[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58546-58547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29140]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS-239]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Brought by Brazil Regarding 
Antidumping Duties Imposed by the United States on Silicon Metal From 
Brazil

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is 
providing notice that on November 1, 2001, the United States received 
from Brazil a revised request for consultations under the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement) 
pertaining to certain measures regarding antidumping methodology as 
applied by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) in its administrative 
review of an antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. This 
revised request replaces a request received from Brazil on September 
21, 2001 (see notice published in the Federal Register on October 9, 
2001, titled ``WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Brought by Brazil 
Pertaining to Certain Measures Regarding Antidumping Methodology''). 
Brazil alleges that:
     The DOC's administrative review is inconsistent with 
Articles 5, 9, and 11 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Antidumping 
Agreement, or ADA). According to Brazil, current U.S. methodology 
pursuant to which the DOC applies a de minimis standard of 0.5 percent 
in reviews is inconsistent insofar as these provisions allegedly 
require a 2 percent de minimis standard to be applied to both 
investigations and reviews; and

[[Page 58547]]

     The DOC's administrative review is also inconsistent with 
Article 2 of the ADA. Brazil alleges that the DOC's practice of 
``zeroing'', when calculating the dumping margin, is disallowed in 
reviews as well as in investigations.
    USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues 
raised in this dispute. Persons who submitted comments in response to 
the earlier notice in the Federal Register published on October 9, 
2001, regarding this dispute are requested to resubmit their comments 
in accordance with the instructions given below.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement process, comments should be submitted 
on or before December 6, 2001, to be assured of timely consideration by 
USTR.

ADDRESSES: We strongly encourage the public to submit comments by email 
to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-3640. Alternatively, 
comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, 
to Sandy McKinzy, Attn: Brazil Silicon Metal Dispute, Office of the 
United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20508. Comments delivered by messenger or commercial overnight 
delivery service will not be accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katharine J. Mueller, Assistant 
General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, (202) 395-0317.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and 
opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or 
receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement 
panel. Consistent with this obligation, but in an effort to provide 
additional opportunity for comment, USTR is providing notice that 
consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO Dispute 
Settlement Understanding (DSU). If such consultations should fail to 
resolve the matter and a dispute settlement panel is established 
pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which would hold its meetings in 
Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its 
findings and recommendations within six to nine months after it is 
established.

Major Issues Raised by Brazil

    Section 213 of the URAA (amending Section 733(b)(3) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930) provides, in accordance with Article 5.8 of the ADA, that, 
for purposes of antidumping investigations, a dumping margin less than 
or equal to 2 percent is de minimis. However, section 351.106(c) of the 
DOC's regulation, 19 CFR 351.106(c), applies a 0.5 percent de minimis 
standard in the case of ``sunset'' reviews, which are conducted for 
purposes of determining whether an antidumping duty order should be 
revoked. In the eighth administrative review of a 1991 antidumping duty 
order on silicon metal from Brazil, notice of which was published in 
the Federal Register on February 23, 2001, the DOC calculated a dumping 
margin of 0.63 percent for one of the Brazilian importers. Using the 
0.5 percent de minimis standard, DOC determined that the requirement 
for revocation was not met because the dumping margin exceeded the de 
minimis standard. Brazil claims that this determination violates the 
ADA because, according to Brazil, the ADA requires that the 2 percent 
standard must be used in both investigations and reviews.
    Brazil also argues that the method by which the 0.63 percent 
dumping margin was calculated is inconsistent with the ADA because it 
is a result of the DOC's use of ``zeroing''. Chapter 6 of the DOC's 
Antidumping Manual and Sections 771(35)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 prescribe the use of ``zeroing'', according to which negative 
dumping margins are counted as ``zero'' in both investigations and 
reviews. Brazil claims that ``zeroing'' is inconsistent with the 
principle of fair comparison set out in Article 2 of the ADA. Brazil 
points out that the panel in European Communities--Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/R, concluded 
that ``zeroing'' is inconsistent with the ADA, and that this finding 
was affirmed by the Appellate Body, Wt/DS141/AB/R.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in the dispute. Comments must be in 
English and, if sent by U.S. mail, provided in fifteen copies. 
Commenters are requested not to submit any confidential information at 
this time. All comments submitted will be made available to the public.
    Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR 
will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible 
to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include 
comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; 
if a dispute settlement panel is convened, the U.S. submissions to that 
panel, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, 
to the panel received from other participants in the dispute, as well 
as the report of the panel; and, if applicable, the report of the 
Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/
DS-239, Brazil Silicon Metal Dispute) may be made by calling Brenda 
Webb, (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 
9:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

A. Jane Bradley,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 01-29140 Filed 11-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M