Albemarle Corp. v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 111
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Consolidated challenge to Commerce's Final Results of the third antidumping review of activated carbon from China.
- Plaintiffs include Albemarle and Huahui; Shanxi DMD; Cherishmet, GHC, BPAC.
- Commerce used surrogate values for carbonized materials and coal by-products; shifted to coconut shell charcoal HTS data for carbonized material.
- Separate-rate margins were assigned to unexamined respondents Shanxi DMD, BPAC, and GHC based on prior reviews.
- Per-unit cash deposit/assessment rates were applied to Shanxi DMD instead of ad valorem rates.
- Court remands to reconsider surrogate values, separate-rate margins, and the per-unit assessment method.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surrogate value for CCT's carbonized material | Albemarle argues for 2704.00.90 value. | Commerce relied on 4402.90.10 data per Jacobi's input. | Remand for reevaluation of carbonized material surrogate value. |
| Surrogate value for coal and fines by-products | By-products inversion favors upstream material; valuation should reflect best information. | Current values deemed reasonable under agency policy. | Remand to reconsider by-product surrogate values. |
| Separate-rate margins for Shanxi DMD, BPAC, GHC | 0.28 /kg margin untethered to POR data; not representative. | Margin based on prior review data is permissible. | Remand to reconsider margins for unexamined respondents. |
| Per-unit vs ad valorem cash deposit/assessment for Shanxi DMD | Per-unit rate unlawful absent POR-specific support. | Per-unit method followed in prior review; practical concerns. | Remand to reconsider Shanxi DMD's per-unit rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (contemporaneity and reasonable methodology required in margin determinations)
- SNR Roulement v. United States, 402 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (antidumping margins must be calculated fairly and accurately)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (voluntary remands allowed for meritorious agency reconsideration)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 258 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (limits on agency discretion in applying certain methodologies)
- Thai Pineapple Cudding Indus. v. United States, 273 F.3d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (illustrates considerations of ad valorem vs per-unit assessments)