Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States, 422 F.Supp.3d 1318

This case challenges Commerce's valuation choices in the 8th administrative review of the antidumping order on activated carbon from the PRC; the court previously remanded twice and reviewed Commerce's redeterminations.
On third remand Commerce identified the Philippines and Malaysia as economically comparable, selected Malaysia as the primary surrogate country, but used Philippine Cocommunity data to value "carbonized material."
Calgon Carbon (defendant-intervenors) objected to Commerce's use of the Philippine Cocommunity price for carbonized material; Plaintiffs (Jacobi and consolidated intervenors) objected to some Malaysian values for coal tar and bituminous coal but also supported use of Cocommunity for carbonized material in part.
Commerce defended its selections as using the best available information and as not aberrational; it declined to use Thai or South African data where those countries were not deemed "significant producers of comparable merchandise."
The Court remanded Commerce's third redetermination with respect to the surrogate-value selection for carbonized material (because the agency’s explanations were internally inconsistent and the rationale not traceable), but sustained Commerce's Malaysian surrogate values for coal tar and bituminous coal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Surrogate value for carbonized material	Malaysian coconut-shell charcoal data better represent Jacobi's inputs; Commerce failed to justify rejecting Malaysian imports as commercially insignificant and deviated from single-country preference	Commerce analyzed both sources, selected Philippines (Cocommunity) as based on a commercially significant quantity and superior data	Remanded: Commerce's explanation is internally inconsistent and the path of reasoning is not reasonably discernable; agency must clarify or reconsider
Coal tar surrogate value	Malaysian AUV (~$749/MT) is aberrational (much higher than historical and exporter prices); Commerce should use South African data	Commerce benchmarked Malaysian value against historical and contemporaneous data and reasonably found it not aberrational; South Africa is not a significant producer	Sustained: Substantial evidence supports Commerce's use of Malaysian data
Bituminous coal surrogate value	Malaysian import quantity (≈381 MT) is commercially insignificant relative to Jacobi's consumption; Commerce should have used Thai data	Commerce need not duplicate exact NME producer experience; Malaysia is a significant producer and Thailand is not	Sustained: Substantial evidence supports Commerce's Malaysian surrogate value; Commerce permissibly declined Thai data

QVD Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Commerce has broad discretion to determine "best available information")
Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (surrogate value must "most accurately represent" fair market value; need not duplicate exact NME experience)
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (agency decision path must be reasonably discernable)
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (statutory preference for surrogate data from significant producers of comparable merchandise)
Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (court will not reweigh evidence; reviews Commerce under substantial-evidence standard)