Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. v. United States ( 2023 )

Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 05/01/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD.,
CARBON ACTIVATED CORPORATION, DATONG
JUQIANG ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD.,
BEIJING PACIFIC ACTIVATED CARBON
PRODUCTS CO., LTD., NINGXIA GUANGHUA
CHERISHMET ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD.,
NINGXIA MINERAL & CHEMICAL LIMITED,
SHANXI SINCERE INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES, CALGON CARBON
CORPORATION, NORIT AMERICAS INC., FKA
CABOT NORIT AMERICAS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2022-1298
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:20-cv-00007-MAB, Chief Judge Mark A.
Barnett.
______________________
Decided: May 1, 2023
______________________
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 2 Filed: 05/01/2023
2 CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US
DHARMENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY, Grunfeld, Desid-
erio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by
JORDAN CHARLES KAHN, KAVITA MOHAN, FRANCIS JOSEPH
SAILER.
MARGARET JANTZEN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States.
Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE,
MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY;
ASHLANDE GELIN, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade En-
forcement and Compliance, United States Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC.
MELISSA M. BREWER, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Calgon
Carbon Corporation, Norit Americas Inc. Also represented
by JOHN M. HERRMANN, JULIA KUELZOW, ROBERT ALAN
LUBERDA.
______________________
Before HUGHES, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
This case involves an appeal from a final judgment of
the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sus-
taining the results of remand proceedings before the
United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”).
Specifically, Appellants ask us to reverse certain aspects of
the CIT’s review of Commerce’s eleventh administrative re-
view (“AR11”) of antidumping duties for activated carbon
from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). AR11 per-
tains to activated carbon that entered the United States
during the period of review (“POR”) of April 1, 2017
through March 31, 2018. For the reasons set out below, we
affirm.
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 3 Filed: 05/01/2023
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 3
I
A
Antidumping duties may be imposed when Commerce
“determines that a class or kind of foreign merchandise is
being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less
than its fair value” and such sales are injuring or could in-
jure domestic industry. 19 U.S.C. § 1673. A product is
“dumped” when it is sold or likely sold at less than fair
value. “Sales at less than fair value are those sales for
which the ‘normal value’ (the price a producer charges in
its home market) exceeds the ‘export price’ (the price of the
product in the United States) or ‘constructed export price.’”
U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A)).
Commerce “determine[s] the normal value of the sub-
ject merchandise on the basis of the value of the factors of
production utilized in producing the merchandise . . .
add[ing] an amount for general expenses and profit plus
the cost of containers, coverings, and other expenses.” 19
U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1)(B). The factors of production include,
but are not limited to, the “hours of labor required,” the
“quantities of raw materials employed,” the “amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed,” and the “representa-
tive capital cost, including depreciation.” Id. § 1677b(c)(3).
Because China is considered a nonmarket economy
country, Commerce cannot simply use the price that pro-
ducers charge in China as the normal value for its anti-
dumping duty assessment. Therefore, “in valuing factors
of production under paragraph (1), [Commerce] shall uti-
lize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more market economy countries that
are . . . at a level of economic development comparable to
that of the nonmarket economy country, and . . . significant
producers of comparable merchandise.” Id. § 1677b(c)(4).
When able, Commerce prefers to “value all factors in a sin-
gle surrogate country.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2); see also
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 4 Filed: 05/01/2023
4 CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4) (“The administering authority, in
valuing factors of production under paragraph (1), shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors
of production in one or more market economy countries.”).
Ultimately, Commerce calculates a weighted-average
dumping margin for each individually investigated ex-
porter and producer, and an estimated rate for all other ex-
porters and producers. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673d(c)(1)(B)(i),
1677f-1(c). Commerce will also periodically review the an-
tidumping duty amount upon request. See Changzhou
Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1318,
1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
B
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. and Carbon Acti-
vated Corp. (collectively, “Carbon Activated”) and Datong
Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (“DJAC”) were selected
by Commerce as mandatory respondents in AR11. J.A. 43.
Commerce tabulated preliminary weighted-average dump-
ing margins for Carbon Activated and DJAC, and a sepa-
rate rate for non-examined respondents, 1 and then
adjusted its calculations to compute final dumping mar-
gins. J.A. 43-44; J.A. 3-36 (hereinafter the “Final Results
Memorandum”); J.A. 37-39 (Certain Activated Carbon from
the People’s Republic of China, 84 Fed. Reg. 68,881 (Dep’t
of Com. Dec. 17, 2019)).
In the Final Results Memorandum, Commerce made
several determinations as to value inputs that are relevant
to this appeal. First, Commerce relied on Malaysia as the
primary surrogate country, after also considering
1 Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products, Co.,
Ltd.; Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Ltd.; and Shanxi
Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. are not mandatory respondents
but they are among the Appellants to this appeal.
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 5 Filed: 05/01/2023
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 5
Romania. J.A. 6-11. Second, Commerce valued all of Car-
bon Activated’s and DJAC’s bituminous coal pursuant to
Harmonized System (“HS”) 2701.12 (“Bituminous Coal,
Not Agglomerated,” J.A. 141) – but, because Malaysian im-
port statistics under HS 2701.12 were unreliable, Com-
merce instead used Romanian import values classified
under the same subheading (i.e., HS 2701.12). J.A. 11-18.
Third, Commerce valued Carbon Activated’s and DJAC’s
coal tar pitch under HS 2708.10 (“Pitch from coal and other
mineral tars,” J.A. 62) using Malaysian import statistics.
J.A. 18-21.
Appellants appealed Commerce’s determinations to
the CIT. J.A. 40-70; see also Carbon Activated Tianjin Co.
v. United States, 503 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2021). The CIT remanded Commerce’s decision to select
Malaysia as the primary surrogate country because Com-
merce did not adequately explain its selection of Malaysia
and rejection of Romania. J.A. 50-57. The CIT also re-
manded Commerce’s valuation of bituminous coal because
Commerce had not considered the impact Thai Chapter 27,
Subheading Note 2, which limits the applicability of HS
2701.12 to bituminous coal of a particular calorific value
(i.e., equal to or greater than 5,833 kcal/kg). J.A. 59-62,
141. Finally, the CIT sustained Commerce’s surrogate-
data selection for valuing coal tar pitch. J.A. 62-67.
On remand, Commerce once again selected Malaysia as
the primary surrogate country, reasoning that Malaysian
surrogate-value data were more specific to the inputs used
and contemporaneous with the POR. J.A. 122-31; see also
J.A. 93-135 (hereinafter “Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand” or “Final Remand Results”).
However, because the Malaysian data did not include usa-
ble financial data, Commerce relied on a Romanian com-
pany’s financial statements to calculate the surrogate
financial ratios. See J.A. 107-08, 131. Commerce also con-
sidered Thai Chapter 27, Subheading Note 2 in its valua-
tion of bituminous coal, as the CIT had directed, and
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 6 Filed: 05/01/2023
6 CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US
decided to value certain bituminous coal of a known calo-
rific value using import data under Malaysian HS 2701.19
(“Other Coal,” J.A. 142), and to value bituminous coal with
unknown calorific value under Romanian HS 2701.12, be-
cause the average unit value for imports under Malaysian
HS 2701.12 was “aberrantly high . . . and thus unreliable,”
J.A. 94; see also J.A. 113-22.
Appellants appealed once more. This time the CIT
fully sustained Commerce’s remand results. J.A. 136-59;
see also Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, 547
F. Supp. 3d 1310 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021); J.A. 160-62 (Cer-
tain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China,
86 Fed. Reg. 60,203 (Dep’t of Com. Nov. 1, 2021)). This ap-
peal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(5).
II
We apply the same standard of review as the CIT. See
Changzhou, 975 F.3d at 1325. Therefore, we “hold unlaw-
ful any determination, finding, or conclusion found . . . to
be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). “Although we review the decisions of
the CIT de novo, we give great weight to the informed opin-
ion of the CIT and it is nearly always the starting point of
our analysis.” Changzhou, 975 F.3d at 1325.
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938). We consider the entire record before the
agency, including evidence that buoys and detracts from
the agency’s conclusion. See Universal Camera Corp. v.
NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487-88 (1951). On substantial evi-
dence review we do not reweigh the evidence. See, e.g., So-
larWorld Ams., Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216, 1225
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 7 Filed: 05/01/2023
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 7
III
Appellants press four issues on appeal. We address
each in turn.
A
Appellants first argue that Commerce’s selection of
Malaysia as a primary surrogate country was unsupported
by substantial evidence and contrary to law. We disagree.
Commerce follows a four-step process in its selection of
a surrogate country:
(1) the Office of Policy (“OP”) assembles
a list of potential surrogate countries
that are at a comparable level of eco-
nomic development to the [non-market
economy] country; (2) Commerce identi-
fies countries from the list with produc-
ers of comparable merchandise;
(3) Commerce determines whether any
of the countries which produce compara-
ble merchandise are significant produc-
ers of that comparable merchandise; and
(4) if more than one country satisfies
steps (1)-(3), Commerce will select the
country with the best factors data.
Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co. v. United States, 822 F.3d
1289, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In implementing this process,
Commerce’s “valuation of the factors of production shall be
based on the best available information regarding the val-
ues of such factors” in the surrogate country. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(c)(1). “Commerce has broad discretion to deter-
mine the best available information for an antidumping re-
view.” QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2011). “Commerce generally selects, to the ex-
tent practicable, surrogate values that are publicly availa-
ble, are product-specific, reflect a broad market average,
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 8 Filed: 05/01/2023
8 CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US
and are contemporaneous with the period of review.” Jiax-
ing, 822 F.3d at 1293.
Here, on remand from the CIT, Commerce selected Ma-
laysia as the primary surrogate country, rejecting Appel-
lants’ contention that Romania was a superior choice.
Commerce observed that while both Malaysia and Roma-
nia had “complete, publicly-available, and contemporane-
ous and input-specific” data, Malaysia had an HS
subheading (HS 4402.90.1000) specific to coconut-shell
charcoal, “a direct material that is consumed in significant
quantities in the production of subject merchandise by the
mandatory respondents.” J.A. 106-07. Romania, by con-
trast, only had a broader HS subheading (HS 4402.90),
which covered wood-based charcoal and nut-based char-
coal, although nut-based charcoal is not used as an input
by Carbon Activated or DJAC. J.A. 107. Commerce also
found support for its decision to use Malaysian data be-
cause it appeared to be more contemporaneous with the
POR. J.A. 128.
Commerce’s selection of Malaysia as the primary sur-
rogate country is supported by substantial evidence and
not otherwise contrary to law. In reaching our conclusion,
our task is to consider “not whether the information Com-
merce used was the best available, but rather whether a
reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the
best available information.” Jiaxing, 822 F.3d at 1300-01.
We are persuaded that Commerce considered the relevant
factors and acted reasonably in selecting Malaysia.
Appellants argue that, instead, Romania should have
been selected as the primary surrogate country because it
had viable financial data and Commerce valued one of the
main inputs, bituminous coal with an unknown calorific
value, under Romanian HS 2701.12 (as we discuss below in
III.D.). Due to shortcomings in Malaysian financial data,
which did “not provide breakouts for raw material, labor,
and energy,” Commerce used a Romanian company’s
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 9 Filed: 05/01/2023
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 9
financial statements for surrogate financial-ratio calcula-
tions. J.A. 107-08. This factor alone does not render Com-
merce’s decision to select Malaysia arbitrary, capricious, or
otherwise contrary to law. Indeed, Appellants point to no
authority requiring Commerce to elevate financial data, or
any factor, above all others in choosing a primary surrogate
country, and we are aware of no such requirement. See,
e.g., Xiamen Int’l Trade & Indus. Co. v. United States, 953
F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1313 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (“Commerce
has not identified a hierarchy among these factors, and the
weight accorded to a factor varies depending on the facts of
each case.”).
Appellants also argue that Malaysia’s more specific co-
conut-shell charcoal HS subheading does not support Com-
merce’s selection of Malaysia over Romania as a primary
surrogate country. “Product-specific” surrogate values are,
however, one factor Commerce explicitly considers in se-
lecting a surrogate country. See Jiaxing, 822 F.3d at 1293.
It was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for Com-
merce to have favored a surrogate country with more prod-
uct-specific surrogate values.
Appellants further dispute Commerce’s finding that
the Malaysian data was more contemporaneous than the
Romanian data. Appellants particularly highlight Com-
merce’s use of Romanian data to value certain bituminous
coal under HS 2701.12. Commerce reasoned that the Ro-
manian data was not as specific to the POR, as it was la-
belled “2016-2018” 2 while the POR ran only between April
2 Appellants also assert that Commerce violated the
prohibition of 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) against making ad-
verse factual findings without providing Appellants notice
and an opportunity to cure. We agree with the CIT that
there was no such error. Section 1677m(d) applies to find-
ings based on data provided in response to a request by
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 10 Filed: 05/01/2023
10 CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US
2017 and March 2018. J.A. 128. Appellants contend the
labelling was the result of a technical glitch – but we agree
with the CIT (J.A. 153-54) that the evidence on which they
rely for this contention is not part of the administrative
record, and “[o]ur review is limited to the record before
Commerce in the particular review proceeding at issue.”
Jiaxing, 822 F.3d at 1297.
Thus, we hold that Commerce’s selection of Malaysia
as the primary surrogate country is supported by substan-
tial evidence and is in accordance with the law.
B
Appellants next challenge Commerce’s valuation of
coal tar pitch using Malaysian import statistics for mer-
chandise classified under HS 2708.10 (“Pitch from Coal and
Other Mineral Tars,” J.A. 62) rather than Russian import
statistics under HS 2706.00 (“Coal Tar,” J.A. 62). In Ap-
pellants’ view, this determination was not supported by
substantial evidence. Once more, we disagree.
Commerce preliminarily valued coal tar pitch using
Malaysian import data under HS 2706.00. J.A. 20. In its
Final Results Memorandum, however, Commerce found
“that the Malaysian import data under HS 2708.10, consti-
tute the best available information on the record to value
the coal tar pitch . . . because HS 2708.10 is product-specific
in that it is a provision for ‘Pitch from Coal and Other Min-
eral Tars.’” J.A. 21. The CIT sustained Commerce’s valu-
ation, J.A. 67, while recognizing it was “a close call,” J.A.
65.
Commerce and not to findings based on data voluntarily
submitted on a respondent’s own initiative, as occurred
here. See Shenzhen Xinboda Indus. Co. v. United States,
357 F. Supp. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018).
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 11 Filed: 05/01/2023
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 11
In coming to its conclusion, Commerce explained that
the coal tar pitch used by Carbon Activated’s supplier is
often referred to simply as “pitch.” J.A. 21. Commerce
cited to “record evidence indicat[ing] that coal tar, through
the fractionated distillation process, yields two different
kinds of coal tar pitch.” Id.; see also J.A. 483-84. Commerce
then found that HS 2706.00 “covers coal tar, which is a by-
product of the coke production process, whereas HS
2708.10 covers pitch, a product of the coal tar distillation
process.” J.A. 21 (emphasis added); see also J.A. 622
(“Coal-tars are by-products of the destructive distillation of
coal, called carbonization or coking.”). Commerce also had
before it Carbon Activated’s and DJAC’s representations
that “[t]his coal tar pitch is commonly known as ‘pitch’ in
the industry.” J.A. 1559. Collectively, this is substantial
evidence for Commerce’s conclusion.
Appellants correctly note that, in Administrative Re-
views 10 and 12, Commerce valued coal tar pitch under HS
2706.00. But “each administrative review is a separate ex-
ercise of Commerce’s authority that allows for different
conclusions based on different facts in the record.” Qing-
dao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378,
1387 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The record created in AR11 is differ-
ent than the records Commerce had before it in connection
with the prior and the subsequent administrative reviews.
As long as Commerce adequately explains its conclusions,
as it has done here, the fact that Commerce made different
findings on different administrative records does not ren-
der Commerce’s conclusions unsupported by substantial
evidence, notwithstanding that Commerce reached differ-
ent conclusions on the same issues in other proceedings.
Appellants are of the view that coal tar pitch contain-
ing only 61-72% pitch content must be classified under HS
2706.00 and that only coal tar pitch consisting of 100%
pitch content can be classified under HS 2708.10. Appel-
lants further contend that Malaysian import data under
HS 2708.10 is unreliable and anomalous because of the
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 12 Filed: 05/01/2023
12 CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US
prevalence of Spanish imports in the data. In sustaining
Commerce’s valuation, the CIT determined, correctly, that
Appellants failed to exhaust these arguments, which they
were required to do. See J.A. 66-67; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 2637(d) (“In any civil action not specified in this section,
the Court of International Trade shall, where appropriate,
require the exhaustion of administrative remedies.”). The
CIT did not abuse its discretion in requiring exhaustion.
See Boomerang Tube LLC v. United States, 856 F.3d 908,
912 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Therefore, we affirm the CIT’s judgment sustaining
Commerce’s valuation of coal tar pitch.
C
Appellants also contend that Commerce’s decision to
use Malaysian import statistics for bituminous coal having
a known calorific value, rather than Romanian import sta-
tistics, is unsupported by substantial evidence. On remand
from the CIT, and applying Thai Note 2 to Malaysian HS
2701.12, Commerce valued Appellants’ bituminous coal in-
puts with a known calorific value of less than 5,833 kcal/kg
under Malaysian HS 2701.19. J.A. 122. While Commerce
had found that Malaysian import data under HS 2701.12
was aberrant, it found that Malaysian import data under
HS 2701.19 had not been shown to be unreliable. J.A. 117-
20. The CIT sustained Commerce’s decision. J.A. 148-50.
Appellants insist that because Commerce found import
data under Malaysian HS 2701.12 to be unreliable, Com-
merce should not have used Malaysian HS 2701.19 to value
bituminous coal with a known calorific value. Instead, in
Appellants’ view, Commerce should have used Romanian
data for all bituminous-coal valuation to minimize distor-
tion.
As part of their burden to persuade Commerce of the
superiority of the Romanian data, Appellants needed to
show that the Malaysian HS 2701.19 data was
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 13 Filed: 05/01/2023
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 13
aberrational or unreliable. See QVD Food Co., 658 F.3d at
1324. Commerce’s determination that Appellants failed to
meet that burden is supported by substantial evidence. See
Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, 532 F. Supp. 3d
1241, 1253-54 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021); see also Jinan Farm-
lady Trading Co. v. United States, 228 F. Supp. 3d 1351,
1356-57 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (concluding Commerce’s de-
termination that there was no aberrational data in the im-
port statistics was reasonable when party failed to
demonstrate “how any alleged distorted surrogate values
resulted in inaccurate [normal value] or antidumping mar-
gins”). In finding Malaysian data under HS 2701.19 relia-
ble, Commerce cited surrogate-value submissions from
Calgon Carbon Corp. stating that “there is no indication
that the [average unit value] is unusable as a result of be-
ing, for example, aberrantly high or based on a limited
number of imports.” J.A. 99 & n.28; J.A. 4396-4435.
Thus, we agree with the CIT that Commerce’s decision
to use Malaysian import statistics for bituminous coal hav-
ing a known calorific value is supported by substantial ev-
idence.
D
Finally, Appellants argue that Commerce’s decision to
value bituminous coal having an unknown calorific value
using Romanian HS 2701.12, rather than by averaging im-
port data under that subheading (i.e., Romanian HS
2701.12) and Romanian HS 2701.19, or by exclusively us-
ing Romanian HS 2701.19, is unsupported by substantial
evidence. Once more, we disagree.
Commerce confronted a record lacking evidence of the
calorific value of certain bituminous coal, which led Com-
merce to conclude that there was “no record evidence to
support the use of Malaysian import [surrogate value] data
under HS 2701.19 for the bituminous coal input,” which is
the subheading that Commerce applied to, and is applica-
ble to, bituminous coal with a known calorific value of less
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 14 Filed: 05/01/2023
14 CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US
than 5,833 kcal/kg. J.A. 120. Under these circumstances,
Commerce reasoned that “the plain language description of
the GTA data for HS 2701.12 (Bituminous Coal, Not Ag-
glomerated) . . . matches the mandatory respondents’ de-
scriptions of their input (i.e., bituminous coal).” Id.Commerce further explained that, although Malaysia was
the primary surrogate country, and therefore Commerce
would have preferred to use Malaysian import data, Ma-
laysian import data under HS 2701.12 was “aberrant and
unreliable.” J.A. 117-18. Therefore, Commerce relied on
Romanian HS 2701.12 data instead.
Commerce’s decision to value bituminous coal of an un-
known calorific value under Romanian HS 2701.12 is sup-
ported by substantial evidence. We agree with the CIT that
Commerce acted reasonably in deciding that HS 2701.12
applied because, in the absence of other information about
the coal’s calorific value, the subheading “Bituminous Coal,
Not Agglomerated” accurately describes the input being
valued. J.A. 146-47. Appellants point to nothing suggest-
ing that “no reasonable mind” could have come to the same
conclusion as Commerce. See Zhejiang DunAn Hetian
Metal Co. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“We cannot say, therefore that no reasonable mind
could conclude that Commerce calculated the surrogate
value as accurately as possible.”).
The CIT has recognized Commerce’s “strong preference
to use surrogate values from the primary surrogate coun-
try.” Tri Union Frozen Prods., Inc. v. United States, 227 F.
Supp. 3d 1387, 1393 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017); see also 19
C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2) (“Except for labor, as provided in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the Secretary normally will
value all factors in a single surrogate country.”). Just be-
cause Commerce departed here from what it “normally”
does or “strongly prefer[s]” to do does not mean that what
it did do is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Case: 22-1298 Document: 57 Page: 15 Filed: 05/01/2023
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 15
Accordingly, we agree with the CIT that Commerce’s
decision to value bituminous coal with an unknown calo-
rific value under Romanian HS 2701.12 is supported by
substantial evidence.
IV
We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments
and find they are without merit. Therefore, we affirm the
judgment of the CIT.
AFFIRMED