[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54094-54096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27633]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-806]
Silicon Metal From Brazil; Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Amended final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending its
final results of review, published on January 14, 1997, of the
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil, to reflect the
correction of ministerial errors in those final results. These amended
final results are for the review covering the period July 1, 1993
through June 30, 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Alain Letort, or John
Kugelman, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone 202/482-2924 (Baker), 202/482-4243
(Letort), or 202/482-0649 (Kugelman), fax 202/482-1388.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
regulations are references to the provisions as they existed on
December 31, 1994.
Background
The Department published the final results of the third
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal
from Brazil on January 14, 1997 (62 FR 1954) (Third Review Final
Results), covering the period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994. The
respondents are Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC),
Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--Minasligas (Minasligas), Eletrosilex
Belo Horizonte (Eletrosilex), Rima Industrial S.A. (RIMA), and Camargo
Correa Metais (CCM). The petitioners are American Alloys, Inc., Elken
Metals, Co., Globe Metallurgical, Inc., SMI Group, and SKW Metals &
Alloys.
On February 12, 1997, the petitioners filed clerical error
allegations with respect to CCM and Minasligas. The same day we
received clerical error allegations from respondent CCM. On February
18, 1997, we received rebuttal comments from the petitioners regarding
CCM's clerical error allegations. Pursuant to the CIT's order, we are
now addressing the ministerial allegations and amending our final
results of the third review. See American Silicon Technologies et al.,
v. United States, Slip Op. 97-114, August 18, 1997.
Scope of Review
The merchandise covered by this review is silicon metal from Brazil
containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon
by weight. Also covered by this review is silicon metal from Brazil
containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which
contains a higher aluminum content than the silicon metal containing at
least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight.
Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10
and 2804.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) as a chemical
product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor grade
silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent
silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not
subject to the order. HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and
for U.S. Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive
as to the scope of product coverage.
Clerical Error Allegations
Comment 1
CCM argues that the Department erred in its calculation of its U.S.
imputed credit expenses in three ways. First, it argues that the
Department should have
[[Page 54095]]
used CCM's ``actual credit'' expense, rather than an imputed figure.
(The ``actual credit expense'' figure reported by CCM reflects the
actual interest charged on its export credit line for its U.S.
shipment.) CCM argues that this ``actual credit expense'' amount is the
most accurate, transaction-specific measure of CCM's interest expense
in connection with its U.S. sale. Second, CCM argues that if the
Department continues to believe that it should use an imputed credit
figure, it should use CCM's bill of lading date as the start of the
credit period, rather than the date of shipment from CCM's factory. It
bases this argument on the fact that title transfers from CCM to the
U.S. purchaser on the bill of lading date. Thus, CCM argues, the credit
period should begin on the bill of lading date because a credit expense
cannot be incurred until CCM is no longer in possession of the
merchandise. Third, CCM argues that the Department erred in its
calculation of credit by not removing from the U.S. price the value of
the ICMS tax (a value-added tax (VAT)) that the Brazilian government
assessed on the sale. Doing so was an error, CCM argues, because in its
response to comment 10 of the final results the Department stated that
its practice ``is to calculate imputed credit exclusive of VAT.'' See
Third Review Final Results at 1961.
Petitioners argue that the Department made no clerical error in
calculating an imputed figure for CCM's credit expenses or in using the
date of shipment from CCM's plant as the start of the credit period.
They argue that the Department specifically addressed these issues in
the final results of review when it stated:
We disagree with CCM that we should use its reported ``actual
expense'' for U.S. credit. The Department requires that the credit
expenses reflect the opportunity cost of the entire period between
shipment from the plant and payment by the customer. That is not the
case for CCM's reported ``actual expense.'' The actual expense
covers only a portion of the imputed credit expense period.
Therefore, in these final results of review we have calculated
imputed credit using the shipment date from CCM's plant as given in
verification exhibit 11.
See Third Review Final Results at 1962.
Department's Position: We agree with both parties in part. We agree
with petitioners that we did specifically address CCM's first two
contentions in our final results of review. Thus, calculating an
imputed credit figure and using the date of shipment from CCM's plant
as the start of the credit period did not constitute clerical errors.
However, we do agree with CCM that in the calculation of U.S. imputed
credit we inadvertently included the ICMS tax assessed on the sale. We
have corrected this error in these amended final results.
Comment 2
Petitioners argue that the Department made a ministerial error in
the cost test for CCM. It states that the Department made a number of
changes to CCM's reported costs, and that when it made these changes it
gave the revised costs the variable name COP. However, when the
Department performed the cost test, petitioners argue, it used the
variable TOTCOP, which represents CCM's reported costs without any of
the intended changes.
Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in
these amended final results of review.
Comment 3
Petitioners argue the Department made a clerical error in its
calculation of Minasligas' G&A expenses. It argues that the Department
incorrectly transcribed the G&A expenses for one month of the period of
review (POR).
Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in
these amended final results of review.
Comment 4
Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in
converting Minasligas' brokerage, foreign inland freight, and
warehousing expenses from Brazilian cruzeiros reais into U.S. dollars.
They argue that the Department should have used the exchange rates of
the dates of shipment for these expenses, rather than the exchange
rates of the dates of sale.
Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in
these amended final results of review.
In addition to the changes made in response to the above comments,
we have corrected an error in our calculations for all respondents with
calculated margins. In our final results, we calculated G&A and
interest expenses for the computation of COP/CV using a COM figure
inclusive of VAT. In these amended final results we have calculated G&A
and interest expenses using a COM figure exclusive of VAT. See our
amended final results analysis memoranda for our revised calculations.
Amended Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we have determined that the following
margins exist for the period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/manufacturer/exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC....................................................... 61.58
CCM........................................................ 35.23
Eletrosilex................................................ 38.39
Minasligas................................................. 0.00
RIMA....................................................... 91.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective
upon publication of this notice of amended final results of review for
all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit
rates for the reviewed companies named above will be the rates
published in the amended final results of review for the antidumping
duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 1994
through June 30, 1995, published concurrently with this notice; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in these reviews, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer
is a firm covered in these reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue
to be 91.06 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 56 FR 26977 (June 12, 1991).
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the
[[Page 54096]]
disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in
accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's regulations.
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
These amended final results of review and notice are in accordance
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and
section 353.28(c) of the Department's regulations.
Dated: October 10, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-27633 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
