[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44285-44290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19139]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-806]


Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review and Notice of 
Intent To Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review, 
partial rescission of review and notice of intent to revoke order in 
part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by Elkem Metals Company and Globe 
Metallurgical (collectively petitioners), and requests by Companhia 
Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC) and Rima Industrial S/A (Rima), 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal 
from Brazil. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2001, through June 
30, 2002.
    We preliminarily determine that CBCC did not sell subject 
merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. We also 
intend, preliminarily, to revoke the order, in part, with respect to 
CBCC, because we find that CBCC has met all of the requirements for 
revocation, as set forth in 19 CFR 351.222(b). We are rescinding the 
review with respect to Rima because, since the initiation of this 
current review, Rima has been revoked from the order in a prior 
administrative review of this proceeding. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will 
instruct the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) to 
assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export 
price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP) and NV. We invite 
interested parties to comment on the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 or 
Ronald Trentham at (202) 482-6320, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office IV, Group 
II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. See 
Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from Brazil 56 FR 36135 (July 31, 
1991). On July 1, 2002, 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, 2001, through June 30, 2002. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 44172 (July 1, 2002). On July 15, 2002, 
CBCC and Rima requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of their sales, and partially revoke the order pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.222. On July 31, 2002, petitioners requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of sales made by CBCC and 
Rima. On August 16, 2002, in anticipation of the current administrative 
review, the Department issued questionnaires to CBCC and Rima.\1\ On 
August 27, 2002, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of 
production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed 
value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. Section E 
requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 15, 2002, the Department received responses to sections 
A through C of the questionnaire from CBCC and Rima. On December 17, 
2002, the order was revoked, in part, with respect to Rima. See Silicon 
Metal from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Revocation of Order in Part, 67 FR 77225, 77226 (December 
17, 2002) (2000-2001 Silicon Metal). On February 10, 2003, the 
Department informed CBCC that it was required to respond to section D 
of the Department's questionnaire. On February 24, 2003, the Department 
received a response to section D of the questionnaire from CBCC.

[[Page 44286]]

    On March 11, 2003, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the 
deadline for the preliminary results until July 22, 2003. See Silicon 
Metal from Brazil: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 11519 (March 11, 2003).
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CBCC on April 
16, 2003, and May 8, 2003, and received responses on May 9, 2003 and 
May 15, 2003, respectively.
    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 
of the United States (HTSUS) 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 HTSUS) is not subject to the order. 
Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and for 
customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    During the POR, CBCC reported that it made both EP and CEP sales to 
the United States. However, in CBCC's October 15, 2002, and May 9, 
2003, questionnaire responses, CBCC stated that its U.S. sales to an 
unaffiliated trading company were ultimately purchased by Dow Corning 
Corporation, Inc. (Dow), its U.S. affiliate. Nevertheless, we have 
determined that the record evidence in this POR does not establish that 
at the time of the sales by CBCC to the unaffiliated trading company, 
CBCC had or should have had knowledge that this merchandise would 
ultimately be purchased by Dow. Therefore, for the purposes of these 
preliminary results, we have continued to treat CBCC's sales to the 
unaffiliated trading company as EP sales. See Section 772(e) Memorandum 
from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, to Holly A. Kuga, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, dated July 22, 2003, which is on 
file in the CRU. To determine whether EP sales of silicon metal by CBCC 
to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the 
NV, as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this 
notice. To determine whether CEP sales of silicon metal by CBCC to the 
United States were made at less than NV, we compared CEP to the NV, as 
described in the Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of 
this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we 
calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to 
individual EP or CEP transactions, as appropriate.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by CBCC, 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 a prior 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); 
aff'd Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon 
Metal from Brazil, 65 FR 7497 (February 15, 2000). Therefore, where 
applicable, if there were no contemporaneous sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to 
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value 
(CV) of the product sold in the U.S. market during the comparison 
period, consistent with section 351.405 of the Department's 
regulations.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted 
verifications of the information provided by CBCC. We used standard 
verification procedures including 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 (CRU), Room B099 of the Main Commerce building 
(CRU--Public File).

Partial Rescission

    On December 17, 2002, the order was revoked, in part, with respect 
to Rima. See 2000-2001 Silicon Metal, 67 FR at 77226. Consequently, we 
are rescinding the administrative review with respect to sales made by 
Rima. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, and Singapore: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Determination 
Not To Revoke Order in Part, 68 FR 35623, 35625 (June 16, 2003).

Revocation

    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; (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; and (3) an agreement to 
reinstatement in the order or suspended investigation, as long as any 
exporter or producer is subject to the order (or suspended 
investigation), if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or 
producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at 
less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, 
the Department will consider the following in determining whether to 
revoke the order in part: (1) Whether the producer or exporter 
requesting revocation has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV 
for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the 
continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise 
necessary to offset dumping; and (3) whether the producer or exporter 
requesting revocation in part has agreed in writing to the immediate 
reinstatement of the order, as long as any exporter or producer is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the exporter or 
producer, subsequent to revocation, sold the

[[Page 44287]]

subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2); see also 
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order 
in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy, 66 FR 34414, 34420 (June 28, 2001).
    On July 15, 2002, CBCC submitted a request, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.222, that the Department partially 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 this antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject 
to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to 
revocation, CBCC sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. We 
received no comments from petitioners regarding CBCC's request for 
revocation.
    Based on the preliminary results in this review and the final 
results of the two preceding reviews, CBCC has preliminarily 
demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. See 
2000-2001 Silicon Metal, 67 FR 77225, 77226 (December 17, 2002); 
Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 6488, 6489 (February 12, 2002). Further, 
in determining whether three years of no dumping establish a sufficient 
basis to make a revocation determination, the Department must be able 
to determine that the company continued to participate meaningfully in 
the U.S. market during each of the three years at issue. See Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in Part, 64 FR 
2173, 2175 (January 13, 1999); see also Pure Magnesium From Canada; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 
16, 1999); and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping 
Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 742 (January 
6, 2000). This practice has been codified in 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1), 
which states that, ``before revoking an order or terminating a 
suspended investigation, the Secretary must be satisfied that, during 
each of the three (or five) years, there were exports to the United 
States in commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to which a 
revocation or termination will apply.'' See 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1); see 
also 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). For purposes of revocation, the 
Department must be able to determine that past margins are reflective 
of a company's normal commercial activity. Sales during the POR which, 
in the aggregate, are of an abnormally small quantity do not provide a 
reasonable basis for determining that the discipline of the order is no 
longer necessary to offset dumping.
    With respect to the threshold matter of whether CBCC made sales of 
subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities, we 
find that CBCC's sales to the United States were made in commercial 
quantities during each of the past three consecutive years. The 
quantity of CBCC's shipments of subject merchandise to the United 
States has remained at a sufficiently high level to be considered as 
having been made in commercial quantities. Therefore, we can reasonably 
conclude that the zero and de minimis margins calculated for CBCC in 
each of the last three administrative reviews are reflective of the 
company's normal commercial experience. See Memorandum from Maisha 
Cryor, Analyst, to File, ``Shipments of Silicon Metal to the United 
States by CBCC,'' dated July 22, 2003.
    CBCC also agreed in writing that it will not sell subject 
merchandise at less than NV in the future and to the immediate 
reinstatement of the antidumping order, as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, 
subsequent to the partial revocation, CBCC has sold the subject 
merchandise at less than NV. Thus, in light of the above and pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.222, we preliminarily find, for CBCC, that the subject 
merchandise was sold at not less than NV for a period of at least three 
consecutive years and that dumping is not likely to resume in the 
future. Consequently, the continuing imposition of an antidumping duty 
order is not necessary to offset dumping.
    Therefore, if these preliminary results are affirmed in our final 
results, we intend to revoke the order in part with respect to 
merchandise produced and exported by CBCC. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any 
such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after July 1, 2001, and will instruct the BCBP to refund any cash 
deposits.

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, as 
appropriate. 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. For CEP 
sales, the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated or affiliated 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 comparison market sales at the LOT 
of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home 
and U.S. markets for CBCC, we examined whether CBCC'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 home market sales through one channel of distribution 
to three unaffiliated customer categories (direct sales to 
distributors, original equipment manufacturers and silicon metal 
producers). CBCC reported both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market. For 
EP sales, CBCC reported one customer category and one channel of 
distribution (direct sales to unaffiliated trading companies). For CEP 
sales, CBCC

[[Page 44288]]

reported one customer category and one channel of distribution (direct 
sales to original equipment manufacturers). In its response, CBCC 
stated that it performs the same type of services for home market 
customers as it does for its foreign market customers. For this reason, 
CBCC has not requested a LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP 
and CEP sales.
    Because of the similarity of the selling functions involved in the 
EP and CEP sales, we found there is only one LOT in the U.S. market. 
Moreover, in analyzing CBCC's selling activities in both the home and 
U.S. markets, we determined that essentially the same services were 
provided for both markets. The selling functions in both markets were 
minimal in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. 
Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily 
determined that for CBCC, the LOT for all U.S. sales is the same as 
that in the home market. Consequently, because we find the U.S. and 
home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7) of the Act is warranted for CBCC.

Export Price

    For CBCC (where appropriate) we used the Department's EP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because CBCC 
sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States prior to importation and because the Department's 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, international freight, 
insurance and U.S. warehousing.

Constructed Export Price

    In its October 15, 2002, response, CBCC reported sales to its U.S. 
affiliate, Dow, as CEP sales. CBCC also reported that Dow further 
manufactured the purchased silicon metal into a multitude of other 
products, mostly chemicals, and sold these products in the United 
States. Therefore, CBCC requested that the Department apply section 
772(e) of the Act to the further manufactured sales.
    Where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, 
the Department deducts from CEP the cost of any further manufacture or 
assembly in the United States, except where the special rule, provided 
in section 772(e) of the Act, is applied. Section 772(e) of the Act 
provides that, where the subject merchandise is imported by an 
affiliated person and the value added in the United States by the 
affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the 
subject merchandise, the Department has the discretion to determine the 
CEP using alternative methods.
    The alternative methods for establishing CEP are: (1) The price of 
identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an 
unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of other subject merchandise sold 
by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) notes the following with respect to these 
alternatives:

    There is no hierarchy between these alternative methods of 
establishing the export price. If there is not a sufficient quantity 
of sales under either of these alternatives to provide a reasonable 
basis for comparison, or if the Department determines that neither 
of these alternatives is appropriate, it may use any other 
reasonable method to determine CEP, provided that it supplies the 
interested parties with a description of the method chosen and an 
explanation of the basis for its selection. Such a method may be 
based upon the price paid to the exporter or producer by the 
affiliated person for the subject merchandise, if the Department 
determines that such price is appropriate.

    To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the 
value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for one form of the 
merchandise sold in the United States and the averages of the prices 
paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated person. See 19 CFR 
351.402(2). Based on this analysis, and the information on the record, 
we determined that the estimated value added in the United States by 
Dow accounted for at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first 
unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States. 
Therefore, we determined that the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise. As a consequence, 
the Department has relied upon an alternative methodology to calculate 
CBCC's margin for these sales. However, we found that there is not a 
sufficient quantity of sales to unaffiliated parties to use such sales 
as an alternative method of establishing export price. Therefore, as 
the alternative methodology, the Department used the price paid to CBCC 
by Dow. See Section 772(e) Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting 
Office Director, to Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
dated July 22, 2003, which is on file in the CRU.

Normal Value

1. Viability

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

2. COP Analysis

    On November 4, 2002, petitioners filed a timely sales-below-cost 
allegation with respect to CBCC. In the case of CBCC, petitioners' 
allegation was based on CBCC's antidumping duty questionnaire 
responses. Upon review of the allegation, 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 CBCC. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 
we initiated an investigation to determine whether CBCC's sales of 
silicon metal were made at prices below the COP during the POR. See 
Memorandum Regarding the Analysis of Petitioners' Allegation of Sales 
Below the COP for CBCC, dated February 10, 2003.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated 
company- and product-specific COPs based on the sum of CBCC's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market SG&A expenses, including interest expenses, and packing 
costs.
    We relied on the COP information submitted by CBCC in its 
questionnaire responses and verified by the Department.
B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices for CBCC
    For CBCC, we compared the per-unit adjusted weighted-average COP 
figures

[[Page 44289]]

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. On a product-specific 
basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any 
applicable movement charges, rebates, and discounts. 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.
C. Results of COP Test for CBCC
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we 
did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to 
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that CBCC did not make comparison-market sales at prices 
below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities. Therefore, we did not exclude any 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, we based CBCC's 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 LOT as the U.S. transactions. For LOT analysis, 
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. Where home market prices were reported 
inclusive of VAT, we deducted the VAT from the gross home market price, 
consistent with past practice. See Silicon Metal from Brazil: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Notice of 
Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 67 FR 51539, 51543 (August 8, 2002); 
aff'd 2000-2001 Silicon Metal 67 at 77225.
    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 adding an amount for late payment fees earned on 
home market sales, where appropriate. In order to adjust for 
differences in packing between the two markets, we deducted home market 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, where appropriate, in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 
sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 
2001, through June 30, 2002.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-average margin
           Manufacturer/exporter                     percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC......................................  0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, we preliminarily revoke the order covering silicon metal 
from Brazil with respect to sales of subject by CBCC. We are also 
rescinding the review of Rima as a result of our revocation of the 
order with respect to Rima in 2000-2001 Silicon Metal.
    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 BCBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to BCBP. 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 will calculate 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. Where the assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we will instruct BCBP to assess duties on all entries 
of subject merchandise by that importer.
    Furthermore, if these preliminary results are affirmed in the final 
results of this administrative review, we will not set a cash deposit 
requirement for CBCC since it has been revoked from the order. However, 
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) 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; (2) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than 
fair value 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 (3) 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

[[Page 44290]]

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.

    Dated: July 22, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-19139 Filed 7-25-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P