Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd., Carbon Activated Corporation v. United States, Calgon Carbon Corporation, Cabot Norit Americas, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD.,
CARBON ACTIVATED CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
DATONG JUQIANG ACTIVATED CARBON CO.,
LTD., SHANXI INDUSTRY TECHNOLOGY
TRADING CO., LTD., DATONG MUNICIPAL
YUNGUANG ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD.,
BEIJING PACIFIC ACTIVATED CARBON
PRODUCTS CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs
v.
UNITED STATES, CALGON CARBON
CORPORATION, CABOT NORIT AMERICAS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2023-2135
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:21-cv-00131-MAB, Chief Judge Mark A.
Barnett.
______________________
Decided: May 9, 2025
______________________
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 1 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 2
STEPHANIE HARTMANN, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-ap-
pellants. Also represented by D AVID J. ROSS .
J OSHUA E. K URLAND, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States.
Also represented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE,
P ATRICIA M. M CC ARTHY , ANTONIA R AMOS SOARES ;
ASHLANDE G ELIN, 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, Cabot Norit Americas, Inc. Also rep-
resented by J OHN M. HERRMANN, ROBERT A LAN L UBERDA .
______________________
Before T ARANTO, SCHALL , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
SCHALL , Circuit Judge.
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. and Carbon Acti-
vated Corporation (collectively, “Carbon Activated”) are
companies that export activated carbon to the United
States from the People’s Republic of China (“China”).1 Ac-
tivated carbon is a solid carbon adsorbent material that is
used to remove pollutants in gas and liquids. See App.
3261–76.2
1 Specifically, Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. ex-
ports activated carbon from China to the United States,
where it is resold by Carbon Activated Corporation.
2 Our citation to “App.” refers to the Appendix filed
by the parties, ECF Nos. 27, 31.
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 2 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 3
Carbon Activated now appeals the decision of the
United States Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”)
in Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. v. United States, 633
F. Supp. 3d 1329 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (“Carbon Acti-
vated”). In that decision, the Trade Court sustained the
final results of the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”
or “the agency”) in the twelfth administrative review
(“AR12”) of the antidumping duty order on certain acti-
vated carbon from China for the period April 1, 2018,
through March 31, 2019, as modified by Commerce’s rede-
termination upon remand from the court. See Certain Ac-
tivated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final
Determination of No Shipments, and Final Rescission of
Administrative Review, in Part; 2018–2019, 86 Fed. Reg.
10,539 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 22, 2021) (“Final Results”),
App. 1066–69; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand (Nov. 17, 2022) (“Remand Determina-
tion”), App. 4796–824. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). For the reasons set forth below, we af-
firm.
I
The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, directs Commerce
to impose an antidumping duty on foreign merchandise if
the “merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than its fair value.” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1673(1). The antidumping duty reflects the amount by
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). Id. § 1673; see U.S. Steel
Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(citation omitted). However, in an antidumping duty pro-
ceeding involving a non-market economy country, such as
China, Commerce calculates normal value “on the basis of
the value of the factors of production utilized in producing
the merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). The statute di-
rects Commerce to value the factors of production “based
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 3 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 4
on the best available information regarding the values of
such factors in a market economy country or countries con-
sidered to be appropriate by” Commerce. Id. The factors
of production that Commerce must value include, but are
not limited to, “hours of labor required,” “quantities of raw
materials employed,” “amounts of energy and other utili-
ties consumed,” and “representative capital cost, including
depreciation.” Id. § 1677b(c)(3). The resulting values are
commonly referred to as “surrogate values,” and the mar-
ket economy country from which the surrogate values are
derived is commonly referred to as the “surrogate country.”
See Risen Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States, 122 F.4th 1348,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“By identifying a surrogate country
and surrogate values for the factors of production, Com-
merce approximates what a non-market economy manufac-
turer might pay in a market economy setting.” (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)). It is Commerce’s
preference to use a “primary” surrogate country as the ref-
erence point when there are several countries that are at a
level of economic development comparable to the nonmar-
ket economy country and that are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. Jiaxing Bro. Fastener Co., Ltd.
v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cit-
ing 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2)).
II
This case presents a single issue: Commerce’s selection
of a surrogate value in AR12 for coal-based carbonized ma-
terial, one of the factors of production in the manufacture
of activated carbon. Since, as noted, China is a non-market
economy country, in the Remand Determination, Com-
merce turned to the selection of a surrogate value for car-
bonized material in Malaysia, which Commerce had
previously selected as the primary surrogate country. App.
4798, 4540–47. In that setting, Commerce determined that
Malaysian import data under Harmonized System (“HS”)
subheading 4402.90.1000 (“coconut shell charcoal”) pro-
vided the best available information for a surrogate value
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 4 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 5
for coal-based carbonized material. App. 4798. In so doing,
Commerce rejected Carbon Activated’s claim that the sur-
rogate value for carbonized material should be determined
based upon Malaysian import data under HS 4402.90,
which covers “wood charcoal (including shell or nut char-
coal), excluding that of bamboo.” App. 4797–800.
In the Remand Determination, Commerce explained
that the record did not indicate whether Carbon Activated
purchased or used wood or coconut shell charcoal, however,
Commerce noted its past practice of relying on coconut
shell charcoal as the surrogate value for coal-based carbon-
ized material. App. 4799–800. In addition, Commerce
pointed to an International Trade Commission (“ITC”) re-
port that was placed on the record by Carbon Activated.
The report stated that the physical properties of activated
carbon “depend on the raw materials used, as well as the
activation process.” App. 4801 (quoting App. 3267). Con-
tinuing, Commerce reasoned that, “[b]ecause the physical
properties of activated carbon depend not only on the input
materials used, but also the activation process,” it was rea-
sonable to consider the activation process in making its
surrogate value determination. Id. Noting the statement
in the ITC report that “chemically activated carbon is gen-
erally made using wood,” App. 3268 n.33, and the fact that
Carbon Activated reported only using steam activation
during the period of review, Commerce found that HS
4402.90, which includes wood-based activated carbon, did
not provide the best information to value Carbon Acti-
vated’s carbonized material. App. 4801–02. Finally, Com-
merce pointed out that it had “consistently selected the
more specific subheading category (i.e., coconut shell char-
coal)” to value Carbon Activated’s carbonized material in
the antidumping proceeding involving activated carbon
from China. App. 4802. Commerce concluded:
Therefore, because the record indicates that wood
charcoal generally undergoes an activation process
(chemical) that is distinct from that of the coal-
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 5 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 6
based [carbonized material] used by [Carbon Acti-
vated] (steam/thermal), we find it is appropriate to
use Malaysian imports under HS 4402.90.1000
(“coconut-shell charcoal”) to value coal-based [car-
bonized material] used to produce the subject mer-
chandise.
App. 4802–03.
Reviewing the Final Results, as modified by the Re-
mand Determination, the Trade Court concluded that Com-
merce had supported its surrogate value selection for
carbonized material “with substantial evidence such that a
reasonable mind could find that the agency selected the
best information available.” Carbon Activated, 633 F.
Supp. 3d at 1336. It therefore sustained the Final Results.
Id. at 1340.
III
We review decisions of the Trade Court concerning
Commerce’s antidumping determinations by applying the
same standard of review used by the Trade Court. Yang-
zhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. v. United States, 716
F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Commerce’s determina-
tion will be sustained unless it is ‘unsupported by substan-
tial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.’” Id. (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i)). Sub-
stantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Consol. Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
IV
On appeal, Carbon Activated argues that Commerce’s
selection of Malaysian import data under HS 4402.90.1000
(coconut shell charcoal) as the surrogate value for its car-
bonized material is not supported by substantial evidence
and is contrary to law. According to Carbon Activated, in
its Remand Determination, Commerce based its decision to
select HS 4402.90.1000 over the broader heading, HS
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 6 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 6 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 7
4402.90, on inaccurate and unsupported factual findings,
and it was reversible error for the Trade Court to rely on
those findings to affirm the Remand Determination. Ap-
pellants’ Br. 12.
As noted, in the Remand Determination, Commerce
stated that it was reasonable to consider its past practice
of relying on coconut shell charcoal as the surrogate value
for carbonized material. In that context, Commerce stated:
In past Commerce decisions and on remand,
because [surrogate value] information specific to
coal-based [carbonized material] was not available,
Commerce found coconut shell charcoal to be the
best available information with which to value
mandatory respondents’ coal-based [carbonized
material] based on the reported product specifica-
tions. There is a long, demonstrable history in this
proceeding of using coconut-shell [carbonized ma-
terial] in the production of the subject merchan-
dise, unlike wood [carbonized material], which has
never been used to produce the subject merchan-
dise.
App. 4800 (footnote omitted).
Carbon Activated contends that the second sentence in
the above-quoted statement is incorrect because in each of
the prior administrative reviews cited in a footnote in sup-
port of the statement, the mandatory respondents reported
using coal-based carbonized materials to produce the sub-
ject merchandise, not coconut shell carbonized material.
Appellants’ Br. 16–17.
Carbon Activated also focuses on the second reason
that Commerce gave for selecting Malaysian import data
under HS 4402.90.1000 instead of HS 4402.90. As noted,
Commerce determined that there was a difference in the
activation processes used to produce wood-based charcoal
and coal-based carbonized material. In that regard,
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 7 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 7 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 8
Commerce pointed to Carbon Activated’s reports that it
only used steam activation and a statement in the ITC re-
port that chemically activated carbon is “generally” made
using wood. App. 3268 n.33. On this basis, Commerce con-
cluded that Malaysia’s HS 4402.90, which includes wood-
based activated carbon, was not the best information to
value Carbon Activated’s carbonized material. App. 4801–
02. Carbon Activated asserts that Commerce erroneously
inferred from the ITC’s statement that steam-activated
carbon could not be made using wood charcoal, and that
record evidence indicates that steam-activated carbon can
be made using wood charcoal. Appellants’ Br. 25.
V
We are not persuaded by Carbon Activated’s argu-
ments. Turning to its first argument, even if we agree with
Carbon Activated that the second sentence in the para-
graph quoted above is incorrect, the result is not changed.
What is critical is the statement in the first sentence of the
paragraph that, in the past, “Commerce found coconut
shell charcoal to be the best available information with
which to value mandatory respondents’ coal-based [carbon-
ized material] based on the reported product specifica-
tions.” App. 4800. This statement is supported by
substantial evidence. See Certain Activated Carbon from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Re-
view, 76 Fed. Reg. 67,142, Issues and Decision Mem., 76
ITADOC 67,142, cmt. 4.b. (Dep’t Comm. Oct. 31, 2011)
(“‘Coconut Shell Charcoal’ results in a better, input-specific
price for coal-based carbonized materials.”), aff’d Albe-
marle Corp. v. United States, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1352 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2014), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other
grounds, 821 F.3d 1345, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Certain Ac-
tivated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2011–2012, 78 Fed. Reg. 70,533, Issues and Decision Mem.,
78 ITADOC 70,533, cmt. 6 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 26, 2013)
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 8 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 8 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 9
(“In past decisions and on remand, because [surrogate
value] information specific to coal-based carbonized mate-
rials was not available, [Commerce] has found coconut
shell charcoal is the best available information with which
to value respondents’ coal-based carbonized materials,
based on the product specifications.”). Cf. Certain Acti-
vated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2015–2016, 82 Fed. Reg. 51,607 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 7,
2017), Issues and Decision Mem. 82 ITADOC 51,607, cmt.
5 (mandatory respondents arguing against wood-based
charcoal as a surrogate value). We have recognized that
Commerce has “broad discretion to determine what consti-
tutes the best available information,” Qingdao Sea-Line
Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1386
(Fed. Cir. 2014), and that Commerce may properly resort
to its methodology from prior administrative reviews, see
id. at 1386–87.
Second, we see no error in Commerce’s reliance on evi-
dence related to the activation process used to produce ac-
tivated carbon. The administrative record contains no
direct evidence that coal-based carbonized materials, coco-
nut shell charcoal, and wood-based charcoal share similar
physical or chemical properties. App. 4800 (citing App.
3277–78). Because the physical properties of activated car-
bon depend not only on the input materials used, but also
on the activation process, Commerce reasonably relied on
the activation process for steam-activated carbon in mak-
ing its surrogate value selection, App. 4801–03, especially
since, in this administrative review, Carbon Activated re-
ported that it produced only steam-activated carbon. App.
4801. See Lasko Metal Prods., Inc. v United States, 43 F.3d
1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (noting that § 1677b “simply
does not say—anywhere—that the factors of production
must be ascertained in a single fashion”).
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 9 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 9 of 10 --

CARBON ACTIVATED TIANJIN CO., LTD. v. US 10
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the
Trade Court sustaining the Final Results, as modified by
Commerce’s Remand Determination.3
AFFIRMED
3 We have considered the additional arguments
raised by Carbon Activated and have found them unper-
suasive.
Case: 23-2135 Document: 55 Page: 10 Filed: 05/09/2025

-- 10 of 10 --