98-32542. Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Notice of Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 67650-67654]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-32542]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [A-351-820]
    
    
    Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Notice of Partial Rescission and 
    Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of partial rescission and preliminary results of 
    antidumping duty administrative review.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In response to timely requests for administrative review for 
    the period March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998, the Department of 
    Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
    order on ferrosilicon from Brazil. We preliminarily determined that 
    during the period of review, one of the two manufacturers/exporters 
    that are under review sold ferrosilicon to customers in the United 
    States at less than normal value. If the preliminary results are 
    adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will 
    instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all 
    appropriate entries.
        Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
    results of this review. Parties who submit comments on issues in this 
    proceeding should submit with each comment (1) a statement of the 
    issue; and (2) a brief summary of their comment.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1998.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Amdur, Howard Smith, or 
    Wendy Frankel, AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, Office IV, Import 
    Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
    Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
    20230; telephone: (202) 482-5346, (202) 482-5193, or (202) 482-5849, 
    respectively.
    
    The Applicable Statute and Regulations
    
        Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
    references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
    date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
    Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
    indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations refer to the 
    regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1998).
    
    [[Page 67651]]
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On March 11, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
    published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an 
    administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon 
    from Brazil covering the period March 1, 1997, through February 28, 
    1998. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
    Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
    63 FR 1868 (March 11, 1998); see also Antidumping Duty Order: 
    Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 59 FR 11769 (March 14, 1994). Pursuant to the 
    notice of opportunity to request an administrative review and 19 CFR 
    351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, in March 1998, Companhia de 
    Ferro Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa) and Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de 
    Calcio (CBCC) requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
    review of their respective shipments of ferrosilicon to the United 
    States. Additionally, in March 1998, AIMCOR and SKW Metals & Alloys, 
    Inc., (collectively petitioners), domestic interested parties under 19 
    CFR 351.102(b) of the Department's regulations, requested that the 
    Department conduct an administrative review of Companhia Ferroligas 
    Minas Gerais-Minasligas (Minasligas) as well as the aforementioned 
    companies. In response to these requests, the Department initiated an 
    antidumping duty administrative review of Ferbasa, CBCC, and Minasligas 
    (collectively respondents). See Initiation of Antidumping and 
    Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
    in Part, 63 FR 20378 (April 24, 1998).
        The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to the 
    respondents in May 1998 and received responses thereto in June and July 
    1998. In June 1998, the Department granted Ferbasa's request that it be 
    allowed to limit its reporting period for sales in the comparison 
    market to the period that is contemporaneous with its U.S. sale, 
    namely, May 1, 1997 through October 31, 1997. In a letter granting this 
    request, the Department also instructed Ferbasa to report its cost 
    figures for ferrosilicon for this limited period. Additionally, based 
    on U.S. Custom's documents obtained by the Department, we determined, 
    and CBCC confirmed, that CBCC did not have any entries of ferrosilicon 
    for consumption in the U.S. customs territory during the period of 
    review (POR). Therefore, we are rescinding this review with respect to 
    CBCC. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the 
    remaining respondents in September, October, and November 1998 and 
    received responses thereto in these same three months.
        The Department is conducting this antidumping duty administrative 
    review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
    
    Duty Absorption
    
        On May 20, 1998, petitioners requested that the Department 
    determine, with respect to Minasligas, whether antidumping duties had 
    been absorbed during the POR. On May 28, 1998, Minasligas requested 
    that the Department reject petitioners' request for a determination 
    regarding duty absorption because Minasligas did not sell the subject 
    merchandise to the United States through an affiliated importer during 
    the POR.
        Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that the Department, if 
    requested, shall determine during an administrative review initiated 
    two or four years after the publication of the order, whether 
    antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter 
    subject to the order, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United 
    States through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer 
    or exporter. For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) 
    of the Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section 
    351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that the 
    Department will make a duty-absorption determination, if requested, in 
    any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. Because the order 
    on ferrosilicon from Brazil has been in effect since 1994, it is a 
    transition order in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. 
    The instant review of Minasligas was initiated in 1998. However, during 
    the POR, Minasligas did not sell the subject merchandise to the United 
    States through importers that are affiliated within the meaning of 
    section 751(a)(4) of the Act and, therefore, we did not make a duty 
    absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding.
    
    Scope of the Review
    
        The merchandise subject to this review is ferrosilicon, a ferro 
    alloy generally containing, by weight, not less than four percent iron, 
    more than eight percent but not more than 96 percent silicon, not more 
    than 10 percent chromium, not more than 30 percent manganese, not more 
    than three percent phosphorous, less than 2.75 percent magnesium, and 
    not more than 10 percent calcium or any other element. Ferrosilicon is 
    a ferro alloy produced by combining silicon and iron through smelting 
    in a submerged-arc furnace. Ferrosilicon is used primarily as an 
    alloying agent in the production of steel and cast iron. It is also 
    used in the steel industry as a deoxidizer and a reducing agent, and by 
    cast iron producers as an inoculant.
        Ferrosilicon is differentiated by size and by grade. The sizes 
    express the maximum and minimum dimensions of the lumps of ferrosilicon 
    found in a given shipment. Ferrosilicon grades are defined by the 
    percentages by weight of contained silicon and other minor elements. 
    Ferrosilicon is most commonly sold to the iron and steel industries in 
    standard grades of 75 percent and 50 percent ferrosilicon. Calcium 
    silicon, ferrocalcium silicon, and magnesium ferrosilicon are 
    specifically excluded from the scope of this review. Calcium silicon is 
    an alloy containing, by weight, not more than five percent iron, 60 to 
    65 percent silicon, and 28 to 32 percent calcium. Ferrocalcium silicon 
    is a ferro alloy containing, by weight, not less than four percent 
    iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon, and more than 10 percent calcium. 
    Magnesium ferrosilicon is a ferro alloy containing, by weight, not less 
    than four percent iron, not more than 55 percent silicon, and not less 
    than 2.75 percent magnesium. Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable 
    under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
    the United States (HTSUS): 7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000, 7202.21.7500, 
    7202.21.9000, 7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050. The HTSUS subheadings are 
    provided for convenience and customs purposes. Our written description 
    of the scope of this review is dispositive.
        Ferrosilicon in the form of slag is included within the scope of 
    this order if it meets, in general, the chemical content definition 
    stated above and is capable of being used as ferrosilicon. Parties that 
    believe their importations of ferrosilicon slag do not meet these 
    definitions should contact the Department and request a scope 
    determination.
    
    Product Comparisons
    
        In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
    products within the scope of this review that were produced by the 
    respondents, and sold in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison 
    market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of 
    determining the appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
    
    [[Page 67652]]
    
    Fair Value Comparisons
    
        To determine whether the respondents' sales of ferrosilicon to 
    customers in the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
    compared export price (EP) to normal value (NV), as described in the 
    ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In 
    accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly 
    weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the prices of 
    individual U.S. transactions.
    
    Level of Trade
    
        In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
    practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market 
    at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP transaction. The NV LOT is 
    that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV 
    is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we 
    derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. 
    For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, 
    which in this review, is from the exporter to the U.S. importer.
        Neither respondent claimed a LOT adjustment. Nevertheless, in order 
    to determine whether the respondents' NV sales are at a different LOT 
    than their EP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
    selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
    respondent producers and the unaffiliated customers. If the comparison-
    market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price 
    comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
    differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
    market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT 
    adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Final 
    Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length 
    Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
        During the POR, Ferbasa sold ferrosilicon to an unaffiliated 
    trading company in the U.S. market and to unaffiliated resellers and 
    end users in the comparison market, while Minasligas sold ferrosilicon 
    to unaffiliated trading companies and end users in the U.S. market and 
    unaffiliated end users in the comparison market. We found that the 
    selling functions associated with each respondent's U.S. and comparison 
    markets sales of ferrosilicon are generally the same. For example, 
    Ferbasa negotiated the sales terms, prepared ferrosilicon for shipment, 
    and maintained sales records in both the U.S. and comparison market. 
    Minasligas negotiated the sales terms and arranged for delivery, either 
    to the customer's location, in the case of certain sales in the 
    comparison market, or to the Brazilian port, in the case of sales to 
    U.S. customers. We noted, however, that Ferbasa sold ferrosilicon from 
    inventory in the comparison market, while it manufactured ferrosilicon 
    to order for the U.S. market. In addition, Ferbasa incurred commission, 
    freight, and brokerage and handling expenses in connection with sales 
    of ferrosilicon to the U.S. market, while it did not incur these 
    expenses on sales of ferrosilicon in the comparison market. With regard 
    to Minasligas, the company incurred expenses at the port in connection 
    with sales of ferrosilicon to the U.S. market, but it did not incur 
    such expenses on sales of ferrosilicon in the comparison market. These 
    differences primarily involve differences in handling and transporting 
    ferrosilicon to customers, not differences in selling functions. 
    Although Ferbasa maintained inventory only for its comparison market 
    customers, this simply involved storing piles of ferrosilicon in open 
    stalls at the factory. We concluded that this is not a significant 
    selling function given the low level of service that is required to 
    maintain inventory in such a fashion and, thus, we did not consider 
    Ferbasa's maintenance of inventory to be a significant difference in 
    selling activities. In the absence of differences in other selling 
    activities such as the sales order process, advertising, warranty 
    service, technical support, or the maintenance of distribution 
    warehouses, we found that the differences noted above do not constitute 
    substantial differences indicating that either respondent's sales in 
    the U.S. and comparison markets occurred at different marketing stages. 
    Therefore, we determined that a single level of trade exists in each 
    market for both respondents and, moreover, all U.S. and comparison 
    market sales were made at the same level of trade for each respondent. 
    Consequently, we did not make a level of trade adjustment in 
    calculating NV for either respondent.
    
    Export Price
    
        We calculated EP in accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the 
    Act because the respondents sold the subject merchandise directly to 
    the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to 
    importation and constructed export price was not otherwise warranted 
    based on the facts on the record. Specifically, we calculated EP based 
    on the packed prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States 
    from which we made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
    freight and insurance, brokerage and handling, port warehousing, 
    weighing and clerical expenses.
        For Minasligas, we based EP on the U.S. dollar-denominated prices 
    that Minasligas negotiated with its U.S. customers and listed on 
    commercial invoices for its U.S. sales, rather than the Reais-
    denominated prices that Minasligas reported on the sales tape. For 
    further information, see the Memorandum from Alexander Amdur to the 
    File on Minasligas: Calculations for the Preliminary Results of the 
    1997-1998 Administrative Review of Ferrosilicon from Brazil (Minasligas 
    Calculation Memorandum) dated December 1, 1998 on file in the Central 
    Records Unit (CRU) located in room B-099 of the main Department of 
    Commerce Building.
        For Ferbasa, we based EP on the U.S. dollar-denominated price that 
    Ferbasa reported for its U.S. transaction on the sales tape. We 
    accepted the reported price notwithstanding the petitioners' allegation 
    of November 5, 1998, that the price may not have been the result of a 
    bona fide arm's-length transaction. We have reviewed the information 
    contained in the administrative record and concluded that the evidence 
    does not demonstrate that the transaction in question was not bona 
    fide. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have based Ferbasa's 
    EP on the price reported in the sales tape. For further information, 
    see the Concurrence Memorandum From Howard Smith to Holly Kuga 
    regarding this issue, dated December 1, 1998, on file in the CRU 
    located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building.
    
    Normal Value
    
        In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, we 
    determined that the home market for each respondent serves as a viable 
    basis for calculating NV because the aggregate volume of each 
    respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product was greater 
    than five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of the 
    subject merchandise. Therefore, in accordance with section 
    773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the 
    foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting 
    country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course 
    of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as 
    the EP. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we adjusted 
    NV, where applicable,
    
    [[Page 67653]]
    
    by adding U.S. packing costs and subtracting home market packing costs, 
    ICMS and IPI tax expenses, and freight expenses. Moreover, in 
    accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we adjusted NV for 
    differences in the circumstances of sale by adding late payment 
    charges, where applicable, and U.S. credit expenses, and by subtracting 
    home market credit expenses.
        For Minasligas, we recalculated the amount of the U.S. credit 
    expense that was used as an adjustment to NV by making the following 
    changes. First, we used, as the date of payment, the date Minasligas' 
    bank received payment from Minasligas' U.S. customers for each U.S. 
    sale, rather than the date the bank advanced Minasligas money on the 
    sale through Advance Exchange Contracts (ACCs). Second, we used the 
    actual average interest rate of the ACCs that Minasligas used to 
    finance its U.S. sales during the POR, rather than the average monthly 
    Brazilian Taxa referencial de juros (TR) rate for the POR reported by 
    Minasligas in its response. The Department's questionnaire instructs 
    respondents to calculate U.S. credit expense using the interest rate 
    paid on short-term U.S. dollar borrowings. Although Minasligas claimed 
    that it had no short-term U.S. dollar borrowings during the POR, we 
    determined that the advances obtained from the ACCs were short-term 
    U.S. dollar borrowings.
        In its response, Minasligas calculated home market credit expense 
    using a gross unit price net of one month's credit expense, regardless 
    of the credit period applicable to the sale. Because the Department's 
    practice is to calculate credit expense based on gross unit price 
    without any adjustments, we recalculated Minasligas's home market 
    credit expense using the unadjusted gross unit price. Furthermore, we 
    recalculated the home market credit expense using the average monthly 
    TR rate for the POR reported by Minasligas in the narrative portion of 
    its response, rather than the interest rate that Minasligas 
    inadvertently used to calculate credit expense on its sales tape. For 
    further information, See Minasligas Calculation Memorandum.
        For Ferbasa, we adjusted NV by adding U.S. commissions and 
    subtracting home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of 
    the U.S. commission, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e). We did not 
    reduce NV by the reported home market packing expense because we 
    determined that Ferbasa reported packing revenue, rather than packing 
    expense, in its home market sales tape. In addition, although Ferbasa 
    revised its reported cost of manufacturing, it failed to revise its 
    home market inventory carrying cost which was based on manufacturing 
    costs. Therefore, we recalculated home market inventory carrying cost 
    using the revised cost of manufacturing figure reported by Ferbasa in 
    its November 10, 1998, supplemental response.
    I. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
        Because we disregarded sales below the COP for Ferbasa and 
    Minasligas in the last completed segments of the proceeding (See 
    Ferrosilicon from Brazil; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Review, 63 FR 28355 (May 22, 1998) with respect to 
    Ferbasa, and 62 FR 43504 (August 14, 1997) with respect to Minasligas), 
    we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the 
    foreign product under consideration for the determination of NV in this 
    review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by 
    section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 
    773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated investigations to determine whether 
    the respondents sold ferrosilicon in the home market during the POR at 
    prices that were less than their COP.
        a. Calculation of COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
    Act, we calculated each respondent's COP based on the sum of the cost 
    of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like 
    product, plus amounts for SG&A, financing expenses and, for Minasligas, 
    packing costs. We did not include packing costs in COP for Ferbasa 
    because the company failed to report this cost separately. We adjusted 
    Ferbasa's reported costs by (1) adjusting general and administrative 
    expenses by other operating income and non-operating expenses related 
    to the general operations of the company, and (2) increasing financing 
    expense by monetary correction losses. For further information, see the 
    Ferbasa Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum dated December 1, 
    1998, on file in the CRU located in room B-099 of the main Department 
    of Commerce Building. We adjusted Minasligas' reported costs by using, 
    as the fixed overhead cost for all grades of ferrosilicon, the one cost 
    that Minasligas originally reported for all grades of ferrosilicon, 
    rather than the separate fixed overhead costs that Minasligas 
    subsequently allocated to the standard and refined grades of 
    ferrosilicon. We recalculated the indirect selling expenses using a 
    value-based, rather than quantity-based, allocation methodology. For 
    further information, see Minasligas Calculation Memorandum.
        b. Test of Home Market Prices. In order to determine whether the 
    respondents made home market sales during the POR at prices below the 
    COP on a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
    (net of selling and, where applicable, packing expenses and adjusted as 
    noted above) to home market prices less ICMS and IPI tax expenses, 
    direct and indirect selling expenses and, where applicable, home market 
    packing expenses. In addition, where applicable, we added interest 
    revenue to home market prices before comparing them to the COP. We 
    excluded ICMS and IPI tax expenses from the home market prices used in 
    our sales-below-cost analysis because the COP did not contain these 
    expenses.
        In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
    prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) 
    within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at 
    prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
    period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
        Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
    percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were 
    at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of 
    that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not 
    made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
    respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
    less than the COP, we determined that such sales were made in 
    ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time and not at 
    prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
    period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) & (D) of the 
    Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.
        In the instant review, we found that for certain ferrosilicon 
    products, more than 20 percent of Ferbasa's and Minasligas' home market 
    sales were sold at prices less than the COP within an extended period 
    of time, and that the prices did not provide for the recovery of costs 
    within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in accordance with 
    section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we disregarded the below-cost sales and 
    used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.
    
    Currency Conversion
    
        Pursuant to section 773(A)(a) of the Act, for purposes of the 
    preliminary results, we converted foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 
    using the official exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. 
    sales. These official exchange
    
    [[Page 67654]]
    
    rates are based on the daily rates identified by the Dow Jones Business 
    Information Services. Section 773(A)(a) of the Act directs the 
    Department to use a daily exchange rate to convert foreign currencies 
    into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It 
    is our practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily 
    exchange rate differs from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. See 
    Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
    Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey (61 FR 35188, 35192) 
    (July 5, 1996). The benchmark rate is defined as the moving average of 
    the rates for the past 40 business days. Where we determined that the 
    daily rates applicable to this review fluctuated, as defined above, we 
    converted foreign currencies into U.S. dollars using the benchmark 
    exchange rate.
    
    Preliminary Results of The Review
    
        As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
    following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Weighted-
                                                                   average
                       Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                                  (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas (Minasligas)..        10.16
    Companhia de Ferro Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa)................         0.00
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
    parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
    these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of 
    this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
    of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments 
    in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a 
    statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. All 
    case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication 
    of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in 
    the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
    publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 44 
    days after the publication of this notice or the first business day 
    thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results 
    of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
    analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, 
    within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.
        The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service 
    (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
    Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement 
    instructions directly to Customs. The final results of this review 
    shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries 
    of merchandise covered by the determination and for future deposits of 
    estimated duties. For duty assessment purposes, for each importer we 
    will divide the total applicable dumping margin (calculated as the 
    difference between NV and EP) by the total number of metric tons sold. 
    We will direct Customs to assess the resulting per-metric ton dollar 
    amount against each metric ton of subject merchandise entered by the 
    importer during the POR. Furthermore, the following deposit 
    requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of 
    this administrative review for all shipments of ferrosilicon from 
    Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
    after the publication date of the final results of this administrative 
    review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
    deposit rate for the reviewed companies (Ferbasa and Minasligas) will 
    be the rate established in the final results of this administrative 
    review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent, ad valorem and, 
    therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 
    merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this 
    review but covered in the original less than fair value (LTFV) 
    investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue 
    to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent period; 
    (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous 
    review, or the original 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 this or any previous 
    reviews or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will 
    be 35.95 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the original 
    LTFV investigation (59 FR 11769, March 14, 1994). These requirements, 
    when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
    results of the next administrative review.
        This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
    responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
    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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
    section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
    
        Dated: December 1, 1998.
    Robert S. LaRussa,
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 98-32542 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
12/8/1998
Published:
12/08/1998
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of partial rescission and preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review.
Document Number:
98-32542
Dates:
December 8, 1998.
Pages:
67650-67654 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-351-820
PDF File:
98-32542.pdf