[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43161-43166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20451]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-806]
Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results, Intent To Revoke
in Part, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
and Extension of Time Limits.
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results, intent to revoke in part,
partial rescission of antidumping duty administrative review, and
extension of time limits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by American Silicon Technologies,
Elkem Metals Company, and Globe Metallurgical, Inc. (petitioners), and
by Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio (CBCC), Ligas de Aluminio
S.A. (LIASA), and RIMA Industrial S/A (RIMA), the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. The period of
review (POR) is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
We preliminarily determine that one respondent (Eletrosilex S.A.
(Eletrosilex)) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV)
during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of administrative review, we will instruct Customs to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested
parties to comment on the preliminary results. Parties who submit
comments in this proceeding should also submit with the argument: (1) A
statement of the issue(s), and (2) a brief summary of the argument (not
to exceed five pages).
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor (RIMA), telephone: (202)
482-5831; Jack Dulberger (Eletrosilex), 482-5505; Mark Manning (LIASA),
482-3936, Zev Primor (CBCC), 482-4114; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office Four,
Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC. 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).
Background
On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil (56 FR 36135).
On July 1, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July
1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 (63 FR 35909). On July 29, 1998, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), LIASA and RIMA requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of their respective sales.
On July 30, 1998, CBCC requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of its sales and revoke the order with respect to
CBCC pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e). On July 31, 1998, petitioners
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales
made by CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA, Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--
Minasligas (Minasligas), and RIMA. On August 27, 1998, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative
review (63 FR 45796). On September 18, 1998, the Department issued the
antidumping administrative review questionnaire (antidumping
questionnaire) to the respondents. The Department is conducting this
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
The Department received questionnaire responses in October,
November, and December 1998. We issued supplemental questionnaires to
the parties in April, May, and June 1999, and received responses to
these supplemental questionnaires in April, May, June, and July 1999.
Extension of Time Limits
On February 9, 1999 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice
extending the deadline for the preliminary results until July 31, 1999
(64 FR 6325).
Additionally, because it is not practicable to complete the final
results of this review within the initial time limit established by the
URAA (120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are
published), in
[[Page 43162]]
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is
extending the time limit for completion of the final results until 180
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. See
the Memorandum from Bernard T. Carreau to Robert S. LaRussa, dated
August 2, 1999, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in
room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
Scope of Review
The merchandise covered by this administrative 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 administrative review
is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent
silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum 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. Although the HTS
item numbers are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs
purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
Verification
Following the publication of these preliminary results, we plan to
verify, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, sales and cost
information submitted by CBCC. At that verification, we will use
standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the
manufacture's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and
financial records, and the selection of original source documentation
containing relevant information. We plan to prepare a verification
report outlining our verification results and place this report on file
in the CRU.
Partial Rescission: Minasligas
Minasligas claimed to have made no shipments of silicon metal from
Brazil to the United States during the POR. As a result of our analysis
of factual information submitted to us during the course of this
review, we have determined that Minasligas made no shipments of silicon
metal from Brazil to the United States during the POR. We confirmed
with the United States Customs Service (Customs) that Minasligas did
not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we
are rescinding the review with respect to Minasligas.
Intent To Revoke
On July 30, 1998, CBCC submitted a request, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.222(e), that the Department revoke the order covering silicon
metal from Brazil with respect to its sales of this merchandise. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), the request was accompanied by
certifications from CBCC that for a consecutive three-year period,
including this review period, it had sold the subject merchandise in
commercial quantities at not less than normal value (NV), and would not
do so in the future. CBCC also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in
the relevant antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the
order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that,
subsequent to revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than
NV.
On January 28, 1999, the Department requested additional
information from CBCC and interested parties regarding CBCC's
revocation request. We received comments from CBCC and from petitioners
in June 1999.
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1) require, inter
alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit the following:
(1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise
at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company
will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that
the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities
during each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and
(3) an agreement to reinstatement of the order if the Department
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject
merchandise at less than NV. Upon receipt of such a request, the
Department may revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the
company in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV
for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not likely
that the company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at
less than NV; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate
reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less
than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
Petitioners do not challenge CBCC's fulfilment of the certification
requirements. However, petitioners oppose CBCC's claims that it sold
silicon metal in the United States in commercial quantities during the
last three PORs and that it is not likely to sell its merchandise in
the future at less than NV.
In determining whether the three years of no dumping are a
sufficient basis to make a revocation determination, the Department
must be able to determine that the company has continued to participate
meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at
issue. See Pure Magnesium from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 64
FR 12977 (March 16, 1999) (Pure Magnesium from Canada). This practice
is codified at 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1), which states that, ``before
revoking an order or terminating a suspended investigation, the
Secretary must be satisfied that, during each of the three (or five)
years, there were exports to the United States in commercial quantities
of the subject merchandise to which a revocation or termination will
apply.'' For purposes of revocation, the Department must be able to
determine that past margins are reflective of a company's normal
commercial activity. Sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are
an abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for
determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to
offset dumping.
After review of the record, in the present case, the Department has
preliminarily found that CBCC has had zero or de minimis dumping
margins for four consecutive reviews. Although in one of the four years
the sales were not as extensive as in the other three years, we note
that sales in the remaining three years were all made in commercial
quantities. Furthermore, CBCC shipped progressively more silicon metal
to the United States in each of those three years (i.e., these three
years represent, respectively, approximately 30, 45, and 70 percent in
comparison with the quantity shipped during the period of
investigation). Moreover, while increasing its sales volume, CBCC
maintained zero or de minimis margins despite the fact that the last
three years were marked with depressed prices and global oversupply of
silicon metal. CBCC has also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in
the order if we conclude, subsequent to the revocation, that CBCC has
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
[[Page 43163]]
Based on its four consecutive years of zero or de minimis margins,
three of which had exports to the United States in significant
commercial quantities, CBCC's reinstatement agreement, and the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that it is not likely that
CBCC will sell subject merchandise in the United States at less than
normal value. Consequently, as a result of our analysis of factual
information submitted to us during the course of this review, we have
preliminarily determined to revoke this order with respect to CBCC.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of silicon metal by the Brazilian
respondents to the United States were made at less than normal value,
we compared export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly
weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP
transactions.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondents, covered by the description in the
``Scope of Review'' section, above, to be foreign like products for
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
Further, based on comments submitted by the respondents and petitioners
in this segment of the proceeding, we have preliminarily determined all
silicon metal meeting the description of the merchandise under the
``Scope of Review'' section, above (with the exception of slag and
contaminated products) to be identical products for purposes of model-
matching. Therefore, where there were no sales of identical merchandise
in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of the
product sold in the U.S. market during the comparison period.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine 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 CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general
and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S.
LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from
the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales,
we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along
the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated
customer. 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 the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home
and U.S. markets for each respondent, we examined whether the
respondent's sales involved different marketing stages (or their
equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories,
and selling functions (or services offered) to each customer or
customer category, in both markets.
CBCC reported sales through one LOT, consisting of three customer
categories (i.e., original equipment manufacturers, distributors and
silicon metal producers) which also represent three channels of
distribution for its home market sales. CBCC reported only EP sales in
the U.S. market. For EP sales, CBCC reported one customer category and
one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to an unaffiliated
trading company, for sale to the U.S. market). CBCC claimed in its
response that EP sales were made at the same LOT as home market sales
to unaffiliated customers. For this reason, CBCC has not asked for a
LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.
In analyzing CBCC's selling activities for the home and U.S.
market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided
for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal
in nature and usually limited to arranging for freight, if requested by
the customer. No other services were rendered for either home market or
EP sales. Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily
determined that the LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the
home market. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home
market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for CBCC.
Rima reported sales through one channel of distribution to one
customer category (i.e., original equipment manufacturers) for home
market sales. In the U.S. market, Rima reported EP sales through one
channel of distribution to one customer category (i.e., end users). In
its response, Rima stated that it performs the same type of services
for home market customers as it does for its foreign market customers.
For this reason, Rima has not requested a LOT adjustment.
In analyzing Rima's selling activities for the home and U.S.
market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided
for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal
in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. Therefore,
based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that the
LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market.
Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be
at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the
Act is warranted for CBCC.
Eletrosilex reported sales through one LOT consisting of two
customer categories (i.e., original equipment manufacturers and
retailers) which represent one channel of distribution for its home
market sales. Eletrosilex reported only EP sales in the U.S. market.
For EP sales, Eletrosilex reported one customer category and one
channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to original equipment
manufacturers). Eletrosilex claimed in its response that its U.S. and
home market sales were made at the same LOT. For this reason,
Eletrosilex has not asked for a LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to
its EP sales.
In analyzing Eletrosilex's selling activities for the home and U.S.
market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided
for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal
in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. No other
services were rendered for either home market or EP sales. Therefore,
based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that the
LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market.
Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be
at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the
Act is warranted for Eletrosilex.
LIASA reported one customer category (i.e., ``end-user'') and one
channel of distribution for its home market sales. LIASA reported only
EP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, LIASA reported one customer
category and one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to
unaffiliated ``end-users'' in the U.S. market). LIASA claimed in its
response that EP sales were made at the same LOT as home market sales
to
[[Page 43164]]
unaffiliated customers. For this reason, LIASA has not asked for a LOT
adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.
In analyzing LIASA's selling activities for its EP sales, we noted
that the sales involved basically the same selling functions associated
with the home market LOT described above. These selling activities in
both markets were minimal in nature and usually limited to arranging
for freight, if requested by the customer. No other services were
rendered for either home market or EP sales. Therefore, based upon this
information, we have preliminarily determined that the LOT for all EP
sales is the same as that in the home market. Accordingly, because we
find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for
LIASA.
Export Price
For CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA, and RIMA, we used the Department's EP
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the
subject merchandise was sold by each producer outside the United States
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior
to importation (or to unaffiliated trading companies for export to the
United States) and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. We made
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance
with section 772(c) of the Act. Movement expenses included, where
appropriate, foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, and
international freight.
Normal Value
1. Viability
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of
the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since
each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of
U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home
market provides a viable basis for calculating NV for each respondent.
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on
home market sales.
2. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
In the most recently completed review of this proceeding, we
disregarded home market sales found to be below the cost of production
for CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA and Rima. Therefore, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 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. Consequently, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine
whether these respondents made home market sales during the POR at
prices below their COP.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
product-specific COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts
for home market SG&A expenses, including interest expenses and packing
costs.
We relied on the home market and COP information submitted by each
respondent in its questionnaire responses, except for the following
company-specific adjustments described below.
Eletrosilex
We adjusted Eletrosilex's G&A by calculating on an annual basis a
ratio of its G&A expenses to its cost of goods sold.
We recalculated Eletrosilex's financial expense ratio. Eletrosilex
incorrectly applied certain offsets to its reported financial expense.
We denied the offsets in question and adjusted its financial expenses
accordingly. Thus, we recalculated Eletrosilex's financial expense
ratio using its financial expenses and the costs of goods sold as
reported on its most recent financial statements.
Rima
We adjusted Rima's reported G&A expense, financial expense and
depreciation. We recalculated Rima's G&A expense ratio using its G&A
expenses and annual cost of goods sold from its financial statements.
We recalculated Rima's financial expense ratio. Rima incorrectly
applied certain offsets to its reported financial expense. We denied
Rima's reported offsets and adjusted its financial expenses
accordingly. Thus, we recalculated Rima's financial expense ratio using
its financial expenses and costs of goods sold as reported on its most
recent financial statements.
Rima reported depreciation expenses based on a period of time
greater than the POR. Therefore, we recalculated Rima's depreciation
expenses based on expenses incurred during the POR.
B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average, per-unit COP figures for the POR
to home market sale prices of the foreign like product, as required
under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these
sales were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to
disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined
whether: (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in
substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market
prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and discounts.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a
respondent's sales of a given product 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 the respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities''
within an extended period of time in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at
prices which would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.
We found less than 20 percent of RIMA's and CBCC's home market
sales to be below cost. Therefore, we did not disregard any of their
home market sales from our analysis. However, we found that all of
Eletrosilex's home market sales and 20 percent or more of LIASA's home
market sales, within an extended period of time, were at prices below
the COP. We therefore disregarded LIASA's below-cost sales from our
analysis and used the remaining home market sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For
Eletrosilex, because there were
[[Page 43165]]
no sales of the foreign like product made at prices at or above cost in
the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act,
we used CV as the basis for NV. We calculated CV in accordance with
section 773(e) of the Act. (See below.)
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication in
producing the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, the profit incurred
and realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign
like product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the cost of materials,
fabrication, and SG&A expenses as reported in the CV portion of the
questionnaire response, adjusted as discussed in the ``Calculation of
COP'' section, above. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the
U.S. sales portion of the questionnaire responses. For selling
expenses, we used the average of the direct and indirect selling
expenses reported for HM sales, weighted by the total quantity of those
sales. We were unable to derive actual profit based on home market
sales for Eletrosilex because all of its home market sales were below
cost. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the
Act, we calculated profit for Eletrosilex by using the weighted average
profit realized by the other respondents in this review.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices
above the COP (i.e., sales by CBCC, LIASA and RIMA), we based the
respondents' NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was
first sold to unaffiliated parties for consumption in Brazil, in the
usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We based NV on
sales at the same level of trade as the EP sales. For level of trade,
please see the ``Level of Trade'' section above. In accordance with
section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we made adjustments to home market price,
where appropriate for inland freight, brokerage and handling charges,
and rebates. To account for differences in circumstances of sale
between the home market and the United States, where appropriate, we
adjusted home market prices by deducting home market direct selling
expenses (including credit) and commissions and by adding an amount for
late payment fees earned on home market sales, and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses (including U.S. credit expenses and where appropriate,
less an amount for late payment fees earned on U.S. sales). Where
commissions were paid on home market sales and no commissions were paid
on U.S. sales, we increased NV by the lesser of either (1) the amount
of commission paid on the home market sales or (2) the indirect selling
expenses incurred on U.S. sales. In order to adjust for differences in
packing between the two markets, we deducted HM packing costs and added
U.S. packing costs, where appropriate, in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Where home market prices were reported
exclusive of value added taxes (VAT) we made no adjustment. However,
where home market prices were reported inclusive of VAT, we deducted
the VAT from the gross home market price.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
With respect to Eletrosilex, where we could not determine NV based
on home market sales because there were no contemporaneous home market
sales of the silicon metal made in the ordinary course of trade, we
compared U.S. prices to CV.
Where we compared EP to CV, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market
direct selling expenses and adding the U.S. direct selling expenses, in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 351.410(c) of
the Department's regulations.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See Change in Policy
Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996).
Use of Partial Fact Available
LIASA
Upon reviewing LIASA's response to the Department's questionnaire
in this review, we determined that LIASA reported a credit expense for
U.S. sales using Brazilian interest rates. LIASA stated in its
questionnaire response that it had no U.S. dollar borrowings during the
POR. Therefore, the Department recalculated LIASA's imputed credit
expense for U.S. sales using the facts available (FA). Pursuant to the
Department's practice, we recalculated LIASA's U.S. imputed credit
expenses using a weighted-average U.S. dollar short-term interest rate
from the Federal Reserve based on quarterly rates for the POR. See
Policy Bulletin, Number 98.2, February 23, 1998, regarding Imputed
Credit Expenses and Interest Rates.
We also noted that LIASA, in reporting foreign inland freight for
its U.S. sales, inappropriately converted this expense, which was
incurred in Reais, into U.S. dollars. In the exhibits to its
questionnaire response LIASA provided the actual Reais expense for only
one of its U.S. sales. As FA, we have applied the per-unit Reais
expense reported for that sale to all of LIASA's U.S. sales and
converted the expense to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate
from the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Rima
Upon reviewing Rima's response to the Department's antidumping
questionnaire in this review, we determined that Rima did not calculate
indirect selling expenses using the methodology requested by the
Department. Rima reported indirect selling expenses based on selling
expenses that were not specific to the sale of silicon metal. In
addition, Rima divided these selling expenses by quantity, as opposed
to the total sales value of silicon metal sold in either the home or
foreign market. Because Rima failed to provide the requested
information using the required methodology, we are applying the FA to
calculate Rima's indirect selling expenses, in accordance with section
776(a)(2) of the Act. As FA, we used Rima's most recent financial
statement and divided Rima's selling expenses by its gross revenue.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1,
1997 through June 30, 1998, and we preliminarily determine to revoke
the order covering silicon from Brazil with respect to CBCC's sales of
this merchandise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/exporter margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC....................................................... 0.06
Eletrosilex................................................ 17.44
LIASA...................................................... zero
RIMA....................................................... zero
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 43166]]
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 seven
days after the case briefs are filed. A hearing, if requested, will be
held two days after the date the rebuttal briefs are filed 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 the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within
180 days from the publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and 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, we calculated a per unit customer or importer-
specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated
for all U.S. sales to each customer/importer and dividing this amount
by the total quantity of those sales.
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 Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be those 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) for all other manufacturers and/or
exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate will continue to
be 91.06 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation, 56 FR 36135 (July 31, 1991). 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 published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. sections
1675(a)(1) and 1677f(i)(1)), and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: August 2, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20451 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
