported reliable entered 

values, we calculated importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to each importer (or customer). See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importers’/ 

customers’ entries during the POR. See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

For the companies receiving a 

separate rate that were not selected for 

individual review, we will calculate an 

assessment rate based on the simple 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
26938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 

average of the cash deposit rates 

calculated for the companies selected 

for individual review pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 

For those companies for which this 

review has been preliminarily 

rescinded, the Department intends to 

assess antidumping duties at rates equal 

to the cash deposit of estimated 

antidumping duties required at the time 

of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2), if the review is 

rescinded for these companies. The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of this notice. 

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) For the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 228.11 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: May 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11462 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Notice of Vacancies on the U.S. 

Section of the U.S.-Iraq Business 

Dialogue 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of 

Commerce and the Iraq Minister of 

Trade established the U.S.-Iraq Business 

Dialogue (Business Dialogue or 

Dialogue) in July 2006. This notice 

announces ten open membership 

opportunities for representatives of 

American industry to join the U.S. 

section of the Dialogue. 

DATES: Applications must be received 

no later than May 31, 2010; 5 p.m. EST. 

ADDRESSES: Please send requests for 

consideration to Valerie Dees, Acting 

Director, Iraq Investment and 

Reconstruction Task Force, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, either by fax 

on 202–482–0980 or by mail to U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 

3868, Washington, DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin M. Reichelt, Office of the Middle 

East, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Room 2029–B, Washington, DC 20230. 

Phone: 202–482–2896. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Secretary of Commerce and the Iraqi 

Minister of Trade established the 

Dialogue as a bilateral forum to facilitate 

private sector business growth in Iraq 

and to strengthen trade and investment 

ties between the United States and Iraq. 

During Former Secretary of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez’s visit to Iraq in July 

2006, he joined Iraq’s former Minister of 

Trade Dr. Abd-al-Falah al-Sudani in 

signing the Joint Statement on 

Commercial Cooperation, which 

formally established the Dialogue. 

The U.S. Secretary of Commerce and 

the Iraqi Minister of Trade co-chair the 

Dialogue. The Dialogue consists of a 

U.S. Section and an Iraqi Section. Each 

Section consists of members from the 

private sector, representing the views 

and interests of the private sector 

business community. Each Party 

appoints the members to its respective 

Section. The Sections provide policy 

advice and counsel to the U.S. Secretary 

of Commerce and to Iraq’s Minister of 

Trade that reflect private sector views, 

needs, and concerns regarding private 

sector business development in Iraq and 

enhanced bilateral commercial ties that 

would form the basis for expanded trade 

between the United States and Iraq. The 

Dialogue will exchange information and 

encourage bilateral discussions that 

address the following areas: 

—Factors that affect the growth of 

private sector business in Iraq, 

including disincentives to trade and 

investment and regulatory obstacles to 

job creation and investment growth; 

—Initiatives that the Government of Iraq 

might take, such as enacting, 

amending, enforcing, or repealing 

laws and regulations, to promote 

private sector business growth in Iraq; 

—Promotion of business opportunities 

in both Iraq and the United States, 

and identification of opportunities for 

U.S. and Iraqi firms to work together; 

and 

—Attracting U.S. businesses to 

opportunities in Iraq and serving as a 

catalyst for Iraqi private sector 

growth. 

Applications to represent any sector 

will be considered. The U.S. section 

will represent a cross-section of 

American businesses. 

Members serve in a representative 

capacity representing the views and 

interests of their particular industries. 

Members are not special government 

employees, and receive no 

compensation for their participation in 

Dialogue activities. Only appointed 

members may participate in Dialogue 

meetings; substitutes and alternates will 

not be permitted. Section members 

serve for three-year terms, but may be 

reappointed. U.S. Section members 

serve at the discretion of the Secretary 

of Commerce. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce is 

currently seeking candidates for ten 

membership positions on the U.S. 

Section of the Dialogue. Candidates will 

be evaluated based on: their interest in 

the Iraqi market; export/investment 

experience; contribution to diversity 

based on size of company, geographic 

location, and sector; and ability to 

initiate and be responsible for activities 

in which the Business Dialogue will be 

active. 

In order to be eligible for membership 

in the U.S. section, potential candidates 

shall be: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES