[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8277-8278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2283]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-821-817


Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation; Notice of Amended 
Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: (February 16, 2006
SUMMARY: On November 28, 2005, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'') issued an order affirming the Department of Commerce's 
(``the Department'') Second Remand Results. See Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. 
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 03-00202 (October 21, 2005) (available 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov) (``Second Remand Results''); see also Globe 
Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 05-150, 2005 Ct. Intl. 
Trade LEXIS 160 (CIT November 28, 2005) (affirming the Second Remand 
Results in their entirety) (``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. (``SKU'') 
(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://ia.ita.doc.gov) (``First Remand Results''). In the Second Remand 
Results, the Department recalculated the adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') portion of Kremny's antidumping duty margin using the revised 
antidumping duty margin for Bratsk calculated in the First Remand 
Results. Because all litigation in this matter has now concluded, the 
Department is issuing its amended final determination in accordance 
with the CIT's decision.

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

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, 2005 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 98 (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 21, 2005, the Department signed its Second Remand 
Results. On November 28, 2005, the CIT affirmed the Department's Second 
Remand Results in its entirety. See Globe Metallurgical III. On 
December 14, 2005, consistent with the decision of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v. United 
States, 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the 
public that the CIT's decision was ``not in harmony'' with the Final 
Determination. See Notice of Decision of the Court of International 
Trade; Silicon Metal from the Russian Federation, 70 FR 73989 (December 
14, 2005) (``Timken Notice''). No party has appealed the CIT's 
decision. Because there is now a final and conclusive decision in the 
court proceeding, we are issuing an amended final determination to 
reflect the results of the second remand determination. The 
recalculated margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZAO Kremny or SKU...................................               61.61
Bratsk..............................................               87.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department will direct the United States Customs and Border 
Protection to require the cash deposit rates listed above for the 
subject merchandise, effective as of December 14, 2005, the publication 
date of the Timken Notice. Because the Russia-wide rate was not 
challenged in this case, it has not changed and remains at 79.42 
percent. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of an administrative 
review of this order.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.


[[Page 8278]]


    Dated: February 9, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-2283 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S