[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47441-47446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-806]


Silicon Metal From Brazil: Amended Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending its 
final results of review, published on September 5, 1996, of the 
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil, to reflect the 
correction of ministerial errors in those final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Alain Letort, or John 
Kugelman, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230, telephone 202/482-2924 (Baker), 202/482-4243 (Letort), or 202/
482-0649 (Kugelman), fax 202/482-1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
regulations are references to the provisions as they existed on 
December 31, 1994.

Background

    The Department published the final results of the second 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal 
from Brazil on September 5, 1996 (61 FR 46763) (Second Review Final 
Results), covering the period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. The 
respondents are Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC), 
Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--Minasligas (Minasligas), Eletroila, 
S.A. (currently known as Eletrosilex Belo Horizonte (Eletrosilex)), and 
Rima Industrial S.A. (RIMA). The petitioners are American Alloys, Inc., 
Elken Metals, Co., Globe Metallurgical, Inc., SMI Group, and SKW Metals 
& Alloys.
    On September 20, 1996, the petitioners filed clerical error 
allegations with respect to each of the four respondents in the review. 
The same day we received clerical error allegations from respondent 
CBCC. On September 27, 1996, we received rebuttal comments from the 
petitioners, CBCC, and Minasligas. On September 30, 1996, we received 
rebuttal comments from Eletrosilex. The Department agreed that certain 
of the allegations constituted ministerial errors, but the Department 
was unable to issue a determination correcting these errors before the 
petitioners filed a complaint with the Court of International Trade 
(CIT) challenging the final results of review. Therefore, the 
Department requested leave from the CIT to correct these errors. On 
July 9, 1997, the CIT granted the Department leave to correct the 
errors. See American Silicon Technologies et al., v. United States, 
Slip Op. 97-94, July 9, 1997.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this review is silicon metal from Brazil 
containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon 
by weight. Also covered by this review is silicon metal from Brazil 
containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which 
contains a higher aluminum content than the silicon metal containing at 
least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. 
Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 
and 2804.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) as a chemical 
product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor grade 
silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent 
silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not 
subject to the order. HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
for U.S.

[[Page 47442]]

Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the 
scope of product coverage.

Clerical Error Allegations

Comment 1

    Petitioners argue that the Department used the wrong cost of 
manufacture (COM) in the computation of constructed value (CV) for one 
of CBCC's U.S. sales. We reviewed the sale at issue in the first (91-
92) administrative review of the order, but reviewed it again in the 
second review of the order because, after issuing the final results of 
the first review, we determined that the importer of the sale had no 
entries during the first review period. In our analysis of this sale in 
the first review, we made an upward adjustment to CBCC's reported COM 
in order to account for costs that the Department determined at 
verification to have been understated. However, in its analysis of this 
sale for the second review, the Department used the COM as CBCC 
originally reported it. Petitioners argue that this use of the 
unadjusted COM constitutes a clerical error.
    CBCC argues that the Department erred by using CV, rather than 
third-country sales, as the basis for foreign market value (FMV) for 
comparison to the U.S. sale at issue. In its final results analysis 
memorandum for the second review, the Department stated that it used CV 
as the basis for FMV because there were no Japanese sales 
contemporaneous with this sale. (See the Department's September 12, 
1996 final results analysis memorandum, at 4.) CBCC argues that this 
stated rationale for using CV is fallacious because, in the first 
review, the Department used third-country sales to Japan as the basis 
of FMV for that sale. Thus, CBCC argues, there must have been 
contemporaneous sales. Furthermore, CBCC argues that because the 
Department performed a sales-based comparison for this sale in the 
first review, and never indicated to CBCC that it intended to review 
the sale again in the second review, the Department's decision to use 
CV in the margin calculation for the sale in the second review violated 
its due-process rights because CBCC never had an opportunity to comment 
on it. It may also be illegal, CBCC argues, because only the CIT can 
require the Department to re-open and re-analyze a determination which 
is final under the statute.
    Finally, CBCC argues that the Department's failure to use the 
adjusted COM for the sale at issue is more than offset by a clerical 
error it made in its calculation of CBCC's interest expenses. In its 
calculation of interest expenses, the Department, CBCC alleges, used 
the interest expense ratio for 1993, rather than the interest expense 
ratio for 1992.

Department's Position:

    We agree with petitioners that the Department's failure to use the 
adjusted COM for the sale at issue constituted a clerical error. In 
these amended final results of review, we have used the adjusted COM 
for this sale as given in the first review final results analysis 
memorandum dated February 2, 1994. The Department made this memorandum 
part of the record of the second review. See the Department's June 12, 
1996 letter to CBCC.
    We disagree with CBCC's argument that its due-process rights were 
violated by our decision to perform a CV-based, rather than a sales-
based, comparison for the sale at issue. In the first review the 
Department made a sales-based comparison only in the preliminary 
results of review, not the final results of review. In the final 
results of the first review the Department used CV as the FMV. See the 
final results analysis memorandum dated August 13, 1994, at 1.
    We also disagree with CBCC's argument that there were 
contemporaneous sales which could serve as the FMV in the margin 
calculation for the sale at issue. In the final results analysis 
memorandum, we stated explicitly that there were no above-cost third-
country sales. (See the first review final results analysis memorandum 
dated August 13, 1994, at 1.) Thus, the Department's September 12, 1996 
analysis memorandum that states that there were no contemporaneous 
third-country sales should be amended to read that there were no above-
cost contemporaneous third-country sales. Therefore, in these amended 
final results of review we have continued to use CV as the FMV.
    We agree with CBCC that the Department used the wrong interest 
expense ratio to calculate interest for the sale at issue. We have 
corrected this error in these amended final results of review.

Comment 2:

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a ministerial error by 
failing to include IPI taxes in the computation of CV for one of CBCC's 
U.S. sales. They argue that the final results notice states that the 
Department intended to include these taxes in CV. See Second Review 
Final Results at 46769.
    CBCC argues that petitioners' comments regarding IPI taxes are 
irrelevant because the Department acted illegally in re-analyzing this 
U.S. sale using a methodology different from that supporting its final 
results in the first review. It refers the reader to its comments 
summarized under comment 1 (above).

Department's Position:

    We agree with petitioners that in omitting IPI taxes from the 
computation of CV for the sale at issue we made a ministerial error. In 
these amended final results of review, we have included IPI taxes in 
CV. We obtained the value of these taxes from CBCC's May 29, 1996 
submission.
    We disagree with CBCC that we acted illegally in our treatment of 
this sale. As explained in response to comment 1 (above), we used CV 
for this sale in the final results of the first review, as well as in 
the final results of the second review.

Comment 3

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error by 
using an incorrect exchange rate for converting some of CBCC's and 
Eletrosilex's expenses from Brazilian currency into U.S. dollars. This 
error occurred, petitioners argue, because the Department incorrectly 
believed that these expenses were denominated in cruzeiros, rather than 
in cruzeiros reais. The expenses at issue are CBCC's brokerage, 
warehousing, and foreign inland freight, and Eletrosilex's brokerage, 
foreign inland freight, ocean freight, packing, and warehousing costs.
    CBCC argues that there is no evidence on the record that any of the 
charges it reported are in a currency other than cruzeiros.
    Eletrosilex argues that the determination of the correct exchange 
rate is a factual and judgmental determination, and not a clerical 
error. By raising the issue at this stage of the proceeding, 
Eletrosilex argues, petitioners are misusing the ministerial errors 
correction process. For this reason, Eletrosilex argues, petitioners' 
argument should be rejected.

Department's Position

    We agree with petitioners. With respect to CBCC, we note that 
exhibit 6 of CBCC's March 17, 1994 supplemental questionnaire response 
demonstrates the currency conversion. That demonstration indicates that 
the expenses in question were in fact denominated in cruzeiros reais, 
and not cruzeiros. With respect to Eletrosilex, we find that 
Eletrosilex demonstrated the correct currency conversion for the 
charges at issue in exhibit 9 of its March

[[Page 47443]]

21, 1994 submission and on pages 3 and 4 of its September 12, 1994 
submission. These demonstrations indicate that the charges at issue 
were reported in cruzeiros reais, and not cruzeiros. Thus, for the 
charges at issue, in these amended final results of review we have used 
the exchange rates for converting cruzeiros reais into U.S. dollars, 
rather than for converting cruzeiros into U.S. dollars.
    We do not agree with Eletrosilex's argument that petitioners are 
misusing the ministerial error corrections process. Our use of 
incorrect exchange rates is an ``unintentional error'' within the 
meaning of 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.28(d).

Comment 4

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a ministerial error by 
failing to deduct from one of CBCC's U.S. sales an unspecified charge 
that CBCC reported as ``other expenses.'' Petitioners argue that these 
``other expenses'' should be deducted from U.S. price in accordance 
with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
    CBCC argues that if the Department decides to deduct the ``other 
expenses'' (which, it states, are movement expenses) from the U.S. 
price, it should note that CBCC mislabeled the currency as U.S. 
dollars. In fact, CBCC states, it reported them in cruzeiros, and they 
must be converted into U.S. dollars for the margin calculation.

Department's Position

    We agree that we made a ministerial error by failing to deduct the 
``other expenses'' from U.S. price for the sale at issue. In these 
amended final results of review we have corrected this error. We have 
converted them into dollars because the amount of these expenses 
relative to other reported expenses indicates that they were incurred 
in cruzeiros. See CBCC's March 17, 1994 submission, exhibit 3.

Comment 5

    CBCC argues that the Department made a ministerial error in its 
calculation of CV by using the same interest ratio in the calculation 
of CV as it used in the calculation of cost of production (COP). CBCC 
argues that doing so was an error because CV includes imputed credit, 
whereas COP does not. The Department's methodology, CBCC argues, 
double-counts the interest expenses included in financial expenses. 
Thus, CBCC argues the Department should calculate financial expenses 
for CV net of the amount attributable to trade accounts receivables. To 
correct the error, CBCC states that the Department should multiply the 
CV interest expenses by the formula: (1-accounts receivable/total 
assets).
    Petitioners argue that the Department made this error in only one 
of CBCC's U.S. sales. For CBCC's other U.S. sales, petitioners argue, 
the Department made an offset to the interest expenses included in CV 
for home-market imputed credit expenses. Thus, petitioners argue, 
CBCC's allegation is not applicable to all of CBCC's U.S. sales.

Department's Position

    We agree with CBCC that the Department normally allows an offset to 
CV interest expenses. However, we did not offset CV financing costs for 
CBCC in this review because it did not submit the offsetting figure, 
nor did it submit the accounts receivable and total asset figures 
necessary to perform the calculation as it suggests. Therefore, the 
Department did not make a ministerial error by not allowing an offset 
to CV interest expense in this case because the necessary information 
was not on the record. Accordingly, we have not made an offset to 
CBCC's financing costs in these amended final results.

Comment 6

    CBCC argues that the Department made two clerical errors in its 
calculation of interest expenses. First, CBCC alleges that the 
Department calculated different monthly financial expense ratios for 
each month of the period of review (POR), and applied these differing 
ratios to the COM to calculate financial expenses. CBCC argues that 
calculating a different financial expense ratio for each month of the 
POR was an error, and that the Department intended to calculate an 
annual weighted-average rate in order to calculate a single weighted-
average COP/CV for the POR. CBCC bases its argument on the fact that 
the Department allegedly calculated general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses by multiplying the COM by a single annual rate. Second, CBCC 
argues that the Department made a clerical error by applying the 
calculated interest expense ratio to the replacement cost COM, rather 
than the historical cost COM. It argues that this was an error because 
the Department calculated the interest expense ratio based on 
historical costs, and not replacement costs. Thus, CBCC argues, the 
Department should have either calculated the interest expenses on a 
replacement cost basis and applied the resulting ratio to the 
replacement cost COMs (as it did for G&A expenses), or calculated the 
interest expense ratio on historical costs and applied it to the 
historical cost COMs.
    Petitioners argue that CBCC is incorrect in asserting that the 
Department calculated different interest expense ratios for different 
months of the POR. In fact, petitioners argue, the Department 
calculated one interest expense ratio for 1992, which it applied to the 
months July through December 1992, and one interest expense ratio which 
it applied to the months January through June 1993. Furthermore, 
petitioners argue that CBCC is incorrect in saying that the Department 
intended to calculate a single COP/CV for the POR. The Department's 
practice in hyperinflationary-economy cases, petitioners argue, is to 
calculate monthly COPs and CVs, and to make comparisons for both the 
cost test and the margin calculation on a monthly basis. Finally, 
petitioners argue that CBCC is incorrect in stating that the Department 
made a clerical error by applying the interest expense ratios to 
replacement costs in calculating COP and CV. In fact, petitioners 
argue, the Department specifically addressed this issue in the final 
results. It said, ``We do not have the necessary information on the 
record to index monthly interest costs. Therefore, we calculated 
financial expenses based on our established practice prior to the CIT 
decision because it is still a viable method (see Comment 27 for 
details).'' See Second Review Final Results at 46773. Thus, petitioners 
argue, the Department's method of calculating interest expenses does 
not constitute a clerical error.

Department's Position

    We disagree with CBCC that we intended to calculate a single 
weighted average interest rate for the POR. In the case of G&A costs, 
we computed a single weighted-average rate because the monthly G&A 
information was available. The monthly information required for the 
interest expense rate calculation, however, was not available. 
Therefore, as a reasonable alternative, we used available information 
to calculate separate interest expense rates for 1992 and 1993. 
Moreover, because all data needed to compute the appropriate interest 
expense ratio was not available, as a reasonable estimate of the 
interest expense, we applied the computed rate to replacement cost 
COMs. This is the method we intended to employ in the final results, 
and therefore does not constitute a clerical error.

Comment 7

    Petitioners argue the Department made a clerical error in its 
computation

[[Page 47444]]

of the profit used in calculating CV for RIMA, Eletrosilex, and CBCC. 
Petitioners state that the Department calculated profit as the 
difference between COP and home-market selling prices from which the 
Department had subtracted imputed credit. Petitioners argue that 
because COP includes interest (which by definition includes the cost of 
financing receivables), it is incorrect and a ministerial error to 
calculate profit by comparing COP to home-market prices from which the 
cost of financing receivables has already been deducted.
    Eletrosilex argues that the exclusion of imputed credit was not a 
ministerial error, and that therefore the petitioners' contention 
should be rejected from consideration at this stage of the proceeding.

Department's Position

    We agree with petitioners. It was not our intent to understate 
profit by including imputed credit in COP but excluding it from 
revenue. Furthermore, we reviewed this issue in the final results of 
the third review of this order, and determined there too that in the 
profit calculation the home-market prices should not be net of imputed 
credit. See Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke in Part; 62 FR 1954, 1967 (January 14, 
1997) (Third Review Final Results). In these amended final results of 
review, we have continued to include interest expenses in the 
calculation of COP, but have adjusted home-market prices so as not to 
deduct imputed credit from such prices in the computation of revenue.

Comment 8

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error when it 
calculated the percentage of overhead allocated to RIMA's silicon metal 
production by using unadjusted direct material costs. The Department 
calculated the percentage of overhead allocated to RIMA's silicon metal 
production by averaging ratios for direct labor, electricity, and 
direct materials calculated by comparing the usage of each item for 
silicon metal production to the usage for overall production. In 
calculating the ratio for direct materials, the Department, petitioners 
allege, used the unadjusted direct materials costs for silicon metal 
production that RIMA reported in verification exhibit 15, rather than 
the adjusted material costs that the Department calculated following 
the verification.

Department's Position

    We disagree with petitioners that it was a ministerial error not to 
adjust RIMA's primary direct material costs used in allocating the 
company's overhead. For the final results, we allocated RIMA's overhead 
costs based on the relation between RIMA's primary direct material 
consumed in the silicon production (numerator) and its total primary 
direct material consumed in the furnaces (denominator). These figures 
are unadjusted for RIMA's understatement of its direct material costs. 
Therefore, if we adjust the numerator as suggested by the petitioner, 
we must also adjust the denominator, which (like the numerator) was 
unadjusted in the final results calculations. If, however, we adjust 
both the numerator and the denominator, the allocation factor does not 
change. Therefore, the Department did not err in concluding that it was 
unnecessary to adjust these figures.

Comment 9

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in its 
calculation of the direct selling expenses to include in Eletrosilex's 
CV. Eletrosilex reported its direct selling expenses inclusive of 
inland freight. However, because inland freight is a movement expense, 
and not a selling expense, the Department subtracted inland freight 
from Eletrosilex's total direct selling expenses in its calculation of 
the direct selling expenses to be included in CV. Petitioners argue 
that the value for inland freight that the Department used in 
performing this subtraction was an aggregate amount, and not a per-unit 
amount. Using this aggregate amount was an error, petitioners argue, 
because all the other elements of Eletrosilex's reported direct selling 
expenses were per-unit amounts.
    Eletrosilex argues that if the Department determines that it 
subtracted aggregate inland freight costs from the reported direct 
selling expenses, rather than per-unit inland freight costs, and 
therefore makes the correction requested by petitioners, it should also 
ascertain that it correctly applies the inflation rate for 30 days 
after the invoice, as discussed on page 4 of its March 21, 1994 
submission.

Department's Position

    We agree with petitioners that we inadvertently used aggregate 
inland freight costs rather than per-unit inland freight costs. We have 
corrected this error in these amended final results of review. With 
regard to Eletrosilex's argument that we apply the correct inflation 
rate, we have determined that because the reported inland freight costs 
already include an inflation adjustment, no further inflation 
adjustment is necessary. Moreover, Eletrosilex's citation to the 
discussion on page 4 of its March 21, 1994 submission is inapposite 
because that discussion concerns the conversion from Brazilian currency 
into U.S. dollars, and the calculations at issue here do not include a 
currency conversion. Therefore, because no further inflation adjustment 
is required, we used the invoiced inland freight costs as Eletrosilex 
reported them.

Comment 10

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error by 
failing to include duty drawback in Eletrosilex's CV. In the Second 
Review Final Results the Department stated, ``n order to make an 
`apples-to-apples` comparison between USP [United States Price] and CV, 
we need to add to CV the full amount of the duty drawback that we added 
to USP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. We 
have done so in these final results of review.'' See Second Review 
Final Results at 46770. Petitioners argue that in fact the Department 
added duty drawback to CV for some of Eletrosilex's U.S. sales, but not 
for all of them.

Department's Position

    We agree with petitioners that we failed to add duty drawback to CV 
for some of Eletrosilex's sales, but we believe that the petitioners 
incorrectly identified the set of sales for which we made this error. 
In these amended final results of review we have corrected the final 
results programs to ensure that duty drawback was added to CV.

Comment 11

    Petitioners argue that the Department erred with respect to 
Eletrosilex by failing to deduct home-market commissions from the gross 
home-market price in computing the net home-market price (variable name 
NPRICOP) to be compared to COP in the sales-below-cost test. They 
argue, based on Policy Bulletin 94.6, that this failure was a violation 
of the Department's established practice.
    Eletrosilex argues that this was not a clerical error because 
Eletrosilex pays no commissions on its home-market sales.

Department's Position

    We disagree with Eletrosilex and agree with petitioners in part. 
Eletrosilex's home-market sales listing indicates that it did pay a 
commission

[[Page 47445]]

on some of its home-market sales. See page 14 of Eletrosilex's November 
12, 1992 submission, and the home-market sales listing contained 
therein. We agree with petitioners that we made no adjustment for these 
commissions in the calculation of NPRICOP, but we disagree with 
petitioners' argument that our failure to do so was an error. In this 
review we included in COP the direct and indirect selling expenses 
Eletrosilex reported in section D of its questionnaire response, as 
intended, and made no adjustment for selling expenses in the 
calculation of NPRICOP, also as intended. Thus, because both COP and 
NPRICOP contained selling expenses, the cost test was proper and not 
distorted. Furthermore, this treatment of Eletrosilex's selling 
expenses in the cost test is identical to our treatment of selling 
expenses in the cost test for all other respondents in this review.

Comment 12

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in its 
calculation of Eletrosilex's CV by subtracting home-market packing 
expenses from CV before adding U.S. packing expenses to CV. This was an 
error, petitioners argue, because the calculated CV did not include 
home-market packing.
    Eletrosilex argues that the inclusion or exclusion of variables in 
an analysis is not a ministerial act, but an act of judgment. Thus, 
Eletrosilex argues, the Department should reject petitioners' argument 
at this stage of the proceeding.

Department's Position

    The inclusion or exclusion of variables in an analysis can be 
intentional or unintentional. Here, the Department inadvertently 
omitted home-market packing from CV in the computer program used to 
calculate the margin for some of Eletrosilex's U.S. sales. Therefore, 
because the omission was unintentional, it is properly considered a 
ministerial error. In these amended final results of review we have 
corrected this error.

Comment 13

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in its 
margin calculation for Minasligas by converting the cruzeiro value of 
its U.S. sales into dollars, rather than using the actual U.S. dollar 
value of the sales. Petitioners argue that this was an error because 
the selling price of the U.S. sales was denominated in U.S. dollars. 
Petitioners argue that the Department should have used the dollar-
denominated price, rather than the cruzeiro-denominated price, for 
Minasligas' U.S. sales.
    Minasligas argues that it reported its U.S. sales in cruzeiros (as 
recorded in its books), and that the Department correctly converted 
them into dollars using the average exchange rate of the month of 
shipment. This methodology, Minasligas argues, is in accordance with 
the Department's practice of comparing the U.S. price to the CV or FMV 
of the month of shipment. Minasligas also argues that the dollar value 
that the petitioners urge the Department to use is from the section of 
its questionnaire response where it reported its total home-market, 
third-country, and U.S. sales volumes and values for the purpose of the 
viability test. This information, Minasligas states, did not relate to 
the information Minasligas provided in its U.S. sales listing.

Department's Position

    We agree with petitioners. Our practice is to use the actual U.S. 
price in the currency in which it was originally denominated. We also 
seek to avoid any unnecessary currency conversions. In this case, we 
did not intend to convert currencies twice. Therefore, in these amended 
final results of review we have used the actual sales prices in the 
currency in which they were originally denominated. This is the same 
methodology we employed in the final results of the third review of 
this order. See Third Review Final Results at 1961.

Comment 14

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in its 
computation of Minasligas' imputed U.S. credit by using the date of 
shipment from the U.S. port as the start of the credit period, rather 
than the date of shipment from Minasligas' plant.
    Minasligas argues the Department did in fact use the date of 
shipment from Minasligas' plant as the start of the credit period in 
the computation of U.S. imputed credit.

Department's Position

    We agree with Minasligas. The variable SHIPDTPM used in the imputed 
credit calculation (line 730 of the final results margin calculation) 
is the date of shipment from Minasligas' plant. See exhibit VII-1 of 
Minasligas' November 1, 1993 submission.

Comment 15

    Petitioners argue that the Department used an incorrect exchange 
rate in the currency conversion for Minasligas' warehousing expenses. 
In its final results margin calculation, the Department, petitioners 
allege, used the exchange rate of the date of shipment from the 
Brazilian port. Petitioners argue that the Department's practice in 
hyperinflationary economies is to convert U.S. movement expenses using 
the exchange rate on the date such expenses were incurred, or, in the 
absence of such information, on the date on which the respondent 
shipped the merchandise from its plant. Here, petitioners argue, the 
record contains no information on when Minasligas incurred the 
warehousing expenses. Thus, petitioners argue, the Department should 
have used the exchange rate on the date of shipment from Minasligas' 
plant in converting warehousing expenses, rather than the exchange rate 
of the date of shipment from the Brazilian port.
    Minasligas argues that the Department's use of the exchange rate 
for the date of shipment from the port is not a clerical error, and is 
supported by substantial evidence on the record. It argues that 
although the record does not indicate when Minasligas paid the 
warehousing expenses, it does indicate that the expenses were incurred 
at the port prior to loading on the ship. Accordingly, it was proper, 
Minasligas argues, for the Department to use the exchange rate for the 
month of shipment from the port as being the closest in time to the 
date on which Minasligas incurred the warehousing expenses.

Department's Position

    We agree with Minasligas. For the final results we intended to use 
the exchange rate of the date of shipment from the port. Where the 
record does not contain the actual dates of payment for export sale 
movement expenses, and where the Department did not specifically 
solicit the information, it is reasonable to use the date of shipment 
from the port in making the currency conversion because it is the 
closest date on record to the date on which the expenses were incurred. 
Therefore, in these amended final results of review, we have continued 
to use the exchange rate of the date of shipment in making currency 
conversions. This is the same methodology we applied in a similar 
situation in the final results of the third administrative review of 
this order. See Third Review Final Results at 1962.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margins exist for the period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993:

[[Page 47446]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin  
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC.......................................................        18.71
Minasligas.................................................         0.00
Eletrosilex................................................        25.46
RIMA.......................................................        31.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U. S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective 
upon publication of this notice of amended final results of review for 
all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies named above will be the rates 
published in the final results of review for the antidumping duty order 
on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 1994 through June 
30, 1995 (see Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part 62 
FR 1970 (January 14, 1997) (Fourth Review Final Results); (2) for 
previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in these reviews, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigations, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in these reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue 
to be 91.06 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 56 FR 26977 (June 12, 1991).
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    These amended final results of review and notice are in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 
section 353.28(c) of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: September 2, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-23853 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P