Opinion ID: 3066250
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commerce’s Past Practice

Text: Appellants argue that Commerce’s past practice demonstrates that coconut shell charcoal is a better match for coal-based carbonized material than the broader HTS 4402 category of wood charcoal. In past reviews of the instant antidumping duty order, Commerce found coconut shell charcoal comparable to coal-based carbonized material. For example, in the investigation to determine whether to impose antidumping duties on the subject merchandise, Commerce used coconut shell charcoal import data to value carbonized material because the “coconut shell charcoal value, although not identical to the coal-based carbonized material used by respondents, is comparable in that both products are a type of charcoal.” Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s RepubJACOBI CARBONS AB v. US 11 lic of China A-570-904 (Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Activated Carbon from the PRC) (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 23, 2007) (J.A. 48). Similarly, during the first period of review, Commerce wrote: [C]oconut shell charcoal shares similar properties with carbonized material and . . . those similar properties are essential in the production of activated carbon. The expert’s report found that coalbased carbonized materials used by Cherishmet and coconut shell charcoal are similar in porosity and adsorption, which are both properties essen- tial in the production of activated carbon. Thus, in this instance, between the two alternative . . . HTS categories, “Other Cokes of Coal” and “Coco- nut Shell Charcoal,” the Department determines that . . . “Coconut Shell Charcoal” results in a better, input-specific price for coal-based carbonized materials. Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand at 10–11, Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, No. 09-00524 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 26, 2011), ECF No. 36 (footnotes omitted) (J.A. 55–56). And during the third period of review, Commerce explained that because “coconut shell charcoal shares similar properties with carbonized material and . . . those similar properties are essential in the production of activated carbon,” it would value carbonized material using imports categorized under HTS category “Coconut Shell Charcoal,” instead of HTS category “Other Cokes of Coal.” Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China A-570-904 (Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review) (Dep’t of Commerce Oct. 24, 2011) (J.A. 158–61). In these prior analyses, Commerce was choosing between coconut shell charcoal and the HTS category “Other 12 JACOBI CARBONS AB v. US Cokes of Coal” to find a comparable surrogate for coalbased carbonized material. Commerce’s determination that coconut shell charcoal is better than “Other Cokes of Coal” does not mean that coconut shell data is better than wood charcoal. Wood charcoal is also a type of charcoal and can also be used to create the subject merchandise. Thus for the same reasons articulated by Commerce in the earlier periods of review, wood charcoal would be a better surrogate than “Other Cokes of Coal.” There are no express findings or comparisons between wood charcoal and coconut shell charcoal, and this record does not establish any such conclusions. While coconut shell charcoal is more specific than “Other Cokes of Coal,” the record does not compare coconut shell charcoal and wood charcoal. Commerce’s past practice does not demonstrate that coconut shell charcoal is a better match for coal-based carbonized material than the broader Philippine import data category, which includes wood charcoal and coconut shell charcoal.