[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14731-14732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6811]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-351-806]
Silicon Metal From Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners and four respondents,
the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal
from Brazil. This review covers four manufacturers/exporters and the
period July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference
between United States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fred Baker or Zev Primor, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5255.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register
(56 FR 36135) the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil.
On July 7, 1993, the Department published (58 FR 36391) a notice of
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this antidumping
duty order for the period July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. We
received timely requests for review from Companhia Brasileira
Carburetto de Calcio (CBCC), Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais
Minasligas (Minasligas), Electroila, S.A. (currently known as
Eletrosilex Belo Horizonte (Eletrosilex)), and Rima Eletrometalurgia
S.A. (RIMA). We also received a request for review of the same four
manufacturers/exporters of silicon metal from a group of five domestic
producers of silicon metal (the petitioners). The five domestic
producers are American Alloys, Inc., Elkem Metals Co., Globe
Metallurgical, Inc., SMI Group, and SKW Metals and Alloys, Inc.
On August 24, 1993, the Department published a notice of initiation
(58 FR 44653) covering the four manufacturers/exporters named above. We
verified the cost responses of Eletrosilex, RIMA, and CBCC in June and
July 1994. The Department has now completed the preliminary results of
this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Tariff Act).
Scope of the 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 2804.69.50 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.
The review period is July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. This
review involves four manufactueres/exporters of Brazilian silicon
metal.
United States Price
In calculating USP, we used purchase price as defined in section
772 of the Tariff Act. Purchase price was based on the packed, F.O.B.,
C.I.F., or C&F price to the first unrelated purchaser in the United
States, or to unrelated trading companies who export to the United
States.
We made deductions from USP, where appropriate, for foreign inland
freight, ocean freight, and brokerage and handling. We made an addition
to USP, where appropriate, for duty drawback. These adjustments were in
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act. We also adjusted
USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (at 31205), June 17, 1994.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value
In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of
silicon metal in the home market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating FMV, we compared the volume of each respondent's home
market sales to the volume of its third-country sales, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. In each case we found that
the respondent's sales of silicon metal in [[Page 14732]] the home
market constituted at least five percent of its sales to all other
markets. Thus, other than where we relied upon constructed value (CV)
(as described below), we based FMV on sales in the home market. See 19
C.F.R. 353.46(a).
Based on findings in the previous review and the less-than fair-
value (LTFV) investigation that the respondents sold subject
merchandise in the home market below the cost of production (COP), we
conducted a cost investigation in this review in accordance with
section 732(a) of the Tariff Act. We calculated each respondent's COP
as the sum of all reported material costs, labor expenses, factory
overhead, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and
packing expenses. Because the Brazilian economy was hyperinflationary
during the period of review (POR), we instructed respondents to follow
our long-standing methodology for hyperinflationary economies,
including the use of replacement costs. (See Silicon Metal from Brazil,
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 42806
(August 19, 1994.)
We compared individual home market prices, net of the imposto de
circulacao de mercadorias e servicos (ICMS) tax (a home market, valued-
added tax), to monthly COPs. For CBCC, Eletrosilex, and RIMA, we found
that, for each model sold in the home market, more than 90 percent of
sales were made at below-COP prices, and were made over an extended
period of time. Since CBCC, Eletrosilex, and RIMA provided no
indication that these sales were at prices that would permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time and in the normal
course of trade, we disregarded all of their home market sales, and
based FMV on CV in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.50. For Minasligas, we
found that between 10 and 90 percent of home market sales were made at
below-COP prices. However, since we determined that such sales were not
made over an extended period of time, we did not disregard them in our
calculation of FMV.
In order to determine whether below-cost sales and been made over
an extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which
below-cost sales occurred for each model to the number of months during
the POR in which each model was sold. If a model was sold in fewer than
three months during the review period, we did not exclude the below-
cost sales unless there were below-cost sales in each month of sale. If
a model was sold in three or more months, we did not exclude the below
cost sales unless there were below-cost sales in at least three months
during the POR.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, where we based
FMV on CV, it consisted of the sum of the cost of manufacture (COM) of
silicon metal, home market SG&A expenses, home market profit, and the
cost of export packing. The COM of silicon metal is the sum of direct
material, direct labor, and variable and fixed overhead expenses. For
home market SG&A expenses, we used the larger of the actual SG&A
expenses reported by the respondents or 10 percent of the COM, the
statutory minimum for foreign SG&A expenses. For home market profit, we
used the larger of the actual profit reported by the respondents, or
the statutory minimum of eight percent of the sum of COM and SG&A
expenses. See section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for differences between home market and
U.S. market expenses for credit and warehousing.
We based FMV for Minasligas on prices to unrelated purchasers in
the home market. We calculated a monthly, weighted-average price. Where
applicable, we made adjustments for post-sale inland freight. We also
made adjustments, where applicable, for differences between home market
and U.S. market expenses for packing, credit, and warehousing.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period July 1, 1992, through June 30,
1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC....................................................... 21.39
Minasligas................................................. 0.00
Eletrosilex................................................ 11.28
RIMA....................................................... 20.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request a disclosure within 5 days of
publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days of
the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44
days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter.
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. 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 such case briefs.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of silicon metal 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 Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the
reviewed companies will be those rates established in the final results
of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 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 this review, a prior 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 review
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 91.06
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19
C.F.R. 353.22.
Dated: March 9, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-6811 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
