[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