Albemarle Corp. v. United States, No. 11-00451 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 15, 2013.
Download PDF
Slip Op. 17-51 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE ALBEMARLE CORP., Plaintiff, and NINGXIA HUAHUI ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge Consol. Court No. 11-00451 UNITED STATES, Defendant, and CALGON CARBON (TIANJIN) CO., LTD., CALGON CARBON CORP. AND NORIT AMERICAS INC., Defendant-Intervenors. JUDGMENT Before the court are the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Oct. 14, 2016), ECF No. 135 (“Remand Redetermination”), which the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued in response to the court’s Opinion and Order in Albemarle Corp. v. United States, __ CIT __, Slip Op. 16-84 (Sept. 7, 2016). Plaintiff Albemarle Corporation (“Albemarle”) and plaintiff-intervenor Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (“Huahui”) have commented in favor of the Remand Redetermination. Pl. Albemarle Corp. and Int.-Pl. Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.— Comments on Final Results of Redeterm. pursuant to Ct. Remand (Oct. 27, 2016), ECF No. 137. Consol. Court No. 11-00451 Page 2 No other party submitted comments to the court on the Remand Redetermination. Defendant United States has filed a response in favor of the comment of Albemarle and Huahui. Def.’s Resp. to Comments regarding the Remand Redeterm. (Nov. 28, 2016), ECF No. 138. The court’s previous Opinion and Order was issued in response to the mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”) in Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Pursuant to that mandate and the subsequent instructions of this court, Commerce, based on the de minimis and zero margins of the individually examined respondents, assigned Huahui a redetermined weighted average dumping margin of zero. Remand Redetermination 1, 7. The court determines that the Remand Redetermination complies with the mandate issue by the Court of Appeals and this court’s instructions. Therefore, upon consideration of the Remand Redetermination and all other papers and proceedings had herein, and upon due deliberation, it is hereby further ORDERED that the Remand Redetermination be, and hereby is, sustained; and it is ORDERED that entries of merchandise that are affected by this litigation shall be liquidated in accordance with the final court decision in this action. /s/Timothy C. Stanceu Timothy C. Stanceu Chief Judge Dated: April 27, 2017 New York, NY
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
