Commerce Erred in Coal Tar Pitch Pricing, Respondent Argues at CIT

The Commerce Department incorrectly valued imported coal during an antidumping review on activated carbon from China, using a tariff schedule code for coal that was less specific than required and failing to use the best available data for valuing coal tar pitch inputs, Jilin Bright Future Chemicals said in a May 25 motion for judgment (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00336).

Commerce did not address Jilin Bright's concern that the average unit values (AUVs) of the Malaysian imports under subheading 2701.12 showed the exact opposite price correlation from that of Malaysian subheading 2701.19, which covers only non-caking coal. The AUVs under subheading 2701.12 are not product-specific and internally inconsistent because the code includes both coking and non-coking coal, which have wildly different prices, Jilin Bright said. The statute requires Commerce to value factors of production "based on the best available information regarding the values of such factors in a market economy," which Commerce failed to do by selecting a less specific product category, the brief said.

Commerce also failed to use the best data for valuing inputs of coal tar pitch by using Malaysian import data instead of the UMR Coal Tar Report, which Jilin Bright said contained "far more specific prices." Commerce dismissed the report, arguing it did not explain its methodology, despite the report explaining its pricing processes in "considerable detail," Jilin Bright said.

Finally, Jilin Bright argued that even if Commerce determined that it couldn't rely on that report, it should have used the AUVs under heading 2706 into Russia. Among all the potential surrogate countries, Jilin Bright said, Russia accounts for over 99% of the imports. Commerce's practice is to rely on the import AUV from the country that accounts for the largest quantity of imports economically comparable to China, in this case Russia, the brief said.