[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36149-36151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13007]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-823; A-834-807; A-307-820]


Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Silicomanganese from India, 
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela

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

ACTION: Notice of amended final determination of sales at less than 
fair value and antidumping duty orders.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Royce (India), Cheryl Werner 
(Kazakhstan), and Deborah Scott (Venezuela) at (202) 482-4106, (202) 
482-2667, and (202) 482-2657, respectively; Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``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. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations at 19 C.F.R. part 351 (2001).

Background

    On April 2, 2002, the Department published its final determinations 
in the antidumping duty investigations of silicomanganese from 
Kazakhstan, India, and Venezuela. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances 
Determination: Silicomanganese from India, 67 FR 15531 (April 2, 2002); 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Silicomanganese from Kazakhstan, 67 FR 15535 (April 2, 2002); and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, 67 FR 15533 (April 2, 2002).
    On May 16, 2002, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') 
notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to section 
735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject 
merchandise from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela.

Scope of the Orders

    For purposes of these orders, the products covered are all forms, 
sizes and compositions of silicomanganese, except low-carbon 
silicomanganese, including silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag. 
Silicomanganese is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, 
silicon and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of 
minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese 
is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon manganese. Silicomanganese is 
used primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and 
manganese. Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 
percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent 
silicon and not more than 3 percent phosphorous. Silicomanganese is 
properly classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may 
also be classified under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. This scope 
covers all silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff classification. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. 
Customs Service (Customs) purposes, our written description of the 
scope remains dispositive.
    The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this scope is a 
ferroalloy with the following chemical specifications: minimum 55 
percent manganese, minimum 27 percent silicon, minimum 4 percent iron, 
maximum 0.10 percent phosphorus, maximum 0.10 percent carbon and 
maximum 0.05 percent sulfur. Low-carbon silicomanganese is used in the 
manufacture of stainless steel and special carbon steel grades, such as 
motor lamination grade steel, requiring a very low carbon content. It 
is sometimes referred to as ferromanganese-silicon. Low-carbon 
silicomanganese is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.

Amended Final Determination: Silicomanganese from India

    On April 8, 2002, we received a submission from Eramet Marietta 
Inc. (Eramet) and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy 
Workers International Union, Local 5-0639 (collectively, petitioners) 
alleging two ministerial errors in the final determination calculations 
in the investigation of imports from India. The allegations concerned 
the Department's calculations for one respondent, Universal Ferro and 
Allied Chemicals, Ltd (Universal). See Analysis for Universal Ferro & 
Allied Chemicals, Ltd. (Universal) for the Final Determination in the 
Investigation of Silicomanganese from India for the Period April 1, 
2000 Through March 31, 2001, (India Final Analysis) (March 25, 2002). 
The allegations were timely filed pursuant to

[[Page 36150]]

section 351.224(c)(2) of the Department's regulations. On April 16, 
2002, we received a rebuttal submission from Universal. These two 
allegations are addressed below.
    We did not receive any timely submissions alleging ministerial 
errors in the India investigation with respect to the other respondent, 
Nava Bharat. See Memorandum on Disclosure of Final Determination 
Documents in the Antidumping Investigation of Silicomanganese from 
India: Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys, Ltd. (Nava Bharat), from Javier 
Barrientos, through Sally C. Gannon, to the File (April 26, 2002). No 
ministerial allegations were received concerning the final 
determinations for Kazakhstan or Venezuela.
Ministerial Allegation 1: Cost of Slag
    Petitioners contend that the Department made a ministerial error in 
calculating the cost of slag included in Universal's total cost of 
manufacture (COM). Petitioners argue that the Department claimed that, 
for the final calculations, it was assuming that all slag was used for 
non-conversion products. See India Final Analysis, at 3 (``For these 
final calculations we are assuming that all slag was used for non-
conversion products.''). Petitioners argue that the Department's 
calculation of the amount of slag costs to be included in COM is 
inconsistent with its statement that all slag costs were presumed to be 
consumed in the production of non-conversion silicomanganese. 
Specifically, petitioners maintain that the Department allocated only a 
portion of the total cost of slag to non-conversion silicomanganese. As 
per the Department's stated presumption that all slag was used for non-
conversion products, petitioners claim that no allocation between 
conversion and non-conversion products was necessary.
    Accordingly, petitioners request that the Department amend its 
final calculations to include all slag costs in Universal's COM.
    In regard to the above allegation, the respondent maintains that 
petitioners selectively extracted parts of the Department's India Final 
Analysis to substantiate their ministerial error claim regarding the 
calculation of slag costs. Specifically, the respondent argues that the 
petitioners disregarded Department references in which the Department 
explicitly stated its intention to use a ratio of silicomanganese 
production in order to allocate slag costs. See India Final Analysis, 
at 2 (``We then multiplied this amount by the ratio of silicomanganese 
production quantity ... to total production quantity ... to derive an 
amount attributable to subject merchandise.'') Thus, according to the 
respondent, the Department's calculation method was intentional, and, 
therefore, there is no ministerial error.
    According to the respondent, these statements by the Department 
regarding the use of an allocation ratio are contradicted by other 
statements made by the Department presuming that all slag was used for 
non-conversion products. According to the respondent, the Department 
only made this assumption as a result of its inability to locate the 
amount of slag used in the conversion products in Exhibit 5 of the 
verification exhibits. The respondent contends that it could have 
directed the Department to the subject information, if asked. Under 
these conditions, the respondent contends that there is no ministerial 
error, and that the Department would likely end up ``confessing error 
before the Court of International Trade and seeking a remand.''
Department's Position:
    We agree with petitioners that the Department's objective was to 
assume slag was used only for non-conversion silicomanganese products. 
We made this assumption in applying adverse facts available, given our 
conclusion that the respondent had not provided the proper information. 
However, as the respondent has verified information on the record 
confirming its use of slag in conversion products (Verification Exhibit 
5), the application of adverse facts available is no longer warranted. 
Therefore, the existing allocation of slag costs used in our 
calculations, which is between non-conversion and conversion 
silicomanganese products, is correct and no correction to the final 
determination calculations in this regard is necessary.
Ministerial Allegation 2: Interest Expense Ratio
    Petitioners argue that the Department committed a ministerial error 
in its calculation of the ratio used to calculate the interest expense 
component of Universal's cost of production (COP). According to 
petitioners, based on the data in the India Final Analysis, the 
Department incorrectly calculated the revised interest expense ratio. 
As a result, they state that the Department should amend its final 
calculations to incorporate the correct interest expense ratio in the 
calculation of Universal's total COP. Respondent did not comment on 
this allegation.
Department's Position:
    The Department agrees with petitioners in that, based on the data 
in the India Final Analysis, the ratio used to calculate the interest 
expense component of Universal's COP was calculated inaccurately as a 
result of an arithmetic error. The Department is revising its final 
calculations to incorporate the correct interest expense ratio in 
Universal's total COP for this amended final determination. See 
Analysis for Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals, Ltd. (Universal) for 
the Amended Final Determination in the Investigation of Silicomanganese 
from India for the Period April 1, 2000 Through March 31, 2001 (May 17, 
2002). As a result of this modification to the interest expense ratio, 
the margin for Universal has changed along with the ``all others'' 
rate, which was based on the average of the rates for Nava Bharat and 
Universal. Universal's margin has increased from 20.42 percent to 20.53 
percent, and the ``all others'' rate has increased from 17.69 percent 
to 17.74 percent.

Antidumping Duty Orders

    In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department 
will direct the Customs Service to assess, upon further advice by the 
Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal 
value of the merchandise exceeds the export price or constructed export 
price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of silicomanganese 
from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela. The antidumping duties will be 
assessed on all unliquidated entries of silicomanganese from India, 
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after November 9, 2001, the date on which the 
Department published its notices of preliminary determination in the 
Federal Register. Customs must require, at the same time as importers 
would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash 
deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty 
margins as noted below. The ``all others'' and ``Kazakhstan-wide'' 
rates apply to all exporters of subject merchandise not specifically 
listed. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-Average
                Exporter/Manufacturer                        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
India
Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys, Ltd........................             15.32%

[[Page 36151]]

 
Universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals, Ltd............             20.53%
All Others...........................................             17.74%
Kazakhstan
Alloy 2000, S.A......................................            247.88%
Kazakhstan-Wide......................................            247.88%
Venezuela
Hornos Electricos de Venezuela, S.A..................             24.62%
All Others...........................................             24.62%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to 
silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, pursuant to 
section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the 
Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce 
Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders 
currently in effect.
    These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of Act 
and 19 C.F.R. 351.211.

    Dated: May 17, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-13007 Filed 5-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S