[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55249-55251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26588]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-357-804]


Silicon Metal From Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from the respondent, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Argentina. The review 
covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the 
United States and the period September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998.
    We have preliminarily determined that respondent has not made sales 
below normal value during the period of review. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on entries 
subject to this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen M. Kramer or Linda Ludwig, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0405 or 482-3833, 
respectively.
APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Trade and 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 of 1994 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all 
references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 
(1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 26, 1991, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on silicon metal from Argentina (56 FR 48779), which was amended 
on July 10, 1995, pursuant to court remand (60 FR 35551). The 
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the 1997/1998 
review period on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 49543). On September 30, 
1998, the respondent, Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C. (``Andina'') 
filed a request for review. We published a notice of initiation of this 
review on October 29, 1998 (63 FR 58009).
    Due to the complexity of issues involved in this case, the 
Department extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary 
results until September 30, 1999, in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See 64 FR 23056 (April 29, 1999). The deadline 
for the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. The Department is conducting 
this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is silicon metal. During the 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, silicon metal was described 
as containing at least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99 percent, 
silicon by weight. In response to a request by the petitioners for 
clarification of the scope of the antidumping duty order on silicon 
metal from the People's Republic of China, the Department determined 
that material with a higher aluminum content containing between 89 and 
96 percent silicon by weight is the same class or kind of merchandise 
as silicon metal described in the LTFV investigation. See Final Scope 
Rulings--Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon Metal From the People's 
Republic of China, Brazil and Argentina (February 3, 1993). Therefore, 
such material is within the scope of the orders on silicon metal from 
the PRC, Brazil and Argentina. Silicon metal is currently provided for 
under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) and is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor-
grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 
percent of silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the 
HTS) is not subject to this review. These HTS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. Our written description of 
the scope of the proceeding is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified sales and 
cost information provided by Andina at its headquarters in Buenos Aires 
and at its plant in San Juan, Argentina from May 17 through 28, 1999, 
using standard verification procedures, including inspection of the 
manufacturing facilities, examination of relevant sales and financial 
records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. As a result of our findings at verification, we adjusted 
the costs of wood chips and electricity. See ``Verification of Cost at 
Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C., San Juan and Buenos Aires, 
Argentina, May 17-21, 1999,'' dated August 6, 1999, ``Verification of 
Sales at Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C., San Juan and Buenos Aires, 
Argentina, May 24-28, 1999,'' dated August 6, 1999, and ``Analysis of 
Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C. for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from Argentina for the Period 
September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998,'' dated September 10, 1999.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because all of Andina's sales in the home market during the last 
completed segment of the proceeding failed the cost test and, as such, 
were disregarded, we initiated a cost of production (``COP'') analysis 
in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP 
analysis as described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials, 
processing, depreciation, interest expenses, general and administrative 
expenses, and packing costs. We used the period January through 
September 1998, as there was no production of silicon metal during the 
POR until January, and in the normal course of business Andina accounts 
for costs on a quarterly basis ending in September. We revised the 
reported cost of the first stage of production by increasing the cost 
of wood chips purchased from an affiliated supplier to reflect more 
closely the affiliate's actual costs. We increased the cost of energy 
purchased during the months of August and September to include a price 
increase not reflected in respondent's accounts until the preparation 
of the audited financial statements. We corrected the reported 
financial expenses by deducting interest revenue received from 
customers. Pursuant to section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the

[[Page 55250]]

Act and section 351.407(d) of the Department's regulations, we denied a 
claimed adjustment for startup costs, as we determined Andina's 
investment in the rebuilding of the furnace used for production of 
silicon metal did not meet the Department's criteria for a ``new 
production facility.'' Andina stated that the retooling of Furnace IV 
``involved the replacement of the furnace lining, and the acquisition 
and installation of a new production technology.'' See supplemental 
response of March 2, 1999, page 7. Section 351.407(d)(1)(i) of the 
Department's regulations provides that ``new production facilities'' 
includes the substantially complete retooling of an existing plant. 
Substantially complete retooling involves the replacement of nearly all 
production machinery or the equivalent rebuilding of existing 
machinery. As verified by the Department during a plant visit, Andina 
relined an existing furnace in an existing production facility and 
installed new equipment to lower electrodes into the furnace. We regard 
this investment as essentially maintenance of an existing facility.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the revised weighted-average COP to home market sales 
of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the 
Act. We regarded all sales of silicon metal as identical products. See 
section 771(16)(A) of the Act. 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. See sections 
773(b)(2)(B)-(D) of the Act. We compared the COP to the home market 
prices, less any applicable movement charges and warehousing expenses. 
We found all home market sales were made at prices above the COP.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise sold by 
Andina and exported to the United States were made at less than normal 
value (``NV''), we compared export price (``EP'') to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs 
of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs of the 
foreign like product. We considered the merchandise sold in the U.S. 
and home markets to be identical products.

Export Price

    We based United States price on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of 
the Act, because Andina sold the merchandise to an unaffiliated company 
prior to importation and constructed export price was not otherwise 
indicated by the facts of record.
    We calculated EP based on the packed, delivered, duty-unpaid price 
to an unaffiliated trading company in the United States. We made 
deductions pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the Act for foreign inland 
freight, ocean freight, brokerage and handling, and increased the 
United States price by the amount of duty drawback in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value (NV)

    In order to determine whether sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market are a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume 
of subject merchandise sold in the United States, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Andina's aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of its respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales.
    Andina made sales exclusively to unaffiliated customers in the home 
market during the period of review. Therefore we did not perform the 
arm's length test. All of the home market sales were made at prices 
above the cost of production. Home market prices were based on the 
packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to customers. We made deductions 
to NV according to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, where appropriate, 
for inland freight, warehousing expense, credit expenses, and packing. 
We also made a deduction from NV for the gross revenue tax imposed on 
home market sales revenue, but not on export sales pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act.

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 or CEP transaction. In this 
case, the record shows that sales in both markets were made at the same 
LOT. Andina made sales directly to its customers in the United States 
and Argentina. There were no differences in the selling functions 
performed for distributors, end-users or trading companies in either 
market. Andina provided only packing and shipping services. No 
technical services or warranties were provided.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that no margin exists for Andina for the 
period September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998. Pursuant to section 
351.224 of the Department's regulations, we will disclose the 
calculations performed to the parties to this proceeding within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice. An interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the 
first business day thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal 
briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs 
not later than 30 days and 37 days, respectively, after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(ii) and (d)(1).
    Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement 
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099,within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the 
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon 
the completion of this review. The final results of this review shall 
be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of 
merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated 
duties.

[[Page 55251]]

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of silicon metal from Argentina 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 rate for Andina will be the 
rate established in the final results of administrative review, except 
if the rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore, de minimis within 
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, in which case the cash deposit rate will 
be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not 
covered in this review, but covered in the original less than fair 
value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the rate published in the amended final determination; or (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the 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) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 17.87 percent, the ``All 
Others'' rate made effective by the amended LTFV determination. These 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-26588 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P