The Department published thePreliminary Resultson May 4, 2012.2
The period of review (“POR”) is April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.3
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on ourPreliminary Results.
On June 13, 2012, we received case briefs from Cherishmet, DJAC, Jacobi, CAC, Bright Future, and Shanxi DMD.5
On June 22, 2012, we received rebuttal briefs from Petitioners and Cherishmet.6
See id.at 26497.
See id.at 26506.
5Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., (collectively, “Cherishmet”); Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (“DJAC”); Jacobi Carbons AB and its affiliates, Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd., Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., and Jacobi Carbons, Inc. (collectively, “Jacobi”); Calgon Carbon Corp (“CAC”); Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co., Ltd. (“Bright Future”); and Shanxi DMD Corporation (“Shanxi DMD”).
SeePetitioners' Rebuttal Brief, dated June 22, 2012 and Cherishmet's Rebuttal Brief, dated June 22, 2012.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order is certain activated carbon.7
The products 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 the order remains dispositive.8
SeeCertain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated concurrently with this notice for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China,72 FR 20988 (April 27, 2007).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties are addressed in the “Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues & Decision Memo”). A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues & Decision Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Import Administration's Antidumpingand Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users athttp://iaaccess.trade.govand in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Issues & Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the internet athttp://www.trade.gov/ia/.The signed Issues & Decision Memo and the electronic version of the Issues & Decision Memo are identical in content.
Final Partial Rescission
In thePreliminary Results,the Department preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Shanxi Dapu International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Dapu”). This company reported that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and our examination of shipment data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise made by this company during the POR.9
Subsequent to thePreliminary Results,the Department did not receive any comments or information indicating that Dapu made sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to Dapu.
See Preliminary Results,77 FR at 26498.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding ourPreliminary Results,we have made certain revisions to the margin calculations for Jacobi, DJAC, and Cherishmet. For the reasons explained in the Issues & Decision Memo at Comment I, we have selected the Philippines as the primary surrogate country. We have also made other changes to the margin calculations of Cherishmet, DJAC, and Jacobi.10
Finally, the Surrogate Values Memo contains the further explanation of our changes to the surrogate values.11
SeeComments II to VI of the Issues and Decision Memo and the company-specific analysis memoranda.
SeeMemorandum to the File, through Matthew Renkey, Acting Program Manager, AC/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst, Alan Ray, Senior Case Analyst, and Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”): Surrogate Values for the Final Results,” (October 31, 2012).
In ourPreliminary Results,we determined that the following companies met the criteria for separate rate status: Bright Future; Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral; Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd.; Tangshan Solid; and Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd.12
We have not received any information since the issuance of thePreliminary Resultsthat provides a basis for reconsideration of these determinations. Therefore, the Department continues to find that the companies listed above meet the criteria for a separate rate.
See Preliminary Resultsat 77 FR 26496.
Additionally, in thePreliminary Results,we also noted that CBP data reviewed by the Department does not show any reviewable entries of subject merchandise made during the POR by the third-country exporter, Adsorbent,13
an Indian activated carbon company. For these final results, we continue to find that the CBP data does not show any reviewable entries of subject merchandise made by Adsorbent during the POR and intend to refer this matter to CBP to investigate whether Adsorbent's entries were entered properly.
13Adsorbent Carbons Pvt. Ltd., (“Adsorbent”).
Rate for Non-Selected Companies
In thePreliminary Results,and consistent with the Department's practice,14
we assigned the separate rate companies a rate calculated using the ranged total sales quantities of the individually-reviewed respondents with margins abovede minimisfrom the public versions of their submissions.15
For the final results, we continue to find this approach to be consistent with the intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as guidance when we establish the rate for respondents not examined individually in an administrative review.16
SeeDecision Memo at Comment 3.
See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,76 FR 56158, 56160 (September 12, 2011) (“Vietnam Shrimp”);see also
Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination,77 FR 68407, 68415 (November 4, 2011) (“Galvanized Wire LTFV”).
SeeJacobi Section A questionnaire response (Public Version) dated September 13, 2011, at Exhibit 4;see alsoGuanghua Cherishmet Public Version of Exhibit SA-1 for the Section A Response, dated August 19, 2011.
See Vietnam Shrimp,76 FR at 56160;see also
Galvanized Wire LTFV,77 FR at 68415.
Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for the individually-reviewed respondents with margins abovede minimisare business-proprietary figures, we find that 1.04 U.S. Dollars/kilogram (“USD/kg”), which we calculated using the publicly available figures of U.S. sales quantities for these firms, is the best reasonable proxy for the weighted-average margin based on the calculated U.S. sales quantities of these respondents.17
See“Memorandum to the File from Alan Ray, Case Analyst, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, Re: Calculation of Separate Rate,” dated concurrently with this notice.
PRC-Wide Rate and PRC-Wide Entity
The Department used the PRC-Wide rate of 2.42 USD/kg in the most recently completed administrative review of this antidumping order.18
Because we have not calculated a PRC-Wide rate greater than the PRC-Wide rate from previous reviews in this proceeding and nothing on the record of the instant review calls into question the reliability of the PRC-Wide rate, we find it appropriate to continue to apply the PRC-Wide rate of 2.42 USD/kg for the final results.19