Activated Carbon Exporter Challenges Surrogate Value Country, Input Picks at CIT
The Commerce Department erred in picking Malaysia as the main surrogate country in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, exporter Carbon Activated Corp. argued in a Jan. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Carbon Activated said that Romania was the better choice and that Commerce's use of Malaysia surrogate values for coal tar, sub-bituminous coal, hydrochloric acid, solid sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide was unsupported by substantial evidence (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00265).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
For each of the inputs, the exporter argued that the agency "unlawfully disregarded evidence" that the surrogate values were "aberrational based on historical data" and do not "reflect a broad market average because" they are based on a "low volume of imports."
Carbon Activated also argued that Commerce's finding that only Malaysia qualified as a significant producer of comparable merchandise since it was the only net exporter "is contrary to law." The company added that the agency "unlawfully disregarded arguments and evidence showing that Malaysian surrogate values are aberrational," thus failing to follow "its own policy of taking into account data quality as a critical factor in surrogate country selection."
In the review, Commerce tapped Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. and Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. as the two respondents, giving them AD rates of $2.01 per kg for Jilin and $1.17 per kg for Cherishmet.
Challenging the review, Carbon Activated contested Commerce's decision to revise the factors of production database for Cherishmet to use a surrogate value for activated carbon to value certain factors of production. The complaint said the agency unlawfully disregarded evidence that Cherishmet's unaffiliated supplier only used coal to produce the activated carbon sold to the respondent, not the purchased activated materials.
Lastly, the exporter challenged Commerce's decision to use its discretionary authority to correct an "inadvertent clerical error" with respect to the Malaysian surrogate value for bituminous coal in the calculations for Cherishment but not for Jilin.