United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-58

Before the Court in Calgon Carbon Corp., et. al., v. United States, et. al., Court No. 18-00232, Slip Op. 21-58 (May 11, 2021) was Commerce’s second remand redetermination in the tenth administrative review (“AR10”) of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from China (“Second Remand Results”). In Calgon (AR10) I, the Court remanded Commerce’s selection of Thai import data under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) subheading 4402.90.1000 (coconut charcoal) to value carbonized material—an input Respondents consumed in producing the subject merchandise. “The Thai data included import quantities from, among other countries, France and Japan.” Id. at 10. In Calgon (AR10) II, the Court sustained Commerce’s exclusion of the Japanese imports, however, the Court remanded Commerce’s inclusion of the French imports. Id. at 4. In Calgon (AR10) II, the Court found that “Commerce did not identify evidence indicating that any quantity imported during any subsequent month was something other than wood-based charcoal.” Id. at 5. The Court concluded that “Commerce failed its statutory directive to support its decision that the Thai data inclusive of French imports was the ‘best available information’ with which to value carbonized material with substantial evidence.” Id. “In the Second Remand Results, Commerce, under respectful protest, excluded French imports from the Thai data.” Id. Commerce explained that its decision “is limited to the circumstances” of this case. Id. The “circumstances” Commerce referred to consisted of the Court’s finding that the agency’s assessment of French imports in AR8 and AR9 combined with similar evidence on the record of AR10 gave rise to a reasonable inference that the French imports in AR10 were wood-based charcoal in the absence of evidence rebutting that inference. Id. For the following reasons, the Court sustained the Second Remand Results. Id. at 1.

“The court will uphold an agency determination that is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).” Id. at 5. “The results of a redetermination pursuant to court remand are also reviewed for compliance with the court’s remand order.” Id. at 5-6. In this case, “Respondents submitted comments during the remand proceedings that, in relevant part, supported Commerce’s exclusion of French imports from the Thai data used to value carbonized material.” Id. at 6. No party filed comments with the Court, thus, Commerce’s redetermination was uncontested. Id. The Court found that “Commerce’s valuation of carbonized material complies with the court’s order in Calgon (AR10) II by selecting Thai import data under HTS subheading 4402.90.1000, exclusive of French imports, to value Respondents’ carbonized material.” Id. The Court concluded that there were no challenges to the Second Remand Results, and that those results were otherwise lawful and supported by substantial evidence. Id. As such, the Court sustained Commerce’s Second Remand Results. Id.