[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46779-46782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22681]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-351-806]


Silicon Metal from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review; Intent Not To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty 
administrative review; intent not to revoke in part.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal 
from Brazil in response to requests by respondents Eletrosilex Belo 
Horizonte (Eletrosilex), Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--Minasligas 
(Minasligas), Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC), and RIMA 
Industrial S/A (RIMA). We also received a request for a review of the 
same four companies and Camargo Correa Metais (CCM) from a group of 
four domestic producers of silicon metal (the petitioners). The four 
domestic producers are American Silicon Technologies, Elkem Metals 
Company, Globe Metallurgical, Inc., and SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc. This 
review covers sales of this merchandise during the period July 1, 1994, 
through June 30, 1995.
    We do not intend to revoke the order with respect to RIMA, CBCC, or 
Minasligas. RIMA and CBCC submitted requests for revocation, but in the 
final results of our most recently completed administrative review of 
this order they both had margins that were greater than de minimis. As 
a result, they have not had three consecutive years with zero or de 
minimis dumping margins, and therefore do not qualify for revocation. 
Minasligas also submitted a request for revocation. We do not intend to 
revoke the order with respect to this company at the completion of this 
administrative review because at this time we intend to revoke the 
order with respect to this company at the completion of the third 
administrative review, covering the period immediately preceding the 
period covered by this administrative review.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results. Parties who submit argument are requested to 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fred Baker or John Kugelman, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-2924.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Applicable Statute

    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 are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping 
duty order on silicon metal from Brazil on July 31, 1991 (56 FR 36135). 
On July 3, 1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR 34511) a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil covering the period 
July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), Eletrosilex, Minasligas, 
CBCC, and RIMA requested that we conduct an administrative review of 
their sales. Petitioners requested that we conduct an administrative 
review of the sales of Eletrosilex, Minasligas, CBCC, RIMA, and CCM. We 
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review on August 16, 1995 (60 FR 42500). On April 25, 
1996, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice 
extending the deadline in this review (61 FR 18375). The Department is 
conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of 
the Act.

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 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. HTS item

[[Page 46780]]

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, 1994, through June 30, 1995. This 
review involves four manufacturers/exporters of Brazilian silicon 
metal.

Use of Facts Available

    As explained in the preliminary results of the third administrative 
review (covering the period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994), none 
of the RIMA's sales made during the third period of review (POR) 
entered U.S. customs territory during the third POR. Therefore, we 
treated RIMA as a non-shipper for the third administrative review. In 
these preliminary results of the fourth POR (covering the period July 
1, 1994 through June 30, 1995), we included all of RIMA's sales made 
during the third POR that entered U.S. customs territory during the 
fourth POR. We also included in these preliminary results of review all 
of RIMA's U.S. sales during the fourth POR for which RIMA's U.S. 
customers made at least one import of silicon metal manufactured by 
RIMA. This policy is consistent with that outlined in the Department's 
response to comment 1 of the final results of the second administrative 
review.
    For these reasons, because some of RIMA's sales included in this 
review were made during the prior POR, we conducted two separate 
verifications of RIMA. The first of these verifications covered RIMA's 
sales made during the third POR; the second covered RIMA's sales made 
during the fourth POR. We found that at RIMA's third review 
verification, RIMA was unable to substantiate significant portions of 
its responses.
    Section 776(a) of the Act requires that the Department use the 
facts otherwise available when necessary information is not on the 
record or an interested party withholds requested information, fails to 
provide such information in a timely manner, significantly impedes a 
proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified. In 
addition, section 776(b) permits the Department to use ``adverse 
inferences'' in determining facts available where a party does not 
cooperate to the best of its ability. In this case, as explained above, 
we determined at RIMA's verification covering sales from the third POR 
that RIMA could not substantiate significant portions of its response. 
(See Use of Facts Available Memorandum to Joseph Spetrini, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Enforcement Group III.) For this reason, we have 
resorted to the facts otherwise available pursuant to section 776(2). 
However, the sales during the third POR were comparatively few in 
number. Therefore, we are not using total facts available. We do find, 
however, that RIMA did not cooperate to the best of its ability with 
respect to the third review sales. Therefore, we have determined to 
apply ``adverse inferences'' pursuant to section 776(b) for RIMA's 
third review sales.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as facts 
otherwise available information derived from the petitioner, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. The rate we have assigned to RIMA for its third 
review sales is 91.06 percent, which is the highest rate ever assigned 
to RIMA in any previous review. The rate we have calculated for RIMA 
for this review reflects the weighted-average rate for those sales for 
which we did not apply facts available (its fourth review sales and 
those sales for which we did apply facts available (its third review 
sales).
    Because the facts available information which we used in this 
review constitutes secondary information, we are required under section 
776(c) of the Act to corroborate, to the extent practicable, the facts 
available from independent sources reasonably at our disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extend practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department relies upon a calculated dumping margin from a prior 
segment of the proceeding as facts available, it is not necessary to 
question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With 
respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as facts available, the Department will disregard the 
margin and determine an appropriate margin (see e.g., Fresh-Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
(61 FR 6812, February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the 
highest margin in that case as adverse facts available because the 
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin). In this case, for those sales 
for which we have used facts available we have used the highest rate 
ever calculated for RIMA in a previous review because there is not 
evidence on the record indicating that it is not appropriate as facts 
available.

United States Price

    In calculating United States Price (USP) we used export price (EP), 
as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was first sold to unrelated purchasers prior to the date of 
importation into the United States.
    We based EP 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, international freight, 
marine insurance, weighing and sampling charges, and brokerage and 
handling. We made an addition to USP, where appropriate, for duty 
drawback. These adjustments were made 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 the ``Consumption Tax'' 
section of the final results of the second administrative review of 
this proceeding, published concurrently with this notice.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Cost of Production Analysis

    In prior segments of this proceeding, we disregarded home market 
sales found to be below the cost of production (COP). Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales below the COP may 
have occurred during the review period. Thus, pursuant to section 
773(b) of the Act, in this review we initiated a COP investigation of 
all five respondents.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We

[[Page 46781]]

relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by each 
respondent in its questionnaire responses.
    On July 17 and 18, 1996, the petitioners filed comments about the 
appropriateness of using historical costs, rather than replacement 
costs, for two of the respondents. Although we received these comments 
too late in the review to consider them for these preliminary results, 
we intend to request information from the two respondents that will 
better enable us to evaluate the petitioners' argument. We will then 
consider using replacement costs for the final results of this review.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 
We compared model-specific COP to the reported home market price less 
any applicable movement charges.
    Pursuant to section 773(b) (2) (C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondents' home market sales of a given model were at 
prices less than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
within an extended period of time ``in substantial quantities.'' Where 
20 percent or more of a respondent's home market sales of a given model 
were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance 
with section 773(b) (2) (B) of the Act), and because we determined that 
the below-cost home market sales of a given product were at prices 
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time (in accordance with section 773(b) (2) (D) of the Act).
    We found that, for certain models of silicon metal, more than 20 
percent of the home market sales were at below-cost prices within the 
period of review and that such sales were in substantial quantities, 
and that sales of these models were at prices which would not premit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. As a result, 
we excluded these below-cost sales and used the remaining above-cost 
sales as the basis of determining normal value if such sales existed, 
in accordance with section 773(b) (1) of the Act.

Normal Value (NV)

    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, 
we compared such of the respondents' volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) (1) (C) of the Act. 
Because 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 all 
respondents.
    We compared the EPs of individual transactions, pursuant to section 
777A(d) (2) of the Act, to the monthly weighted-average price of sales 
of the foreign like product. In such cases we based NV on packed, ex-
factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the home 
market. Where applicable, we made adjustments to home market price for 
inland freight, early payment discounts, and interest revenue. To 
adjust for differences in circumstances of sale between the home market 
and the United States, we reduced home market price by an amount for 
home market credit and packing expenses, and increased it by U.S. 
packing costs and U.S. credit expenses. We increased NV, where 
appropriate, for bank charges and warehousing expenses incurred on U.S. 
sales. We decreased NV, where appropriate, by the amount of commissions 
paid in the home market, but limited this amount to the amount of 
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR Sec. 353.56(b) (1).

Non-Shippers

    CCM stated that it did not have shipments during the POR, and we 
confirmed this information with the U.S. Customs Service. Therefore, we 
are treating CCM as a non-shipper for this review, and are rescinding 
this review with respect to this company. See Sulfanilic Acid from the 
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 29073, 29077 (June 7, 
1996). The cash deposit rate for CCM will continue to be the rate 
established for CCM in the LTFV determination, which is the last 
segment of this proceeding in which the Department analyzed CCM's 
sales.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparison of EP and NV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for 
the period July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC.......................................................         7.54
Minasligas.................................................         2.12
Eletrosilex................................................         9.95
RIMA.......................................................         3.67
CCM........................................................    \1\ 93.2 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments during the POR; margin taken from the last completed   
  segment in which there were shipments.                                

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit 
case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with 
the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument. The Department will publish a notice of final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments or at a hearing.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative 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)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this 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 (3) 
for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash 
deposit rate shall be 91.06 percent, the all others rate

[[Page 46782]]

established in the LTFV investigation (56 FR 36135, July 31, 1991).
    These deposit rates, 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 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 27, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-22681 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M