[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 151 (Friday, August 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47960-47968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-806]


Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in 
Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review and notice of intent not to revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by American Silicon Technologies, 
Elkem Metals Company, and Globe Metallurgical, Inc. (collectively 
``petitioners''), and by Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio 
(``CBCC''), Ligas de Aluminio S.A. (``LIASA''), Eletrosilex S.A. 
(``Eletrosilex''), RIMA Industrial S.A. (``RIMA'') and Companhia 
Ferroligas Minas Gerais--Minasligas (``Minasligas''), 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, 1998 through June 30, 1999.
    We preliminarily determine that two respondents sold subject 
merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during the POR. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
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). Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written 
comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the 
public version of any such comments on diskette.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor (RIMA), telephone: (202) 
482-5831; Nova Daly (Eletrosilex), 482-0989; Mark Manning (LIASA), 482-
3936, Zev Primor (CBCC), 482-4114; Alexander Amdur ( Minasligas), 482-
5346, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office IV, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 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 (1999).

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 15, 1999, 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, 1998, through June 30, 1999 (64 FR 38181). On July 27, 1999, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), LIASA requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and revoke the 
order with respect to LIASA pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e). Also on July 
27, 1999, RIMA and Minasligas requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of their respective sales. On July 28, 1999, 
Eletrosilex requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of its sales. Also on July 28, 1999, 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 30, 1999, petitioners requested that the Department conduct 
an administrative review of sales made by CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA, 
Minasligas, and RIMA. On August 30, 1999, 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 (64 
FR 47167).
    The Department issued questionnaires on October 19, 1999, to CBCC, 
Eletrosilex, LIASA, Minasligas, and RIMA, and received responses to 
Section A on December 2, 1999, from all respondents. The Department 
received responses to sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire from 
Eletrosilex on December 17, 1999, and from CBCC, LIASA, Minasligas, and 
RIMA on December 27, 2000. The Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to LIASA on February 25, 2000, March 23, 2000, and June 
6, 2000, and received responses on March 27, 2000, April 18, 2000, and 
June 12, 2000. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Minasligas on February 25, 2000, May 11, 2000, and June 2, 2000, and 
received responses on March 27, 2000, May 26, 2000, and June 7, 2000. 
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CBCC and Rima on 
February 25, 2000, and received responses on March 27, 2000. The 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Eletrosilex on March 
2, 2000, and did not receive a response.
    On March 2, 2000, 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 30, 2000 
(65 FR 11285). The Department is conducting this review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Act.

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.

[[Page 47961]]

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted 
verifications of the information provided by CBCC, LIASA, Minasligas, 
and RIMA. RIMA was verified from April 25, 2000, through May 4, 2000, 
CBCC was verified from May 8, 2000, through May 12, 2000, Minasligas 
was verified from June 13, 2000, through June 21, 2000 and LIASA was 
verified from June 19, 2000, through June 23, 2000. We used standard 
verification procedures including; on-site inspection of the 
manufacturers' facilities, examination of relevant sales and financial 
records, and selection of relevant source documentation as exhibits. 
Our verification findings are detailed and on file in the Central 
Records Unit, Room B099 of the Main Commerce building (CRU--Public 
File).

Facts Available (``FA'')

Eletrosilex

    In accordance with section 776 of the Act, we have determined that 
the use of adverse FA is warranted for Eletrosilex.
1. Application of FA
    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e), facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In this 
review, as described in detail below, Eletrosilex failed to provide the 
necessary information in the form and manner requested. Thus, pursuant 
to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department is applying, subject to 
section 782(d), facts otherwise available.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, not withstanding the 
Department's determination that the submitted information is 
``deficient'' under section 782(d) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider such information if all of the following 
requirements are satisfied: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    After careful analysis, we have determined that the use of FA with 
respect to Eletrosilex is appropriate. Eletrosilex failed to respond to 
the Department's request for additional information in its supplemental 
questionnaire dated March 2, 2000. Thus, Eletrosilex did not submit 
requested information by the established deadline. Furthermore, the 
information on the record is so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination or an 
appropriately calculated margin for Eletrosilex. See Memorandum 
Regarding the Application of Adverse Facts Available to Eletrosilex, 
dated July 27, 2000 (``Eletrosilex FA Memo''). For these reasons, the 
Department has determined that the use of FA is warranted.
2. Selection of FA
    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997).
    Eletrosilex completely failed to respond to the Department's 
supplemental requests for information, which prevented the Department 
from making critical decisions involving the calculation of 
Eletrosilex's dumping margin. In addition, as required by section 
782(d), Eletrosilex was put on notice, via Department extension letters 
and other correspondence, that failure to respond to the Department's 
supplemental request for information constituted a deficiency which 
could result in the use of FA. See Extension Letter from U.S. 
Department of Commerce to Eletrosilex, dated March 17, 2000; Letter 
from U.S. Department of Commerce to Eletrosilex, dated April 12, 2000. 
Moreover, section 782(e) is not applicable as the information 
Eletrosilex submitted is so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for making a preliminary determination. Specifically, 
because of Eletrosilex's failure to provide: audited financial 
statements, explanations of affiliation issues, product specifications 
(regarding silicon content), values for billing adjustments, values for 
inland freight, reconciliation of direct and indirect selling expenses, 
reconciliation of packing expenses, reconciliation of U.S. imputed 
credit expenses, detail regarding the costs associated with furnace 
shut downs, reconciliation of ICMS and IPI taxes, and a reconciliation 
of total cost of manufacturing (``TOTCOM'') figures, the Department has 
determined that the information on the record is insufficient for 
purposes of calculating a dumping margin. See Eletrosilex FA Memo. 
Accordingly, Eletrosilex did not act to the best of its ability to 
comply with the request for information and thus, under section 776(b) 
of the Act, an adverse inference is warranted. For further discussion 
of the Department's selection of FA, see Eletrosilex FA Memo.
    Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are basing Eletrosilex's 
margin on adverse FA for purposes of these preliminary results. As 
adverse FA for Eletrosilex, we have used the highest rate determined 
for Eletrosilex in any segment of this proceeding. This rate is 93.20 
percent. See Silicon Metal From Brazil; Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 6305 (February 9, 1999) 
(``1996-1997 Silicon Metal'').
3. Corroboration of Information Used as FA
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse FA information derived from the petition, the final 
determination from the less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary 
information is defined as ``[i]nformation derived from the petition 
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See Statement of 
Administrative Action (``SAA'')

[[Page 47962]]

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 
(1994).
    The SAA further provides that the term ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
to be used has probative value (see SAA at 870). Thus, to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. The rate 
selected is a calculated rate from a prior segment of this proceeding. 
Thus, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the rate. See 
e.g., Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 6140 (February 8, 2000) 
and 1996-1997 Silicon Metal.
    As to the relevance of the margin used for adverse FA, the courts 
have stated that ``by requiring corroboration of adverse inference 
rates, Congress clearly intended that such rates should be reasonable 
and have some basis in reality.'' See F.Lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. 
Martino S.p.A., v. U.S., ________ CAFC ____, Slip Op. 99-1318 (June 16, 
2000).
    In determining a relevant and reasonable adverse FA rate for 
Eletrosilex, the Department notes that margins for Eletrosilex have 
historically fluctuated between the present rate of 18.87 percent and 
the 93.20 percent rate, determined for the1996-1997 POR. See Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal From 
Brazil, 65 FR 7497 (February 15, 2000) (``1997-1998 Silicon Metal''), 
and the 1996-1997 Silicon Metal. Eletrosilex received a calculated rate 
of 18.87 percent for the 1997-1998 POR, an FA rate of 93.20 in the 
1996-1997 POR, a calculated rate of 39.00 percent for the 1995-1996 
POR, a calculated rate of 6.33 percent for the 1994-1995 POR, a 
calculated rate of 38.39 percent for the 1993-1994 POR, and a 
calculated rate of 51.84 percent for the 1992-1993 POR. See: 1997-1998 
Silicon Metal, 1996-1997 Silicon Metal, Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal From Brazil, 63 FR 6899 
(February 11, 1998) (``1995-1996 Silicon Metal''), Silicon Metal From 
Brazil; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 54087 (October 17, 1997), Silicon Metal From Brazil; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
54094 (October 17, 1997) and Silicon Metal From Brazil; Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Accordance With 
Court Decision, 65 FR 33297 (May 23, 2000), respectively. Furthermore, 
during the last three administrative reviews, whereas Eletrosilex has 
received margins of 18.87 percent, 93.20 percent, and 39.00 percent, 
other parties in this proceeding have had calculated rates below 10 
percent. See 1997-1998 Silicon Metal, 1996-1997 Silicon Metal, and 
1995-1996 Silicon Metal, respectively.
    Noting that Eletrosilex's rates have moved up and down from one 
period of review to the next, and given Eletrosilex's failure to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in this review, we have no reason 
to believe that Eletrosilex's dumping margin would be any less than the 
highest rate at which we have previously found Eletrosilex to have 
dumped or that other available rates would ensure that Eletrosilex does 
not benefit by failing to cooperate fully. Thus, we used the highest 
rate determined for Eletrosilex of 93.20 percent.

Partial FA

Minasligas

    The Department has determined, in accordance with section 776 of 
the Act, that the application of partial FA is warranted for 
Minasligas.
    In the course of verification, the Department discovered a U.S. 
sale, made by Minasligas within the current POR, which Minasligas had 
not reported. Minasligas officials explained that the failure to report 
this sale was inadvertent. For further information regarding the 
discovery of this unreported sale, see Sales Verification Report for 
Minasligas, dated July 31, 2000.
    For purposes of these preliminary results, the Department has 
concluded that because Minasligas failed to report this sale, an 
adverse FA is warranted for the sale. Consequently, as partial adverse 
FA we have preliminarily calculated a margin for that transaction using 
the actual price, which is on the record in verification documents, and 
the highest U.S. selling expenses from Minasligas' reported 
transactions.

Intent Not To Revoke

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. 
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires, 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; and (2) a certification that the company sold the subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming 
the basis of the revocation request. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon 
receipt of such a request, the Department may revoke an order, in part, 
if it concludes, inter alia, that the exporter and producer covered at 
the time of revocation: (1) sold subject merchandise at not less than 
NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; and (2) is not 
likely in the future to sell the subject merchandise at less than NV. 
See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) (1999); Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke Order In Part: 
Pure Magnesium from Canada, 64 FR 12977, 12982 (March 16, 1999) (``Pure 
Magnesium from Canada'').

I. CBCC

    On July 28, 1999, 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 subject 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 sold the subject merchandise in 
commercial quantities at not less than NV, and would continue to 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 March 23, 2000, the Department requested additional information 
from CBCC and interested parties regarding CBCC's revocation request. 
We received comments from CBCC and from petitioners in April and May of 
2000.
    After review of the record, the Department preliminarily determines 
that although CBCC has had zero or de minimis dumping margins for the 
previous two review periods, during the current review CBCC's weight-
averaged dumping margin is preliminarily determined to be 0.63 percent, 
an above de minimis rate. A rate must be below 0.50 percent to be de 
minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c). Consequently, CBCC failed to achieve 
sales of subject merchandise ``at not less than NV for a period of at 
least three consecutive years'' as required by the Department's 
regulations. Because one of the

[[Page 47963]]

requirements to qualify for revocation has not been met, the Department 
has not addressed the issues of commercial quantities and whether the 
continued application of the antidumping duty order is necessary to 
offset dumping with regard to CBCC. However, should this rate be 
revised to below 0.50 percent for the final results of review, it will 
be necessary to address these factors at that time. Interested parties 
are invited to comment on these factors in their case briefs.
    As a result of our analysis of factual information submitted to us 
during the course of this review, we preliminarily intend not to revoke 
this order with respect to CBCC.

II. LIASA

    On July 27, 1999, LIASA 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 LIASA that for a consecutive three-year period, 
including this review period, it had sold the subject merchandise in 
commercial quantities at not less than NV, and would continue do so in 
the future. LIASA 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 March 23, 2000, the Department requested additional information 
from LIASA and interested parties regarding LIASA's revocation request. 
We received comments from LIASA and from petitioners in April and May 
of 2000.
    For these preliminary results, the Department has relied upon 
LIASA's sales activity during the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 
review periods in making its decision regarding LIASA's revocation 
request. LIASA argues that, as part of its normal business operations, 
it sells ``small'' quantities of silicon metal to all, i.e., foreign 
and domestic, customers. Accordingly, LIASA claims, the quantities of 
the subject merchandise sold to the United States are not small but 
rather ``commercially representative'' of LIASA's activity in all 
markets. See LIASA's Revocation Comments, dated April 18, 2000, at 4 
(``LIASA's Comments''). Petitioners argue that LIASA's small individual 
sales are not relevant because the Department evaluates commercial 
quantities based on aggregate volumes of such sales during each of the 
consecutive PORs rather than the volumes of individual sales. See 
``Petitioners Rebuttal Comments,'' dated May 2, 2000, at 4.
    In accordance with the regulations described above, we must 
determine whether the company requesting revocation sold the subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming 
the basis of the revocation request. See 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1). In other 
words, the Department must determine whether the quantities sold during 
these time periods are reflective of the company's normal commercial 
activity. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 
and Determination To Revoke in Part Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Canada, 64 FR 2175 (January 13, 1999) (``Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada''). Sales during a POR which, in 
the aggregate, are of an abnormally small quantity, either in absolute 
terms or in comparison to an appropriate benchmark period, do not 
generally provide a reasonable basis for determining that the 
discipline of the order is no longer necessary to offset dumping. Id.; 
see also, Pure Magnesium From Canada. However, the determination as to 
whether or not sales volumes are made in commercial quantities is made 
on a case-by-case basis, based on the unique facts on the record of 
each proceeding. See section 751(d) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.222; see 
also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet 
and Strip from the Netherlands 65 FR 750, (January 6, 2000) (``Brass 
from Netherlands'').
    In the present case, we compared LIASA's aggregate U.S. sales 
during each of the PORs to the six-month period of investigation 
(``POI''). The POI was used as an appropriate benchmark because it 
reflects sales activity without the discipline of an antidumping order 
in place. The comparison indicates that LIASA's sales to the U.S. 
market during the three above-mentioned PORs represent 0.69 percent, 
12.77 percent, and 1.6 percent, of the U.S. sales during the POI, 
respectively. When the POI sales are annualized, the sales for each of 
the three consecutive PORs decline even further to approximately 0.35 
percent, 6.38 percent, and 0.8 percent, respectively, when compared to 
the POI sales volume. In Brass from Netherlands, the Department denied 
revocation by stating that the volume of merchandise sold to the United 
States was approximately two percent of the volume of merchandise sold 
in the benchmark investigative period. Id. at 752. Similarly, in the 
most recently completed segment of the proceeding, the Department 
denied revocation for CBCC because it failed to meet the commercial 
quantities threshold. In that particular administrative review, the 
Department determined that CBCC's aggregate sales during one of the 
three-consecutive years forming the basis for revocation, represented 
approximately 2 percent of the sales volume sold during the POI. Based 
on that finding, inter alia, the Department denied CBCC's revocation 
request. See 1997-1998 Silicon Metal. In the instant review, we find 
that in 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 PORs, LIASA's sales to the United 
States were significantly lower, as a percentage of its POI sales, than 
in cases mentioned above.
    After review of the criteria outlined at sections 351.222(b) and 
351.222(d) of the Department's regulations, the Department's practice, 
the comments of the parties, and the evidence on the record, we have 
preliminarily determined that the requirements for revocation have not 
been met. Based on the preliminary results of this review and the final 
results of the two preceding reviews, LIASA has not demonstrated three 
consecutive years of sales in commercial quantities. Therefore, because 
LIASA has not sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities during 
each of the three consecutive PORs, we do not intend to revoke the 
antidumping duty order as to LIASA. See Memorandum Regarding ``Eighth 
Administrative Review: Commercial Quantities,'' dated July 30, 2000.
    Additionally, because one of the requirements to qualify for 
revocation has not been met, the Department has not addressed the issue 
of whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is 
necessary to offset dumping with regard to LIASA. However, should this 
decision be revised for the final results of review, it will be 
necessary to address this factor at that time. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on this factor in their case briefs.

NV Comparisons

    During the POR, all U.S. sales by Brazilian respondents were export 
price (``EP''), none were constructed export price (``CEP'') sales. To 
determine whether sales of silicon metal by the Brazilian respondents 
to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared 
EP to the NV, as

[[Page 47964]]

described in the ``EP'' and ``NV'' 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.

Sales Reviewed

    We have continued to employ the approach, adopted in the final 
results of the second review of this order, covering the 1992-1993 POR, 
in determining which U.S. sales to review for all companies. If a 
respondent sold subject merchandise, and the importer of that 
merchandise had at least one entry during the POR, we reviewed all 
sales to that importer during the POR. See Silicon Metal from Brazil, 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 46763 
(September 5, 1996).

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, as in the preceding segment of this proceeding, we have 
continued to treat all silicon metal meeting the description of the 
merchandise under the ``Scope of Review'' section, above (with the 
exception of slag and contaminated products) as identical products for 
purposes of model-matching. See Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary 
Results, Intent To Revoke in Part, Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, and Extension of Time Limits, 64 FR 43161 
(August 9, 1999).

Level of Trade (``LOT'')

    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 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. 
markets, we determined that essentially the same selling functions were 
provided for both markets. These selling functions in both markets were 
minimal in nature and usually limited to arranging for freight, if 
requested by the customer. No other selling functions or services were 
rendered for either home market (regardless of customer category) or EP 
sales. Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily 
determined for CBCC 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., end users) 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 services for the home and U.S. market, we 
determined that essentially the same services were provided for both 
markets. These services in both markets were minimal in nature and 
limited to arranging for freight and delivery. Therefore, based upon 
this information, we have preliminarily determined for RIMA 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 RIMA.
    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 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 activities 
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 for LIASA 
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.
    Minasligas reported sales through one LOT consisting of one 
customer category (i.e., original equipment manufacturers) which 
represents one channel of distribution for its home market sales. 
Minasligas reported only EP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, 
Minasligas reported one customer category and one channel of 
distribution (i.e., direct sales to trading companies). Minasligas 
claimed in its response that its U.S. and home market sales were made 
at the same LOT. For this reason, Minasligas has not asked for a LOT 
adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.
    In analyzing Minasligas' selling activities for the home and U.S. 
market, we determined that essentially the same

[[Page 47965]]

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 for Minasligas 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 
Minasligas.

EP

    For CBCC, LIASA, RIMA, and Minasligas, 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. Where foreign inland freight was reported 
inclusive of the value-added tax (``VAT''), we deducted the VAT from 
the gross freight cost. For Minasligas, we added duty drawback to the 
starting price. We made company-specific adjustments to EP as follows:

I. RIMA

    We recalculated RIMA's inventory carrying costs and indirect 
selling expenses pursuant to corrections presented at verification. For 
further discussion of these changes, see Calculation Memorandum for 
RIMA dated July 30, 2000, and Report on the Verification of the Sales 
and Cost Responses for Rima, dated July 24, 2000, for further 
information regarding sales and cost verification.

II. Minasligas

    We recalculated Minasligas' U.S. credit expense using corrected 
payment dates and interest rates. First, we used the date of payment by 
the U.S. customer to Minasligas for each sale rather than the date of 
payment by the bank to Minasligas. Second, for the interest rate, 
Minasligas reported a rate based on the Brazilian dollar Taxa 
Referencial (``TR'') rate, the published Government of Brazil prime 
lending rate, while we calculated a U.S. dollar rate based on the 
Advance Exchange Contract (``ACC'') information presented in 
Minasligas'' March 27, 2000 and May 27, 2000 submissions. Further, we 
recalculated Minasligas' reported duty drawback adjustment by 
allocating all import duties, forgiven by the Brazilian government 
through duty drawback during the POR, over all of Minasligas' export 
sales of silicon metal during the POR. We also made adjustments for 
unreported bank charges that we found at verification. For further 
discussion, see Calculation Memorandum for Minasligas, dated July 31, 
2000.

III. LIASA

    Although LIASA stated in the narrative section of its questionnaire 
response that it reported U.S. credit expenses, it did not include this 
expense in its U.S. market database. We calculated LIASA's U.S. credit 
expense using its reported date of sale and date of payment. Since 
LIASA stated that it did not have any short-term borrowing in U.S. 
dollars, we calculated this expense using an interest rate obtained 
from the Federal Reserve's data for short-term commercial and 
industrial loans. For further discussion, see Calculation Memorandum 
for LIASA dated July 31, 2000.

NV

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 review segment of this proceeding most recently completed 
prior to initiating this review, we disregarded home market sales found 
to be below the cost of production for LIASA. See 1996-1997 Silicon 
Metal. 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 by LIASA at 
prices below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act.
    On April 3, 2000, the petitioners in this proceeding filed a timely 
sales-below-cost allegation with regard to CBCC, RIMA, and Minasligas. 
In the cases of CBCC and Minasligas, the petitioners' allegation was 
based on the respondents' antidumping duty questionnaire responses. 
Upon review of the allegations, we found that petitioners' methodology 
provided the Department with a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that sales in the home market had been made at prices below the COP by 
both CBCC and Minasligas. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we have initiated an investigation to determine whether CBCC 
and Minasligas' sales of silicon metal were made at prices below COP 
during the POR. See Analysis of Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below 
the COP for CBCC, dated May 23, 2000; Analysis of Petitioners' 
Allegation of Sales Below the COP for Minasligas, dated May 23, 2000.
    With regard to petitioners' allegation against RIMA, petitioners' 
did not base their sales-below cost analysis of RIMA on company-
specific data submitted in RIMA's supplemental questionnaire response 
submitted on March 27, 2000. When company-specific information has been 
placed on the record, any subsequent sales-below-cost allegation must 
take into account such information. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27336 (May 19, 1997). Therefore, 
because the petitioners did not take into account RIMA's most current 
reported sales and cost data, we find that the petitioners did not 
provide the Department with a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that sales in the home market have been made at prices below the COP. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we have not 
initiated an investigation to determine whether RIMA's sales of silicon 
metal were made at prices below COP during the POR. For further 
discussion of this decision, see Memoranda from Maisha Cryor to Thomas 
F. Futtner, dated July 24, 2000.
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 selling,

[[Page 47966]]

general and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') expenses, including 
interest expenses and packing costs.
    We relied on the home market sales and COP information submitted by 
each respondent in its questionnaire responses, except for the 
following company-specific adjustments described below.

Minasligas

    1. In its response, Minasligas allocated its reported costs for 
silicon metal over different grades of silicon metal, while in its own 
books and records, it only records one cost for all grades of silicon 
metal (see e.g., page D-14 of Minasligas' December 27, 1999 response). 
We calculated one cost for all grades of silicon metal, as Minasligas 
itself records in its books and records as verified by the Department. 
See Report on the Verification of Cost Information for Minasligas, 
dated July 31, 2000.
    2. We recalculated variable overhead by: (1) reallocating certain 
variable overhead expenses by production quantities, as is the 
Department's practice (see Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 62 FR 16763, 
16766 (April 8, 1997)); (2) correcting the errors that we found at 
verification in other indirect costs; and (3) subtracting packaging 
costs, which were incorrectly double-reported as part of variable 
overhead and in the sales response.
    3. We recalculated fixed overhead by using the corrected amount of 
depreciation expense that we found at verification.
    4. We did not offset Minasligas' gross charcoal cost by the 
reported offset for charcoal fines sales because we found at 
verification that the reported gross charcoal cost already includes an 
offset for charcoal fines sales.
    5. Since we compared both COP and home market prices on an ICMS 
tax-exclusive basis, we based the electricity cost on the reported 
gross electricity cost, and not on the reported cost net of the 
electricity cost paid with ICMS credits. See 1997-1998 Silicon Metal, 
at 7497, 7507.
    Due to the proprietary nature of these issues, for further 
discussion, see Calculation Memorandum for Minasligas and Minasligas: 
Report on the Verification of Cost Information Submitted in the 
Administrative Review Covering July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, both 
dated July 31, 2000.
B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices for CBCC, Minasligas and LIASA
    For CBCC, Minasligas and LIASA, we compared the 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 for CBCC, Minasligas and LIASA
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices below 
the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales are not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where (1) 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of 
a given product during the POR are made at prices below the COP and 
thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) 
of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to per-unit COPs for 
the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at 
prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
time period, in accordance with 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we disregarded 
the below-cost sales.
    We found that only CBCC and LIASA made comparison-market sales at 
prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities. Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit 
the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore 
excluded these sales from our analysis in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP (i.e., sales by CBCC, LIASA, RIMA, and Minasligas), 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. Where inland freight was reported inclusive of 
value-added taxes VAT, we deducted the VAT from the gross freight cost. 
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 adding an amount for late 
payment fees earned on home market sales, and by adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (including U.S. credit expenses) and, where 
appropriate, deducting an amount for late payment fees earned on U.S. 
sales. For Minasligas, we recalculated home marking credit by using as 
an interest rate the simple average of monthly TR rates, as is the 
Department's practice (see Silicon Metal From Brazil; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42759, 42761 
(August 8, 1997)). 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. See 19 CFR 
351.410(e). 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 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.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless 
the daily rate involves a fluctuation. The Department considers a 
``fluctuation'' to exist when the daily exchange rate differs from the 
benchmark rate by 2.25 percent or more. The benchmark is defined as the 
moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we 
determine a fluctuation to have existed, we generally substitute the 
benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established 
practice. (For an explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: 
Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (Mar. 8, 1996).) Our preliminary 
analysis of dollar-real

[[Page 47967]]

exchange rates shows that the real declined rapidly in early 1999, 
losing over 40 percent of its value in January 1999, when the Brazilian 
government ended its exchange rate restrictions. The decline was, in 
both speed and magnitude, many times more severe than any change in the 
dollar-real exchange rate during recent years, and it did not rebound 
significantly in a short time. As such, we preliminarily determine that 
the decline in the real during January 1999 was of such magnitude that 
the dollar-real exchange rate cannot reasonably be viewed as having 
simply fluctuated at that time, i.e., as having experienced only a 
momentary drop in value relative to the normal benchmark. We 
preliminarily find that there was a large, precipitous drop in the 
value of the real in relation to the U.S. dollar in January 1999. We 
recognize that, following a large and precipitous decline in the value 
of a currency, a period may exist wherein it is unclear whether further 
declines are a continuation of the large and precipitous decline or 
merely fluctuations. Under the circumstances of this case, such 
uncertainty may have existed following the large, precipitous drop in 
January 1999. Thus, we used a methodology for identifying the point 
following a precipitous drop at which it is reasonable to presume that 
rates were merely fluctuating. Beginning on January 13, 1999, we used 
only daily rates until the daily rates were not more than 2.25 percent 
below the average of the 20 previous daily rates for five consecutive 
days. At that point, we determined that the pattern of daily rates no 
longer reasonably precluded the possibility that they were merely 
``fluctuating.'' (Using a 20-day average for this purpose provides a 
reasonable indication that it is no longer necessary to refrain from 
using the normal methodology, while avoiding the use of daily rates 
exclusively for an excessive period of time.) Accordingly, from the 
first of these five days, we resumed classifying daily rates as 
``fluctuating'' or ``normal'' in accordance with our standard practice, 
except that we began with a 20-day benchmark and on each succeeding day 
added a daily rate to the average until the normal 40-day average was 
restored as the benchmark. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products from Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5563-64 (Feb. 4, 2000); and 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 64 FR 56759, 
56763 (Oct. 21, 1999). Applying this methodology in the instant case, 
we used daily rates from January 13, 1999, through March 4, 1999. We 
then resumed the use of a benchmark, starting with a benchmark based on 
the average of the 20 reported daily rates on March 5, 1999. We resumed 
the use of the normal 40-day benchmark starting on April 3, 1999, 
through the close of the review period.

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, 
1998, through June 30, 1999, and we preliminarily determine not to 
revoke the order covering silicon metal from Brazil with respect to 
CBCC's and LIASA's sales of this merchandise.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC.......................................................         0.63
Eletrosilex................................................        93.20
LIASA......................................................         0.00
RIMA.......................................................         0.00
Minasligas.................................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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. 
Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments 
would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public 
version of any such comments on diskette. 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 
120 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 
except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore, de minimis, 
the cash deposit rate will be zero; (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. 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 issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221.


[[Page 47968]]


    Dated: July 31, 2000.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-19822 Filed 8-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P