Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 38 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1917

Background

This case concerns Commerce's remand redetermination in the 6th administrative review of the antidumping order on certain activated carbon from the PRC (POR: Apr 1, 2012–Mar 31, 2013).
Commerce initially used POR6-contemporaneous Philippine GTA data to value anthracite coal (SV $1.19/kg), but for the Final Results switched to a POR5-contemporaneous Philippine value ($0.05/kg), dramatically reducing respondent margins. The court remanded that selection for lack of underlying data on the record and inadequate comparison to contemporaneous surrogate data.
On remand Commerce: (1) assigned a separate rate to previously PRC‑wide respondent Shanxi DMD (calculated at $0.51/kg); and (2) selected POR6-contemporaneous Thai GTA import data for anthracite coal (HS 2701.11) at $0.33/kg, producing respondent margins ~ $0.51–$0.52/kg.
Parties challenged Commerce’s remand results: respondents argued (a) Commerce should have used the POR5 Philippine value; (b) Commerce improperly rejected U.S. EIA data; (c) Thai GTA data are unreliable or non‑specific; and (d) Commerce unlawfully used a “significant producer” tie‑breaker rather than import volume.
The Court sustained Commerce’s assignment of a separate rate to Shanxi DMD, upheld Commerce’s rejection of the U.S. data and its finding that Thai GTA data were not aberrational, but remanded because Commerce failed to adequately justify using a "significant producer" tie‑breaking methodology over import‑volume (market‑representativeness) criteria.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce lawfully refused to reopen the record to place the POR5 Philippine underlying data on the record	Respondents: Commerce should have reopened the record and considered the POR5 Philippine underlying data supporting the previously used SV	Gov't/Commerce: contemporaneity matters; POR5 data are not contemporaneous and Commerce reasonably relied on POR6 contemporaneous data from other comparable countries	Held: Commerce did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the record and lawfully rejected the POR5 Philippine value because it was not contemporaneous to POR6 data Commerce deemed reliable
Whether Commerce permissibly rejected U.S. EIA data as a surrogate value or benchmark	Jacobi/Cherishmet: U.S. EIA data are product‑specific, contemporaneous, and corroborative; should have been considered or used as benchmark	Commerce: U.S. not economically comparable (GNI much higher); statute prefers economically comparable ME data first; record had adequate comparable‑country data	Held: Commerce reasonably rejected U.S. EIA data given large GNI disparity and availability of comparable surrogate countries
Whether Thai POR6 GTA import data are a reliable, specific SV for anthracite coal	Respondents: Thai data unreliable—customs transparency concerns, export/import discrepancies, basket HS specificity issues, volatility	Commerce: USTR report not tied to specific GTA data; Thai data from relevant basket HTS; discrepancies explainable and Thai AUV within range of other surrogate countries; historical series not volatile	Held: Court sustained Commerce’s determination that Thai GTA import data are reliable and not aberrational
Whether Commerce lawfully used a “significant producer” (exports/production) tie‑breaker instead of import‑volume (market representativeness) when multiple SVs were equally reliable	Respondents: Commerce historically uses import volume as tie‑breaker; import volume better shows broad market averages; Commerce’s significant‑producer rationale is unexplained and speculative	Commerce: statute references “significant producers”; it deemed significant production more indicative of industry intensity and potential broad‑based import demand	Held: Remand — Commerce failed to adequately explain or ground why it selected the significant‑production tie‑breaker over import‑volume, and the record does not support Commerce’s case‑specific justification; Court remanded for further explanation or use of import‑volume methodology

Key Cases Cited

QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce has broad discretion selecting best available information)
Nation Ford Chemical Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce has wide discretion in FOP valuation and must support choices)
Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce selection criteria for surrogate data and preference for contemporaneity)
Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (separate rate calculation practice in NME proceedings)
Bestpak v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (administrative determinations must contain a satisfactory explanation)
Hebei Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 28 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (CIT) (surrogate selection must have rational relationship to FOP)
Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir.) (valuation methodology must aim for most accurate margins)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S.) (agency must articulate satisfactory explanation for its actions)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S.) (deference to reasonable agency interpretations)
DuPont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir.) (agency interpretation review and deference)