[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73989-73990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-817]


Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade; Silicon 
Metal From the Russian Federation

ACTION: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade.

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 2005.
SUMMARY: On November 28, 2005, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'') issued an order sustaining the Department of Commerce's 
(``the Department'') Second Remand Results. See Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Globe Metallurgical, Inc. vs. 
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 03-00202 (October 21, 2005) (available 
at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov) (``Second Remand Results''); see also, 
Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 05-150 (CIT 
November 28, 2005) (``Globe Metallurgical III''). In the First Remand 
Results, the Department recalculated the antidumping margins for Bratsk 
Aluminum Smelter and Rual Trade Limited (collectively, ``Bratsk'') and 
ZAO Kremny and SUAL-Kremny-Ural Ltd. (collectively, ``Kremny'') to 
value the respondents' usage of recycled silicon metal sized zero to 
five millimeters. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Remand, Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, Consol. Ct. 
No. 03-00202 (January 5, 2005) (available at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov) 
(``First Remand Results''). In the Second Remand Results, the 
Department recalculated the adverse facts available (``AFA'') portion

[[Page 73990]]

of Kremny's antidumping duty margin using the revised antidumping duty 
margin for Bratsk calculated in the First Remand Results. Consistent 
with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 
337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the Department is notifying the 
public that the Globe Metallurgical III decision is ``not in harmony'' 
with the Department's final determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy at (202) 482-5403; AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 11, 2003, the Department published its Amended Final 
Determination, covering the period of investigation (``POI'') from July 
1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian 
Federation, 68 FR 6885 (February 11, 2003) (``Final Determination''), 
as amended by Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 FR 12037 
(March 13, 2003) (``Amended Final Determination''). Petitioners and 
Bratsk contested various aspects of the Amended Final Determination.
    The Court remanded to the Department two aspects of its Amended 
Final Determination for reconsideration: (1) with respect to the 
Department's decision not to use Russian values to value the factors of 
production and other expenses, the Court ordered the Department to 
either use Russian post-non-market economy (``NME'') values or explain 
why the market economy Russian values are not the best available 
information; and (2) with respect to the Department's treatment of 
silicon metal fines, the Court granted the Department's request to 
explain its exclusion of recycled silicon metal fines from the factor 
of production cost analysis. See Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United 
States, 350 F.Supp. 2d 1148 (CIT September 24, 2004) (``Globe 
Metallurgical I''). Subsequent to the Court's remand, Bratsk 
voluntarily dismissed its challenge of the Department's rejection of 
Russian post-NME values. Therefore this issue became moot.
    In the Department's First Remand Results, the Department 
recalculated Bratsk's and Kremny's margins to value the usage of 
recycled silicon metal sized zero to five millimeters.
    On July 27, 2005, the CIT issued its opinion on the Department's 
First Remand Results. See Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 
Slip Op. 05-90 (CIT July 27, 2005) (``Globe Metallurgical II''). The 
CIT affirmed the Department's determination to include recycled silicon 
metal fines sized zero to five millimeters in each producer's factors 
of production cost analysis and affirmed the calculation of Bratsk's 
antidumping duty margin. However, the Court further remanded the case 
back to the Department and ordered the Department to either recalculate 
the AFA portion of Kremny's antidumping duty margin using the revised 
antidumping duty margin for Bratsk calculated in the Final Remand 
Results or explain the use of the Bratsk margin from the Amended Final 
Determination. The Department recalculated Kremny's antidumping duty 
margin using the antidumping duty margin for Bratsk calculated in the 
First Remand Results. On October 25, 2005, the Department filed its 
Second Remand Results. On November 28, 2005, the CIT sustained the 
Department's Second Remand Results in all respects. See Globe 
Metallurgical III.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant 
to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e), the Department must publish notice of a decision 
of the CIT which is ``not in harmony'' with the Department's results. 
The CIT's decision in Globe Metallurgical III was not in harmony with 
the Department's final determination. Therefore, publication of this 
notice fulfills the obligation. The Department will issue revised cash 
deposit instructions effective the date of publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register if the CIT's decision is not appealed, or if it 
is affirmed on appeal.

    Dated: December 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-7343 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S