Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States
2017 CIT 6
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- This case concerns the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain activated carbon from the People’s Republic of China (POR6).
- The central contested issue is Commerce’s selection of a surrogate value (SV) for anthracite coal used in valuing inputs for nonmarket-economy respondents.
- The Court previously remanded Commerce twice to address its SV selection methodology and required Commerce to either explain its methodology or select based on import volume. See Calgon II.
- On second remand, Commerce selected POR6‑contemporaneous South African GTA data ($0.19/kg) using an import‑volume tie‑breaker among equally reliable SV sources, producing new AD margins for mandatory respondents and a revised separate‑rate margin.
- Commerce recalculated separate‑rate margins (including for Shanxi DMD) based on the new SV; the new separate‑rate margin was $0.22/kg.
- No party filed objections to Commerce’s Second Remand Results; two defendant‑intervenors expressly concurred and asked the Court to affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selection of SV for anthracite coal | Commerce must further explain selection methodology and ensure it uses best available information | Commerce may use import‑volume tie‑breaker among equally reliable, contemporaneous GTA sources | Court upheld Commerce’s selection of South African POR6‑contemporaneous GTA data using import‑volume tie‑breaker |
| Use of import‑volume tie‑breaker | Plaintiffs sought clearer rationale for methodology over time | Commerce argued tie‑breaker chooses source with broader market average (highest import volume) | Court found Commerce reasonably applied tie‑breaker and relied on substantial evidence |
| Effect on AD margins for mandatory respondents | Plaintiffs argued any change must be reflected accurately in margins | Commerce recalculated margins using new SV (resulting in $0.18/kg and $0.28/kg for two respondents) | Court sustained Commerce’s recalculated margins as supported by record evidence |
| Separate‑rate recalculation (Shanxi DMD et al.) | Earlier decisions required separate‑rate adjustments if SV changes | Government implemented recalculation to reflect new SV ($0.22/kg) | Court approved Commerce’s recalculated separate‑rate margin and compliance with remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (CIT 2016) (prior remand addressing SV selection and separate‑rate issues)