[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43161-43166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20451]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-806]


Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results, Intent To Revoke 
in Part, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
and Extension of Time Limits.

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results, intent to revoke in part, 
partial rescission of antidumping duty administrative review, and 
extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by American Silicon Technologies, 
Elkem Metals Company, and Globe Metallurgical, Inc. (petitioners), and 
by Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio (CBCC), Ligas de Aluminio 
S.A. (LIASA), and RIMA Industrial S/A (RIMA), the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. The period of 
review (POR) is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
    We preliminarily determine that one respondent (Eletrosilex S.A. 
(Eletrosilex)) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) 
during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of administrative review, we will instruct Customs to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested 
parties to comment on the preliminary results. Parties who submit 
comments in this proceeding should also submit with the argument: (1) A 
statement of the issue(s), and (2) a brief summary of the argument (not 
to exceed five pages).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor (RIMA), telephone: (202) 
482-5831; Jack Dulberger (Eletrosilex), 482-5505; Mark Manning (LIASA), 
482-3936, Zev Primor (CBCC), 482-4114; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office Four, 
Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).

Background

    On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil (56 FR 36135). 
On July 1, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 
1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 (63 FR 35909). On July 29, 1998, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), LIASA and RIMA requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of their respective sales. 
On July 30, 1998, CBCC requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of its sales and revoke the order with respect to 
CBCC pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e). On July 31, 1998, petitioners 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales 
made by CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA, Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--
Minasligas (Minasligas), and RIMA. On August 27, 1998, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative 
review (63 FR 45796). On September 18, 1998, the Department issued the 
antidumping administrative review questionnaire (antidumping 
questionnaire) to the respondents. The Department is conducting this 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
    The Department received questionnaire responses in October, 
November, and December 1998. We issued supplemental questionnaires to 
the parties in April, May, and June 1999, and received responses to 
these supplemental questionnaires in April, May, June, and July 1999.

Extension of Time Limits

    On February 9, 1999 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice 
extending the deadline for the preliminary results until July 31, 1999 
(64 FR 6325).
    Additionally, because it is not practicable to complete the final 
results of this review within the initial time limit established by the 
URAA (120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are 
published), in

[[Page 43162]]

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is 
extending the time limit for completion of the final results until 180 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 
the Memorandum from Bernard T. Carreau to Robert S. LaRussa, dated 
August 2, 1999, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in 
room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this administrative review is silicon 
metal from Brazil containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 
percent silicon by weight. Also covered by this administrative review 
is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent 
silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum than the silicon 
metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent 
silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under 
subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. 
Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not 
less than 99.99 percent silicon and provided for in subheading 
2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTS 
item numbers are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs 
purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.

Verification

    Following the publication of these preliminary results, we plan to 
verify, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, sales and cost 
information submitted by CBCC. At that verification, we will use 
standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacture's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and the selection of original source documentation 
containing relevant information. We plan to prepare a verification 
report outlining our verification results and place this report on file 
in the CRU.

Partial Rescission: Minasligas

    Minasligas claimed to have made no shipments of silicon metal from 
Brazil to the United States during the POR. As a result of our analysis 
of factual information submitted to us during the course of this 
review, we have determined that Minasligas made no shipments of silicon 
metal from Brazil to the United States during the POR. We confirmed 
with the United States Customs Service (Customs) that Minasligas did 
not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we 
are rescinding the review with respect to Minasligas.

Intent To Revoke

    On July 30, 1998, CBCC submitted a request, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.222(e), that the Department revoke the order covering silicon 
metal from Brazil with respect to its sales of this merchandise. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), the request was accompanied by 
certifications from CBCC that for a consecutive three-year period, 
including this review period, it had sold the subject merchandise in 
commercial quantities at not less than normal value (NV), and would not 
do so in the future. CBCC also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in 
the relevant antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the 
order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that, 
subsequent to revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than 
NV.
    On January 28, 1999, the Department requested additional 
information from CBCC and interested parties regarding CBCC's 
revocation request. We received comments from CBCC and from petitioners 
in June 1999.
    The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1) require, inter 
alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit the following: 
(1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise 
at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company 
will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that 
the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities 
during each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and 
(3) an agreement to reinstatement of the order if the Department 
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject 
merchandise at less than NV. Upon receipt of such a request, the 
Department may revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the 
company in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV 
for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not likely 
that the company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at 
less than NV; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate 
reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less 
than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
    Petitioners do not challenge CBCC's fulfilment of the certification 
requirements. However, petitioners oppose CBCC's claims that it sold 
silicon metal in the United States in commercial quantities during the 
last three PORs and that it is not likely to sell its merchandise in 
the future at less than NV.
    In determining whether the three years of no dumping are a 
sufficient basis to make a revocation determination, the Department 
must be able to determine that the company has continued to participate 
meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at 
issue. See Pure Magnesium from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 64 
FR 12977 (March 16, 1999) (Pure Magnesium from Canada). This practice 
is codified at 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1), which states that, ``before 
revoking an order or terminating a suspended investigation, the 
Secretary must be satisfied that, during each of the three (or five) 
years, there were exports to the United States in commercial quantities 
of the subject merchandise to which a revocation or termination will 
apply.'' For purposes of revocation, the Department must be able to 
determine that past margins are reflective of a company's normal 
commercial activity. Sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are 
an abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for 
determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to 
offset dumping.
    After review of the record, in the present case, the Department has 
preliminarily found that CBCC has had zero or de minimis dumping 
margins for four consecutive reviews. Although in one of the four years 
the sales were not as extensive as in the other three years, we note 
that sales in the remaining three years were all made in commercial 
quantities. Furthermore, CBCC shipped progressively more silicon metal 
to the United States in each of those three years (i.e., these three 
years represent, respectively, approximately 30, 45, and 70 percent in 
comparison with the quantity shipped during the period of 
investigation). Moreover, while increasing its sales volume, CBCC 
maintained zero or de minimis margins despite the fact that the last 
three years were marked with depressed prices and global oversupply of 
silicon metal. CBCC has also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in 
the order if we conclude, subsequent to the revocation, that CBCC has 
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.

[[Page 43163]]

    Based on its four consecutive years of zero or de minimis margins, 
three of which had exports to the United States in significant 
commercial quantities, CBCC's reinstatement agreement, and the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that it is not likely that 
CBCC will sell subject merchandise in the United States at less than 
normal value. Consequently, as a result of our analysis of factual 
information submitted to us during the course of this review, we have 
preliminarily determined to revoke this order with respect to CBCC.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of silicon metal by the Brazilian 
respondents to the United States were made at less than normal value, 
we compared export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly 
weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP 
transactions.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondents, covered by the description in the 
``Scope of Review'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Further, based on comments submitted by the respondents and petitioners 
in this segment of the proceeding, we have preliminarily determined all 
silicon metal meeting the description of the merchandise under the 
``Scope of Review'' section, above (with the exception of slag and 
contaminated products) to be identical products for purposes of model-
matching. Therefore, where there were no sales of identical merchandise 
in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to 
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of the 
product sold in the U.S. market during the comparison period.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP transaction. The NV LOT is that 
of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is 
based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. 
LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from 
the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, 
we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along 
the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based 
and the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home 
and U.S. markets for each respondent, we examined whether the 
respondent's sales involved different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories, 
and selling functions (or services offered) to each customer or 
customer category, in both markets.
    CBCC reported sales through one LOT, consisting of three customer 
categories (i.e., original equipment manufacturers, distributors and 
silicon metal producers) which also represent three channels of 
distribution for its home market sales. CBCC reported only EP sales in 
the U.S. market. For EP sales, CBCC reported one customer category and 
one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to an unaffiliated 
trading company, for sale to the U.S. market). CBCC claimed in its 
response that EP sales were made at the same LOT as home market sales 
to unaffiliated customers. For this reason, CBCC has not asked for a 
LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.
    In analyzing CBCC's selling activities for the home and U.S. 
market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided 
for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal 
in nature and usually limited to arranging for freight, if requested by 
the customer. No other services were rendered for either home market or 
EP sales. Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily 
determined that the LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the 
home market. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home 
market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for CBCC.
    Rima reported sales through one channel of distribution to one 
customer category (i.e., original equipment manufacturers) for home 
market sales. In the U.S. market, Rima reported EP sales through one 
channel of distribution to one customer category (i.e., end users). In 
its response, Rima stated that it performs the same type of services 
for home market customers as it does for its foreign market customers. 
For this reason, Rima has not requested a LOT adjustment.
    In analyzing Rima's selling activities for the home and U.S. 
market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided 
for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal 
in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. Therefore, 
based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that the 
LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market. 
Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be 
at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act is warranted for CBCC.
    Eletrosilex reported sales through one LOT consisting of two 
customer categories (i.e., original equipment manufacturers and 
retailers) which represent one channel of distribution for its home 
market sales. Eletrosilex reported only EP sales in the U.S. market. 
For EP sales, Eletrosilex reported one customer category and one 
channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to original equipment 
manufacturers). Eletrosilex claimed in its response that its U.S. and 
home market sales were made at the same LOT. For this reason, 
Eletrosilex has not asked for a LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to 
its EP sales.
    In analyzing Eletrosilex's selling activities for the home and U.S. 
market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided 
for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal 
in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. No other 
services were rendered for either home market or EP sales. Therefore, 
based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that the 
LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market. 
Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be 
at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act is warranted for Eletrosilex.
    LIASA reported one customer category (i.e., ``end-user'') and one 
channel of distribution for its home market sales. LIASA reported only 
EP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, LIASA reported one customer 
category and one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to 
unaffiliated ``end-users'' in the U.S. market). LIASA claimed in its 
response that EP sales were made at the same LOT as home market sales 
to

[[Page 43164]]

unaffiliated customers. For this reason, LIASA has not asked for a LOT 
adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.
    In analyzing LIASA's selling activities for its EP sales, we noted 
that the sales involved basically the same selling functions associated 
with the home market LOT described above. These selling activities in 
both markets were minimal in nature and usually limited to arranging 
for freight, if requested by the customer. No other services were 
rendered for either home market or EP sales. Therefore, based upon this 
information, we have preliminarily determined that the LOT for all EP 
sales is the same as that in the home market. Accordingly, because we 
find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for 
LIASA.

Export Price

    For CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA, and RIMA, we used the Department's EP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold by each producer outside the United States 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation (or to unaffiliated trading companies for export to the 
United States) and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. We made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c) of the Act. Movement expenses included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, and 
international freight.

Normal Value

1. Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV 
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since 
each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home 
market provides a viable basis for calculating NV for each respondent. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on 
home market sales.

2. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    In the most recently completed review of this proceeding, we 
disregarded home market sales found to be below the cost of production 
for CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA and Rima. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product 
under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have 
been made at prices below the COP as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine 
whether these respondents made home market sales during the POR at 
prices below their COP.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
product-specific COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market SG&A expenses, including interest expenses and packing 
costs.
    We relied on the home market and COP information submitted by each 
respondent in its questionnaire responses, except for the following 
company-specific adjustments described below.
Eletrosilex
    We adjusted Eletrosilex's G&A by calculating on an annual basis a 
ratio of its G&A expenses to its cost of goods sold.
    We recalculated Eletrosilex's financial expense ratio. Eletrosilex 
incorrectly applied certain offsets to its reported financial expense. 
We denied the offsets in question and adjusted its financial expenses 
accordingly. Thus, we recalculated Eletrosilex's financial expense 
ratio using its financial expenses and the costs of goods sold as 
reported on its most recent financial statements.
Rima
    We adjusted Rima's reported G&A expense, financial expense and 
depreciation. We recalculated Rima's G&A expense ratio using its G&A 
expenses and annual cost of goods sold from its financial statements.
    We recalculated Rima's financial expense ratio. Rima incorrectly 
applied certain offsets to its reported financial expense. We denied 
Rima's reported offsets and adjusted its financial expenses 
accordingly. Thus, we recalculated Rima's financial expense ratio using 
its financial expenses and costs of goods sold as reported on its most 
recent financial statements.
    Rima reported depreciation expenses based on a period of time 
greater than the POR. Therefore, we recalculated Rima's depreciation 
expenses based on expenses incurred during the POR.
B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    We compared the weighted-average, per-unit COP figures for the POR 
to home market sale prices of the foreign like product, as required 
under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these 
sales were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to 
disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined 
whether: (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in 
substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market 
prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and discounts.
C. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we 
did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to 
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.
    We found less than 20 percent of RIMA's and CBCC's home market 
sales to be below cost. Therefore, we did not disregard any of their 
home market sales from our analysis. However, we found that all of 
Eletrosilex's home market sales and 20 percent or more of LIASA's home 
market sales, within an extended period of time, were at prices below 
the COP. We therefore disregarded LIASA's below-cost sales from our 
analysis and used the remaining home market sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For 
Eletrosilex, because there were

[[Page 43165]]

no sales of the foreign like product made at prices at or above cost in 
the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, 
we used CV as the basis for NV. We calculated CV in accordance with 
section 773(e) of the Act. (See below.)

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication in 
producing the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, the profit incurred 
and realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the cost of materials, 
fabrication, and SG&A expenses as reported in the CV portion of the 
questionnaire response, adjusted as discussed in the ``Calculation of 
COP'' section, above. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the 
U.S. sales portion of the questionnaire responses. For selling 
expenses, we used the average of the direct and indirect selling 
expenses reported for HM sales, weighted by the total quantity of those 
sales. We were unable to derive actual profit based on home market 
sales for Eletrosilex because all of its home market sales were below 
cost. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the 
Act, we calculated profit for Eletrosilex by using the weighted average 
profit realized by the other respondents in this review.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP (i.e., sales by CBCC, LIASA and RIMA), we based the 
respondents' NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold to unaffiliated parties for consumption in Brazil, in the 
usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We based NV on 
sales at the same level of trade as the EP sales. For level of trade, 
please see the ``Level of Trade'' section above. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we made adjustments to home market price, 
where appropriate for inland freight, brokerage and handling charges, 
and rebates. To account for differences in circumstances of sale 
between the home market and the United States, where appropriate, we 
adjusted home market prices by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses (including credit) and commissions and by adding an amount for 
late payment fees earned on home market sales, and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (including U.S. credit expenses and where appropriate, 
less an amount for late payment fees earned on U.S. sales). Where 
commissions were paid on home market sales and no commissions were paid 
on U.S. sales, we increased NV by the lesser of either (1) the amount 
of commission paid on the home market sales or (2) the indirect selling 
expenses incurred on U.S. sales. In order to adjust for differences in 
packing between the two markets, we deducted HM packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs, where appropriate, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Where home market prices were reported 
exclusive of value added taxes (VAT) we made no adjustment. However, 
where home market prices were reported inclusive of VAT, we deducted 
the VAT from the gross home market price.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    With respect to Eletrosilex, where we could not determine NV based 
on home market sales because there were no contemporaneous home market 
sales of the silicon metal made in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared U.S. prices to CV.
    Where we compared EP to CV, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market 
direct selling expenses and adding the U.S. direct selling expenses, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 351.410(c) of 
the Department's regulations.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the 
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See Change in Policy 
Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996).

Use of Partial Fact Available

LIASA

    Upon reviewing LIASA's response to the Department's questionnaire 
in this review, we determined that LIASA reported a credit expense for 
U.S. sales using Brazilian interest rates. LIASA stated in its 
questionnaire response that it had no U.S. dollar borrowings during the 
POR. Therefore, the Department recalculated LIASA's imputed credit 
expense for U.S. sales using the facts available (FA). Pursuant to the 
Department's practice, we recalculated LIASA's U.S. imputed credit 
expenses using a weighted-average U.S. dollar short-term interest rate 
from the Federal Reserve based on quarterly rates for the POR. See 
Policy Bulletin, Number 98.2, February 23, 1998, regarding Imputed 
Credit Expenses and Interest Rates.
    We also noted that LIASA, in reporting foreign inland freight for 
its U.S. sales, inappropriately converted this expense, which was 
incurred in Reais, into U.S. dollars. In the exhibits to its 
questionnaire response LIASA provided the actual Reais expense for only 
one of its U.S. sales. As FA, we have applied the per-unit Reais 
expense reported for that sale to all of LIASA's U.S. sales and 
converted the expense to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate 
from the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Rima

    Upon reviewing Rima's response to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire in this review, we determined that Rima did not calculate 
indirect selling expenses using the methodology requested by the 
Department. Rima reported indirect selling expenses based on selling 
expenses that were not specific to the sale of silicon metal. In 
addition, Rima divided these selling expenses by quantity, as opposed 
to the total sales value of silicon metal sold in either the home or 
foreign market. Because Rima failed to provide the requested 
information using the required methodology, we are applying the FA to 
calculate Rima's indirect selling expenses, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2) of the Act. As FA, we used Rima's most recent financial 
statement and divided Rima's selling expenses by its gross revenue.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 
1997 through June 30, 1998, and we preliminarily determine to revoke 
the order covering silicon from Brazil with respect to CBCC's sales of 
this merchandise.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC.......................................................         0.06
Eletrosilex................................................        17.44
LIASA......................................................         zero
RIMA.......................................................         zero
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of 
this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing

[[Page 43166]]

within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who 
submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each 
argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. All case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date 
of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven 
days after the case briefs are filed. A hearing, if requested, will be 
held two days after the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or the first 
business day thereafter.
    The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within 
180 days from the publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this 
review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
Customs. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
the determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty 
assessment purposes, we calculated a per unit customer or importer-
specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated 
for all U.S. sales to each customer/importer and dividing this amount 
by the total quantity of those sales.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer 
of the merchandise; and (4) for all other manufacturers and/or 
exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate will continue to 
be 91.06 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation, 56 FR 36135 (July 31, 1991). These requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. sections 
1675(a)(1) and 1677f(i)(1)), and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: August 2, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20451 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P