[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70208-70211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29017]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-904]
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 13, 2010, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the second
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Preliminary Rescission in Part, 75 FR 26927 (May 13, 2010)
(``Preliminary Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the
comments and information received, we made changes to the margin
calculations for the final results. We continue to find that certain
exporters have sold subject merchandise at less than normal value
during the period of review (``POR''), April 1, 2008, through March 31,
2009.
DATES: Effective Date: November 17, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer and Katie Marksberry,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
9068 and (202) 482-7906 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 29, 2009, the Department initiated this review with respect
to 187 companies upon which an administrative review was requested. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 74 FR 25711 (May 29, 2009). Subsequently, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), the Department rescinded the administrative review with
respect to 155 companies, based upon Petitioners' \1\ timely withdrawal
of review requests.\2\ On September 16, 2009, the Department rescinded
the administrative review with respect to an additional 13 companies,
based on Petitioners' timely withdrawal of review requests.\3\ Thus, 19
companies remained subject to this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Norit Americas Inc. and Calgon Carbon Corporation.
\2\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 31690 (July 2, 2009).
\3\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 47558 (September 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2010, Jacobi Carbons AB (``Jacobi'') and Ningxia Huahui
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Huahui''), the mandatory respondents in
this review, and Petitioners submitted additional surrogate value
(``SV'') information. On June 14, 2010, Petitioners submitted rebuttal
SV information.
At the Preliminary Results, we set the deadline for interested
parties to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs to June 14, 2010, and
June 21, 2010, respectively. On June 7, 2010, we extended the deadlines
for case and rebuttal briefs to June 21, 2010, and June 28, 2010,
respectively. Additionally, on June 25, 2010, we extended the deadline
for rebuttal briefs by an additional two days to June 30, 2010. On June
21, 2010, Petitioners, Jacobi, and Huahui filed case briefs. On June
21, 2010, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
(``GHC'') filed comments on the Department's wage rate methodology. On
June 28, 2010, Shanxi DMD Corporation (``Shanxi DMD'') filed a rebuttal
brief. On June 30, 2010, Huahui filed a rebuttal brief. On July 1,
2010, Jacobi and Petitioners filed rebuttal briefs. On August 3, 2010,
the Department placed wage rate data to value the input of labor on the
record for comment by interested parties. On September 27, 2010, the
Department issued industry-specific wage rate data for comment. On
October 4, 2010, the Department issued a memorandum regarding the
Department's industry-specific wage rate methodology for comment. On
October 7, 2010, the Department issued a correction to the October 4,
2010, data. On October 4, 2010, Huahui provided comments on the
September 27, 2010, data. On October 13, 2010, Petitioners, Jacobi, and
Huahui provided comments on the October 4, 2010, and October 7, 2010,
memoranda. On October 18, 2010, Huahui provided rebuttal comments. The
Department did not hold a public hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d),
as any hearing requests made by interested parties were withdrawn.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
these reviews are addressed in the ``Certain Activated Carbon from the
People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,''
which is dated concurrently with this notice (``Decision Memo''). A
list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the
Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision
Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit,
main Commerce building, Room 7046, and is accessible on the
Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order is certain activated carbon.
Certain activated carbon is a powdered, granular, or pelletized carbon
product obtained by ``activating'' with heat and steam various
materials containing carbon, including but not limited to coal
(including bituminous, lignite, and anthracite), wood, coconut shells,
olive stones, and peat. The thermal and steam treatments remove organic
materials and create an internal pore structure in the carbon material.
The producer can also use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place
of steam in this process. The vast majority of the internal porosity
developed during the high temperature steam (or CO2 gas)
activated process is a direct result of oxidation of a portion of the
solid carbon atoms in the raw material, converting them into a gaseous
form of carbon.
The scope of the order covers all forms of activated carbon that
are activated by steam or CO2, regardless of the raw
material, grade, mixture, additives, further washing or post-activation
chemical treatment (chemical or water washing, chemical impregnation or
other treatment), or product form. Unless specifically excluded, the
scope of the order covers all physical forms of certain activated
carbon, including powdered activated carbon (``PAC''), granular
activated
[[Page 70209]]
carbon (``GAC''), and pelletized activated carbon.
Excluded from the scope of the order are chemically activated
carbons. The carbon-based raw material used in the chemical activation
process is treated with a strong chemical agent, including but not
limited to phosphoric acid, zinc chloride sulfuric acid or potassium
hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in the raw material, and results
in the formation of water that is removed from the raw material by
moderate heat treatment. The activated carbon created by chemical
activation has internal porosity developed primarily due to the action
of the chemical dehydration agent. Chemically activated carbons are
typically used to activate raw materials with a lignocellulosic
component such as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, paper mill waste
and peat.
To the extent that an imported activated carbon product is a blend
of steam and chemically activated carbons, products containing 50
percent or more steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are
within the scope, and those containing more than 50 percent chemically
activated carbons are outside the scope. This exclusion language
regarding blended material applies only to mixtures of steam and
chemically activated carbons.
Also excluded from the scope are reactivated carbons. Reactivated
carbons are previously used activated carbons that have had adsorbed
materials removed from their pore structure after use through the
application of heat, steam and/or chemicals.
Also excluded from the scope is activated carbon cloth. Activated
carbon cloth is a woven textile fabric made of or containing activated
carbon fibers. It is used in masks and filters and clothing of various
types where a woven format is required.
Any activated carbon meeting the physical description of subject
merchandise provided above that is not expressly excluded from the
scope is included within the scope. The products subject to the order
are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS'') subheading 3802.10.00. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from
parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made revisions to
certain SVs and the margin calculations for Jacobi and Huahui in the
final results. Specifically, we have updated the SV for labor and the
calculation of the surrogate financial ratios.\4\ See Decision Memo at
Comment 4. For all changes to the margin calculations, see Decision
Memo and the company specific analysis memoranda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Petitioners and Jacobi both submitted Kalpalka's 2007-2008
financial statements in their post-preliminary SV submissions, which
we will rely upon for the final results as they are more
contemporaneous than the 2006-2007 Kalpalka financial statements.
See Petitioners' Post-Prelim SV Submission, dated June 2, 2010 at
Attachment 18; see also Jacobi's Post-Prelim SV Submission, dated
June 2, 2010 at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage Rate Methodology
Pursuant to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, we have calculated a revised hourly wage rate
to use in valuing Jacobi's and Huahui's reported labor. The revised
wage rate is calculated by averaging earnings and/or wages in countries
that are economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant
producers of comparable merchandise. See Decision Memo at Comment 4f;
see also Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program
Manager, Office 9, Import Administration, from Bob Palmer, Case
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Second
Administrative Review of Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Surrogate Values for the Final Results, dated November 9, 2010,
for the details of the calculation and supporting data.
Per-Unit Assessment
In the Preliminary Results, we analyzed Jacobi's submitted entered
values because Petitioners argued that the Department should calculate
specific, per-kilogram cash deposit and importer-specific assessment
rates for all respondents in this review based on an allegation that
parties are selling the subject merchandise (or importing it) at prices
significantly below prevailing market prices to evade assessment of
antidumping duties. At the time of the Preliminary Results, we did not
find that there was a substantial difference between the average U.S.
sales price for activated carbon and the average entered value reported
to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') for Jacobi. However,
since the Preliminary Results, Jacobi has submitted revised entered
value data and, based on a further analysis of the record of this
review, we have determined that there is a substantial difference
between Jacobi's net unit price for its entries of certain activated
carbon and the entered value reported to CBP. While the Department
normally directs CBP to collect cash deposits and liquidate entries on
an ad valorem basis, we are not required to do so by statute or by our
regulations, and have in the past used quantity-based rates where
appropriate.\5\ Furthermore, the Department has determined in past
cases that it would be extremely burdensome to determine whether to
apply an ad valorem or a per-unit rate on a company-specific basis.\6\
Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, we are
calculating per-unit cash deposit and assessment rates for the
mandatory respondents, separate rate companies and companies that are
part of the PRC-wide entity. See Decision Memo at Comment 3. To arrive
at a per-kilogram rate for the PRC-wide rate entity, we began with the
ad valorem PRC-wide rate of 228.11 percent. The Department then
multiplied the ad valorem rate of 228.11 percent by the average unit
value (``AUV'') for all imports of subject merchandise into the United
States during the POR. For the PRC-wide entity, this calculation
results in a per-kilogram assessment rate of $2.42.\7\ The quantity-
based collection and assessment method will begin upon completion of
these final results, and will be employed thereafter for all future
reviews of this order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic
of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546, 19549 (April 22, 2002);
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
and Revocation of Orders in Part, 66 FR 36551 (July 12, 2001); Honey
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final
Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70
FR 38873 (July 6, 2005); and Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
70 FR 34082 (June 13, 2005).
\6\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Final Results of the Second Administrative Review, 72 FR
13242 (March 21, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6.
\7\ See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, Office 9, from, Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, Office 9,
``Calculation of Per-Kilogram PRC-Wide Rate,'' dated November 9,
2010.
\8\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Activated
Carbon From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 20988 (April 27,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Results, we determined that the following
companies met the criteria for separate rate status: Datong Juqiang
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Datong Municipal
[[Page 70210]]
Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Jilin Bright Future Chemicals
Company, Ltd., Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co.,
Ltd.,\9\ Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited, Shanxi DMD, Shanxi
Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd., and Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In the previous administrative review, the Department found
Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd., GHC, and
Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. as a single entity and
because there were no changes from the previous review, we will
assign this rate to the companies in the single entity See Certain
Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results, 74 FR 21317 (May
7, 2009), unchanged in First Administrative Review of Certain
Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995 (November 10,
2009). Additionally, in a previous review, the Department found that
Cherishmet Inc. is affiliated with GHC, however, it has not been
found to be part of the single entity. See Memorandum to The File,
from Robert Palmer, Case Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager; regarding First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Affiliation Memorandum of Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., dated April 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in the Preliminary Results, we also noted that the
Department received completed responses to the Section A portion of the
non-market economy questionnaire from the individually reviewed
respondents (Jacobi and Huahui), which contained information pertaining
to the companies' eligibility for a separate rate. With respect to
Jacobi, we preliminarily determined that there is no PRC ownership of
this company and, because the Department has no evidence indicating
that Jacobi is under the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis
is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control. With respect to Huahui, we preliminarily granted separate rate
status to it based on the submitted information. We also preliminarily
determined that one of the exporters under review not selected for
individual examination, Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd., reported that
it is 100-percent foreign owned. Accordingly, the Department also
preliminarily granted separate rate status to Tangshan Solid Carbon Co.
Ltd. See Preliminary Results.
With the exception of comments regarding the Department's treatment
of Shanxi DMD, we have not received any information since the issuance
of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for the
reconsideration of these preliminary determinations. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that Jacobi, Huahui, Datong Juqiang
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd., Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd., Ningxia
Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., Ningxia Mineral &
Chemical Limited, Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd., Shanxi
Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation, and Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.
meet the criteria for a separate rate.
With respect to Shanxi DMD, for the Preliminary Results the
Department found that Shanxi DMD had cooperated to the best of its
ability and, accordingly, we did not apply adverse facts available
(``AFA'') by assigning the PRC-wide rate to Shanxi DMD. Since the
Preliminary Results, Petitioners filed comments in their case brief and
Shanxi DMD filed a rebuttal brief concerning whether the Department
should apply total AFA to Shanxi DMD for these final results. After
full consideration of the facts on the record of this review, we have
determined that it is not appropriate to apply total AFA to Shanxi DMD.
Therefore, because we continue to find that Shanxi DMD cooperated to
the best of its ability, we are continuing to grant Shanxi DMD separate
rate status. For a full discussion of parties' arguments and the
Department's position on this matter, please see Decision Memo at
Comment 10.
Additionally, in the Preliminary Results, we stated that, United
Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. (``UMI''), Datong Yunguang
Chemicals Plant, Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation, and
Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., all companies with an active review request,
did not timely submit either a separate rate application or
certification. Thus, we preliminarily determined that these companies
did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status, and
were included as part of the PRC-wide entity. See Preliminary Results
at 26932 and 26933. Because we have not received any information since
the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for a
reconsideration of that finding, we continue to find UMI, Datong
Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising
Corporation, and Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., did not meet the criteria
for a separate rate for the final results. Thus, these companies will
be subject to the PRC-wide entity rate.
In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that those
companies which did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate are
properly considered part of the PRC-wide entity. Since the Preliminary
Results, none of the companies which did not file separate rate
applications or certifications submitted comments regarding these
findings. Therefore, we continue to treat these entities as part of the
PRC-wide entity.
Final Partial Rescission
In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded
this review with respect to Ningxia Lingzhou Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.
(``Lingzhou'') because the Department preliminarily determined that it
had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR. Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, Petitioners pointed out
that Lingzhou submitted its certification of no shipments past the
deadline established by the Department. However, no party submitted
information on the record indicating that Lingzhou made sales to the
United States of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department
acknowledges that it erred in not noticing the submission was late and
rejecting it at the time of filing. However, because the Department
actually reviewed the submission, confirmed with CBP that Lingzhou did
not have any shipments during the instant POR, and preliminarily
rescinded the review with respect to Lingzhou, the Department now finds
that it would be unfair to the respondent to reject the submission for
being untimely filed it after it has been on the record for over a
year. Therefore, in this particular instance, the Department will allow
Lingzhou's no shipment certification to remain on the record. Thus, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice,
we are rescinding this review with respect to Lingzhou. For a full
discussion of parties' comments and the Department's determination with
regard to Lingzhou's no shipments certification, see Decision Memo at
Comment11.
Duty Absorption
In the Preliminary Results, we conducted a duty absorption inquiry
with regard to Jacobi, pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (``Act''), and preliminarily found that Jacobi has
absorbed antidumping duties on U.S. sales made through its affiliated
importer. See Preliminary Results. We have not received any further
information which would provide a basis for the reconsideration of our
determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find that Jacobi
has absorbed antidumping duties on U.S. sales made through its
affiliated
[[Page 70211]]
importer, pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
Final Results of Review
The dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin \10\
Manufacturer/Exporter (dollars per
kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobi Carbons AB \11\.................................. 0.11
Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd................ 0.44
Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd................ 0.28
Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd..... 0.28
Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd.............. 0.28
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 0.28
\12\...................................................
Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited...................... 0.28
Shanxi DMD Corporation.................................. 0.28
Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd............. 0.28
Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation................. 0.28
Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd.......................... 0.28
PRC-Wide Rate \13\...................................... 2.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For the separate rate calculation, see Memorandum to the File, from
Bob Palmer, Case Analyst Office IX, re: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Activated Carbon from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results Simple-Average Per-Unit Rate for
Separate Rate Respondents, dated November 9, 2010.
\11\ In the Preliminary Results, we found that Jacobi Carbons Industry
(Tianjin) (``JCC'') and Tianjin Jacobi International Trading Co. Ltd.
(``Tianjin Jacobi'') both act as export facilitators for Jacobi
Carbons AB. Therefore, as we have done in earlier segments of this
antidumping duty order, we are continuing to find it appropriate that
Jacobi Carbons AB, Tianjin Jacobi and JCC receive the antidumping duty
rate assigned to Jacobi Carbons AB.
\12\ As stated above, GHC is a single entity with Beijing Pacific
Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. and Ningxia Guanghua Activated
Carbon Co., Ltd.
\13\ As discussed in the Separate Rates section of this notice, the PRC-
Wide entity includes Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant, Hebei Foreign
Trade and Advertising Corporation, Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd., and
United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd.
Assessment
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). We
have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on a per-unit
basis.\14\ In this and future reviews, we will direct CBP to assess
importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit
(i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of
the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the
difference between normal value and export price or constructed
export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject
merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-
unit assessment amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate
in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review
(except that if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e.,
less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period of review; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less
than fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate
for all other manufacturers or exporters will be the PRC-wide rate of
$2.42 per kilogram. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: November 9, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Decision Memorandum
General Issues
Comment 1: Assignment of Combination Rates
Comment 2: Treatment of Sales with Negative Margins
Comment 3: Per-Unit Assessment Rates
Comment 4: Surrogate Values
a. Coconut Shell Charcoal
b. Steam Coal
c. Electricity
d. Steam
e. Expense Exclusion in Kalpalka Financial Ratios
f. Wage Rate Methodology
Company-Specific Issues
Jacobi
Comment 5: Issues Regarding Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon
a. Facts Available for Water
b. Transport Bag Surrogate Value
Comment 6: Corrections to Submitted Data
a. Treatment of Indirect Labor
b. Treatment of U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 7: Freight Revenue Expense Calculation
Huahui
Comment 8: Ministerial Error for Truck Freight Unit of Measure
Comment 9: Treatment of Domestic Freight Expenses
Shanxi DMD
Comment 10: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available
Ningxia Lingzhou
Comment 11: Status of No Shipment Certification
[FR Doc. 2010-29017 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P