DOJ, Intervenors Defend Commerce's Activated Carbon AD Remand Results
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon, both DOJ and defendent-intervenors told CIT in separate responses submitted March 1 (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131).
On remand after CIT in August found Commerce didn't adequately justify its selection of a tariff subheading for coconut shell charcoal (see 2208090015), Commerce had in November continued to find that import data reported under Malaysian "coconut shell charcoal” was the best available information to value coal-based carbonized material. Commerce also continued its use of Malaysian financial statements from Bravo because the company was the most similar to the respondents’ business operations and production experience (see 2211180073).
Commerce provided a reasoned explanation for its selection of Malaysian import value for merchandise classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000, DOJ said in its reply in support of the remand results. Commerce was forced to look at other sources for surrogate value because no evidence existed that the respondents used coconut-shell or wood-based carbonized material to produce activated carbon. Even if wood charcoal "may" be used in the production of steam activated carbon, that does not render Commerce's selection of coconut-shell carbonized material unsupported, as claimed by the plaintiff in the case, Carbon Activated Tianjin, DOJ said.
Defendant-intervenors Calgon Carbon Corporation's and Cabot Norit Americas also defended Commerce's use of HTS subheading 4402.90.1000, saying that the agency had to decide "between two imperfect datasets, neither of which clearly reflects the input used by Plaintiffs."
They also backed the agency's selection of Bravo's financial statements. Commerce chose Bravo's financial statements because they contained sufficient information to calculate surrogate financial ratios, even if they were not as detailed as the agency would prefer, Calgon and Cabot said. Commerce weighed the fact that Bravo manufactures identical merchandise and it is not required to select financial information from the same entities in different reviews, they argued. "Commerce may change its conclusions from one review to the next based on new information and arguments presented before the agency."