[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72165-72166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-904]


Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On November 24, 2014, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``the Court'') issued final judgment in Albemarle Corp. et al. 
v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-00451, sustaining the Department 
of Commerce's (``the Department'') final results of redetermination 
pursuant to remand (``Remand'').\1\ In the Remand, the Department 
recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin for Calgon Carbon 
(Tianjin) Co., Ltd.'s (``Calgon Tianjin'') using revised surrogate 
values for coal and fine by-products.\2\ The Department also 
recalculated in the Remand the dumping margin for three respondents not 
selected for individual examination (i.e., the separate rate)--Ningxia 
Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Ningxia Guanghua'') 
and its affiliate Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 
(``Beijing Pacific'') (together, ``Cherishmet''),\3\ as well as Shanxi 
DMD Corporation (``Shanxi DMD'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court 
Remand, Consol. Court No. 11-00451, Slip Op. 13-106 (CIT August 15, 
2013), dated January 9, 2014, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/13-106.pdf.
    \2\ Id. at 8-10. As we explain below, the Department's 
recalculation of these surrogate values continued to yield a de 
minimis weighted-average dumping margin for Calgon Tianjin. Thus, 
consistent with our practice, the Department has not amended the 
final results with respect to Calgon Tianjin.
    \3\ The Department found Ningxia Guanghua and Beijing Pacific to 
be affiliated and a single entity 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, 
57998 (November 10, 2009).
    \4\ See Remand at 10-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 
F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 
2010), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment 
in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final results of 
the antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') covering the period of review (``POR'') April 1, 2009, 
through March 31, 2010, and is amending the final results with respect 
to the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Ningxia Guanghua, 
Beijing Pacific, and Shanxi DMD.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Third Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31, 2011) (``AR3 
Final Results'') and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES:  Effective Date: December 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations 
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
9068.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 72166]]

Background

    On October 31, 2011, the Department issued AR3 Final Results.\6\ 
Cherishmet and Shanxi DMD, exporters of subject merchandise, timely 
filed complaints with the Court. Albemarle Corporation (``Albemarle''), 
a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, and Ningxia Huahui Activated 
Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Huahui''), an exporter of subject merchandise, also 
timely filed a complaint with the Court. Together, these parties 
challenged four aspects of the Department's final results: (1) The 
surrogate value for Calgon Tianjin's carbonized material; (2) the 
surrogate values for Calgon Tianjin's coal and fine by-products; (3) 
the dumping margins assigned to Huahui, Shanxi DMD, Ningxia Guanghua, 
and Beijing Pacific, which were not selected for individual examination 
in the review; and (4) the use of a per-unit assessment rate for Shanxi 
DMD's entries. On August 15, 2013, the Court remanded the Department's 
AR3 Final Results and instructed the Department to reconsider each of 
these issues.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ See Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1280 
(CIT 2013). The Court reserved judgment on the dumping margin 
assigned to Huahui, which was different from the margin that the 
Department assigned to Shanxi DMD, Ningxia Guanghua, and Beijing 
Pacific. Id. It explained that the Department could, but was not 
required to, reconsider Huahui's margin on remand. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 9, 2014, the Department filed the Remand with the Court. 
First, the Department continued to calculate Calgon Tianjin's surrogate 
value for carbonized material with the same data that it used in AR3 
Final Results.\8\ Second, the Department recalculated Calgon Tianjin's 
surrogate values for coal and fine by-products by capping those values 
at the value assigned to their main input, carbonized material.\9\ The 
Department's recalculation of the by-products surrogate values 
continued to yield a de minimis weighted-average dumping margin for 
Calgon Tianjin.\10\ Third, and under protest, the Department averaged 
the zero and de minimis rates calculated for the two mandatory 
respondents in this administrative review (i.e., Jacobi Carbons AB and 
Calgon Tianjin) and assigned the resulting zero dumping margin to 
Ningxia Guanghua, Beijing Pacific, and Shanxi DMD.\11\ Finally, the 
Department determined that the issue concerning the use of a per-unit 
assessment rate for Shanxi DMD's entries was moot, given that the 
Department assigned Shanxi DMD a dumping margin of zero.\12\ On 
November 24, 2014, the Court entered judgment sustaining the 
Remand.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Remand at 3-8.
    \9\ Id. at 10.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. at 10-13. The Department did not change the dumping 
margin assigned to Huahui. Id. at 22.
    \12\ Id. at 13-15.
    \13\ See Albemarle Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 11-00451 (CIT November 24, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department must 
publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries 
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's November 24, 2014, 
judgment sustaining the Remand constitutes a final decision of the 
Court that is not in harmony with the Department's AR3 Final Results. 
This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement 
of Timken.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends 
AR3 Final Results with respect to Cherishmet and Shanxi DMD. The 
revised weighted-average dumping margins for these exporters during the 
period April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010, follow:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted average
                                                        dumping margin
                    Exporter name                        (dollars per
                                                           kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co.,                   0.00
 Ltd \14\...........................................
Shanxi DMD Corporation..............................                0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of 
liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the 
period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court 
decision. In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if 
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated 
entries of subject merchandise exported by Cherishmet and Shanxi DMD 
using the assessment rate calculated by the Department in the Remand 
and listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This dumping margin also applies to Beijing Pacific. See 
supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The cash deposit rate for Cherishmet will remain the respondent-
specific rate established for the subsequent and most-recent period 
during which the respondent was reviewed, which is $0.04 per 
kilogram.\15\ The cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide rate, which now 
includes Shanxi DMD, will remain the PRC-wide entity rate established 
for the subsequent and most-recent period during which the PRC-wide 
entity was reviewed, which is 2.42 U.S. dollars per kilogram.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2012-2013, 79 FR 70163, 70165 (November 25, 2014).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

     Dated: December 1, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-28577 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P