Silicon Metal From Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-351-806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 5, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. The review period is March 29,

1991 through June 30, 1992. The review covers four manufacturers/

exporters.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we

have changed our results from those presented in our preliminary

results as described below in the comments section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Heaney, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 5, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (58 FR 41721) the preliminary results

of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Brazil (July 12, 1991, 56 FR 36135). The Department has now

completed that administrative review in accordance with Section 751 of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this review is silicon metal containing

at least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent of silicon metal from

Brazil. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings

2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) as a

chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor

grade silicon metal (silicon metal containing by weight not less than

99.99 percent of silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of

the HTS) is not subject to the order. HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains

dispositive.

On February 3, 1993 the Department determined, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.29 (1993), that silicon metal with a higher aluminum content

containing between 89 and 96 percent of silicon metal is of the same

class or kind of merchandise as silicon metal subject to the

antidumping duty order. While this scope determination was undertaken

in the context of the antidumping duty order governing silicon metal

from the People's Republic of China, the silicon metal subject to that

order is the same as the silicon metal covered by this order.

Therefore, the Department will include such merchandise in future

reviews of this order.

This review covers four manufacturers/exporters of Brazilian

silicon metal. The period covered by this review is March 29, 1991

through June 30, 1992.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results as provided by section 353.22(c) of the

Department's regulations. We received comments from the petitioners

(American Alloys, Inc., Elkham Metals Company, Globe Metallurgical

Inc., SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc. and SMI Group, Inc., Rock Island

Silicon Division) and from four respondents (Companhia Brasileira

Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC), Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais-

Minasligas (Minasligas), Eletrosilex Belo Horizonte (Eletrosilex), and

Rima Eletrometalurgia S.A. (Rima)). On January 14, 1994, we held a

public hearing.

Comment 1: Petitioners contend that CBCC refused to provide cost

information necessary for the calculation of cost of production (COP)

and constructed value (CV). Specifically, petitioners argue that CBCC

did not properly report its interest expenses and charcoal replacement

costs. Petitioners also contend that CBCC understated its electricity

and quartz replacement costs. Petitioners conclude that the Department

should utilize the highest, most adverse margin as best information

available (BIA) since the deficiencies in CBCC's COP/CV response are so

pervasive.

Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. While during

verification we did find areas where the costs were not appropriately

quantified, we have not found these deficiencies to be so significant

or pervasive as to call into question the accuracy of the entire

response. It should be noted that some of the issues, as discussed in

comments 2, 4, 6, and 11, are related to methodological questions,

rather than areas of incorrect reporting of costs. In the instances

where we found insufficient verification support (see December 20, 1993

``CBCC Cost Verification Report''), we relied on partial BIA. For the

methodological issues, we recalculated the costs to correct a

particular cost element. Although we have made certain adjustments to

the information submitted by CBCC (see e.g., our responses to comments

2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9), we generally have used CBCC's data in reaching

these final results of administrative review.

Comment 2: Petitioners note that Solvay do Brasil owns 99.8 percent

of CBCC. Petitioners contend that if the Department uses the COP/CV

information submitted by CBCC, it should base its calculation of

interest expense upon the borrowing experience associated with the

consolidated group of companies. Petitioners contend that the

Department should use the financial expenses reported on Solvay do

Brasil's financial statements to perform this calculation. Finally,

petitioners assert that the Department should apply this allocation to

the replacement cost of manufacture (COM) to properly account for

Brazilian hyperinflation.

CBCC argues that calculation of interest expense on a consolidated

basis would be improper. CBCC contends that the December 20, 1993,

verification report concludes that CBCC made interest-free loans to

Solvay do Brasil. CBCC contends that it charged Solvay do Brasil the

minimum Brazilian statutory requirement for the monetary correction.

CBCC also argues that the Department found no evidence of loans from

Solvay do Brasil to CBCC at verification.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that CBCC's

interest expense should be calculated on a consolidated basis. Since

the cost of capital is fungible, we believe that calculating interest

expense based on consolidated statements is the most appropriate

methodology (see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, Small Business Telephones from Korea, 54 FR 53141, 53149

(December 27, 1989), Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada, 55 FR 31414, 31418-31419

(August 2, 1990), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of Germany, et al., 54 FR

18992, 19074 (May 3, 1989)).

In order to extinguish its outstanding debt, CBCC issued new shares

of capital stock to its parent company. Also, we established at

verification that Solvay do Brasil owns 99.8 percent of CBCC. Based on

these facts, it is evident that the shift in debt is due to the parent

company's control over the subsidiary. Accordingly, the degree of

relationship influenced the structure of debt for the entire company.

Therefore, consistent with our normal practice, we revised CBCC's

submitted interest expenses based on the consolidated financial

statements of Solvay do Brasil.

During verification, CBCC company officials did not provide the

source documents for Solvay's financial income and expenses. Therefore,

we have used BIA to determine CBCC's financial expenses. As BIA, we

used information from Solvay do Brasil's financial statements. This

percentage was then applied to each month's COM to ensure that CBCC's

COP data fully reflected interest expenses.

Comment 3: Petitioners contend that the Department's December 20,

1993, COP verification report suggested allocating interest expenses to

CBCC's COP based on the sum of the financial expenses reflected in

CBCC's and Solvay do Brasil's 1991 and 1992 financial statements.

Petitioners note that if the Department took that approach, it would

determine interest expenses as a percentage of the sum of both

companies' cost of goods sold (COGS), adjusted for intercompany

interest transactions. Petitioners further contend that CBCC's

financial statements reflect only net interest expenses, and that use

of the allocation that the Department proposed in its December 20,

1993, verification report would give CBCC credit for all of its

interest income, whether short-term or not. Petitioners argue that CBCC

submitted no information regarding short-term interest income, making

it impossible for the Department to make any adjustment for

intercompany interest transactions.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that CBCC did not

provide information documenting the company's short-term interest

income. As previously discussed in our response to Comment 2, we have

relied upon BIA in our calculation of CBCC's interest expense. As BIA,

we used the financial expense information from Solvay do Brasil's

financial statements. We then applied this percentage to each month's

COM for purposes of our COP/CV calculations.

Comment 4: Petitioners assert that CBCC purchased electricity at a

discount when the electricity is used to restart idled machinery.

Petitioners note that, prior to March 1992, CBCC averaged the cost of

electricity obtained from its own production and from three separate

pricing plans. Petitioners note that, after March 1992, CBCC stopped

averaging electricity costs, and used the discounted electricity

associated with the running of idled machines. Petitioners contend that

the Department should use CBCC's average electricity costs in the COP/

CV calculations rather than the discounted electricity costs associated

with the restarting of idled machinery.

CBCC contends that the antidumping law contemplates that producers

will base pricing decisions on currently available COP information.

CBCC contends that the Department verified that the furnace was idle

prior to the acquisition of the discounted energy, and that the

discounted energy was only used on the restarted furnace. CBCC argues

that it applied the discounted energy to silicon metal so as to

minimize the COP of silicon metal consistent with the Department's COP

methodology. CBCC suggests that averaging its electricity costs would

result in rejection of its cost data simply because the cost is not

high enough.

Department's Position: In reaching these final results we have

relied upon our general practice in a hyperinflationary economy which

is to calculate a monthly average cost for each input. The Department

believes that it is inappropriate to specifically identify inputs

obtained at a lower cost to a particular product or production run. The

furnaces used to produce silicon metal can produce other products that

are not subject to review. Likewise, other furnaces used to produce

non-subject merchandise can be used to produce silicon metal.

Accordingly, any benefits derived from the use of a particular furnace

relate to all products produced during the period of review.

We note that in this case it is strictly a management decision as

to which product will be made in the furnace which is receiving the

less expensive input. As such, in months in which there were U.S.

shipments of silicon metal, the furnace which utilizes less expensive

electricity can be assigned to produce silicon metal. That same furnace

could be assigned to produce ferrosilicon in months in which CBCC had

U.S. sales of ferrosilicon, a product which is also subject to an

antidumping duty order. In fact, during the period covered by this

review, the furnace in question did produce both silicon metal and

ferrosilicon. (Both silicon metal and ferrosilicon were also produced

in other furnaces.)

The facts of the instant case are consistent with the Department's

position requiring the weight-averaging of the costs of merchandise

produced in more than one facility. The Department has consistently

held that it is inappropriate to make adjustments for cost differences

between facilities when the merchandise produced in each is identical

(see Department of Commerce Policy Bulletin No. 92.2, July 29, 1992,

which is on file at the Central Records Unit).

Comment 5: Petitioners contend that the Department verified that on

several occasions CBCC paid an advance deposit on its electricity bill.

Petitioners further contend that the Department should make an upward

adjustment to CBCC's reported electricity costs to account for the

effect of Brazilian inflation.

CBCC argues that it received a credit from CEMIG (its energy

supplier) for advance payment. CBCC asserts that the Department should

deduct the amount of the credit from the invoiced amount since that

represents the real ``cost'' of the item.

Department's Position: In calculating the replacement cost of

electricity obtained in each month of the period of review we used the

invoiced price for that month. We did not reduce the invoiced amount

for the effect of any ``credits'' CBCC may have obtained. Such a

reduction would not properly reflect the replacement cost of

electricity. Although this is a short-term monetary asset which is not

subject to the balance sheet monetary corrections, through agreement,

CEMIG credits CBCC for the value of cruzeiros as of the invoice date.

This does not reduce the replacement cost of electricity CBCC obtained

but merely reduces the nominal cruzeiro amount outstanding. Under the

Department's replacement cost methodology each month's cost is measured

in the monthly nominal invoiced cruzeiro amounts. Therefore, we have

accepted the amounts billed by CEMIG as each month's replacement cost,

without the effect of the ``credit.''

Comment 6: Petitioners note that CBCC reported electricity costs

exclusive of the ICMS tax in its calculation of third-country COP.

Petitioners contend that these tax payments should have been included

in CBCC's calculation of electricity costs.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. When using third-

country sales as the basis of FMV, we must determine if the

manufacturer incurred costs which resulted from the payment of taxes on

the purchase of inputs. In this review period, CBCC incurred ICMS tax,

a value added tax (``VAT''), in purchasing electricity. CBCC is able to

offset some of this tax when it sells products in the home market

because it charges and receives a VAT on its home market sales. In this

case, even though the home market was not viable, CBCC did make some

home market sales. However, there were not enough home market sales for

the VAT charged and received on those sales to offset all of the VAT it

paid on the electricity purchased to produce the merchandise sold in

the third country. Accordingly, this resulted in a net cost to CBCC for

the ICMS taxes paid in the production of silicon metal sold for export.

As such, the Department included the net amount of the ICMS VAT in the

submitted COP and CV amounts.

This approach differs from that used in the Department's remand

determination concerning the underlying investigation. In that

determination, we made an allowance for an offset to the ICMS VAT paid

currently for potential VAT to be received on future home market sales.

Under this approach the ICMS was, in effect, excluded from the

calculation of constructed value. We have subsequently reconsidered

this methodology and have concluded that allowing such an offset for

potential, future sales results in an adjustment that we now consider

to be purely speculative. Accordingly, we will include in CV ICMS on

inputs that are not offset by VAT charged and collected on actual home

market sales which occur during the period of review. We believe our

current approach better reflects the economic reality of the costs

incurred during the period of review (i.e. current costs are not tied

to potential future events). Our approach in this case is consistent

with the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,

Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 59 FR 732, 737 (January 6, 1994). We believe

this approach also is in accordance with the court's remand

instructions on this issue in Camargo Correa Metais, S.A. v. United

States, Slip. Op. 93-163 (CIT August 12, 1993).

Comment 7: Petitioners contend that CBCC made no provision in its

calculation of charcoal costs for the effects of inflation when CBCC

harvested an area. Petitioners note that the Department requested

additional documentation from CBCC at verification regarding CBCC's

estimates of charcoal harvest and the other assumptions CBCC built into

its calculation of charcoal cost. Petitioners contend that, because

CBCC failed to provide information, the Department should apply BIA.

Petitioners argue that use of BIA is appropriate when a respondent

refuses to submit information after being asked to do so, and where the

refusal to provide the requested information impedes the Department's

proceeding.

Petitioners contend that CBCC's failure to provide the appropriate

information justifies the use of noncooperative BIA for CBCC. Finally,

if the Department determines not to use noncooperative BIA for CBCC,

petitioners suggest that the Department adjust CBCC's reported cost for

company-produced charcoal upward to an amount equal to that charged to

CBCC from unrelated suppliers.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that we should

adjust CBCC's charcoal replacement costs. However, we disagree that

CBCC was noncooperative and should receive a margin based solely upon

BIA. We discovered errors made by CBCC when it calculated its cost of

producing charcoal, a primary raw material used in the production of

silicon metal. For purposes of calculating replacement costs, CBCC

substantially understated its cost of producing charcoal by

inaccurately recording the costs associated with its forests which

provide the raw material needed to produce charcoal. We note, however,

that CBCC reported cost information consistent with that which is

maintained in its normal cost accounting system. Therefore, we have

recalculated the cost of CBCC's production of charcoal. We relied upon

the actual weighted-average monthly cost CBCC was charged by unrelated

vendors.

Comment 8: Petitioners argue that the Department should revise

CBCC's reported 1992 quartz replacement costs upward to account for the

more costly delivery charges the Department discovered at verification.

Department's Position: At verification we noted that CBCC changed

procedures for quartz purchasing in 1992. Because we found that CBCC's

reported quartz replacement costs for 1992 did not reflect the entire

cost of the material, we randomly chose May 1992 as a sample to

determine the amount of the discrepancy. In establishing the amount of

the discrepancy, we valued all quartz purchases received in May at the

delivered price in effect for the region of origin. This reconciliation

indicated that CBCC's estimate of delivery charges for this month

understated the per ton cost for quartz by approximately four percent.

Because CBCC did not fully report its quartz replacement costs, we have

applied partial BIA for this material. As BIA, we have adjusted upward

the reported quartz prices reported for January through May 1992 by

four percent.

Comment 9: Petitioners contend that CBCC's calculation of inventory

holding gains/losses is flawed. Petitioners note that there is a large

difference between the amount of silicon metal produced by CBCC and the

amount of silicon metal sold by CBCC. Petitioners also object to the

limited data provided by CBCC for electrode paste and charcoal and

argue that CBCC's inclusion of a large year-end depreciation charge in

December 1991 resulted in significantly understated COPs for all but

one month of the review period.

Petitioners assert that, by using sales and production data

provided by CBCC, petitioners have derived a corrected inventory

holding gain/loss calculation for CBCC. Petitioners contend that the

Department should use petitioners' revised calculation of CBCC's

inventory holding gains/losses in the final results.

Department's Position: We have reviewed CBCC's calculation of

inventory holding gains/losses (see CBCC's February 24, 1993 submission

at Exhibit A) and have found certain inconsistencies which render that

calculation unacceptable. For certain months CBCC reported sales and

shipments of silicon metal but showed no removal of silicon metal from

inventory. In other months, the tonnage of silicon metal removed from

inventory was either much less or much greater than the amount of

merchandise that CBCC reported in its sales listings.

Moreover, we find that petitioners' ``corrected'' calculation of

CBCC's inventory gains/losses is also unacceptable since it fails to

account for finished silicon metal consumed in the production of other

products. Accordingly, we have rejected both CBCC's and petitioners'

calculation of inventory gains/losses, and have removed this item from

our COP/CV calculations, which has the effect of increasing COP/CV.

Comment 10: Petitioners argue that the Department should make an

addition to CBCC's COP to account for certain costs (power, secondary

materials and crushing costs) which CBCC omitted from CBCC's revised

COP/CV calculation. Petitioners note that these expenses were included

in CBCC's original COP/CV response.

CBCC contends that power, secondary materials and crushing costs

were included in its revised response under the variable ``VARCOM.''

CBCC argues that it summarized these three costs in order to comply

with the Department's reporting requirements.

Department's Position: Although the power, secondary materials and

crushing costs were not detailed in CBCC's revised COP/CV calculations,

the total reported costs furnished by CBCC (variables ``TOTCOP'' and

``TOTCV'') did include these expenses. CBCC did omit these items from

the variables representing variable overhead, fixed overhead, and total

variable cost of manufacturing, i.e., variables ``VARFOH'', ``FIXFOH'',

and ``TOTCOM''. However, since CBCC included these expenses in its

calculation of total COM, no adjustment to CBCC's reported COP or CV is

required.

Comment 11: Petitioners contend the Department should reject

CBCC's allocation of general and administrative (G&A) and selling

expenses. (CBCC allocated these expenses to individual products using

the ratio of each product's cost of goods sold (COGS).) Petitioners

contend that the Department should follow its established practice and

allocate these expenses to total COGS, as the Department did in the

preliminary results of this review.

CBCC suggests that the allocation of G&A and selling expenses used

in the Department's preliminary calculations results in a systematic

overstatement of these expenses. CBCC argues that the Department should

allocate the ratio of G&A and selling expenses by the historical ratio

of these expenses to historical COM. CBCC notes that the Department

followed this methodology in the redetermination of the original

investigation for this proceeding (see Silicon Metal from Brazil:

Preliminary Determination on Remand, (November 17, 1993, at 5).

Department's Position: G&A expenses are period expenses which are

normally measured over a fiscal year. As such, the Department

calculated G&A on an annual historical basis. In order to avoid

overstating G&A expenses and to neutralize hyperinflationary effects,

we applied the G&A ratio (i.e., the ratio of annual G&A expenses to

cost of goods sold reflected in the financial statements) to each

month's COM calculated on a historical basis. In addition, CBCC had

failed to include Solvay do Brasil's G&A expenses. Therefore, we

applied a portion of Solvay do Brasil's G&A in the final calculation of

these costs (see CBCC Calculation Adjustment Memorandum, February 2,

1994). This is consistent with the method we used to calculate G&A

expenses in the remand determination in the underlying investigation.

Comment 12: Petitioners contend that the Department should include

ICMS and IPI taxes in the calculation of CBCC's raw material costs.

Petitioners contend that these taxes are included on home market sales,

and must, therefore, be included in the COP of home market merchandise.

Department's Position: Petitioners' argument that ICMS and IPI

taxes are included on home market sales is not relevant since CBCC's

home market sales were insufficient to form a basis for FMV and,

therefore, FMV was based upon third country sales. However, we agree

that, since the ICMS and IPI taxes resulted in a net cost to CBCC, the

Department should include this net amount of ICMS and IPI in the

submitted COP and CV amounts. Our reasoning for doing so is discussed

further in our response to comment 6, which involved a similar

situation.

Comment 13: Petitioners argue that the Department failed to include

CBCC's and Minasligas's imputed credit expenses in the preliminary CV

calculations. Petitioners argue that the Department should make an

adjustment for imputed credit in the final calculations.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. In these final

results we have included CBCC's and Minasligas's imputed credit costs

in our calculation of CV. We based this adjustment on the credit

expenses that these companies incurred on home market or third-country

sales.

Comment 14: Petitioners contend that the Department should use the

quartz replacement costs reported by Minasligas in its original COP/CV

response rather than the costs reported in Minasligas's revised

response of November 9, 1993. Minasligas provided average quartz

delivery charges in its revised COP/CV response. Petitioners note that

the Department's verification report indicates that averaging freight

charges significantly understates Minasligas's type A quartz costs.

Minasligas contends that, while the corrected cost data may result

in lower delivered prices for type A quartz, the revised data result in

significantly lower overall replacement costs for that material.

Minasligas indicates that it does not object to use of the quartz

replacement costs reported in its original COP/CV response, and notes

that the Department used these costs in the preliminary calculations.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. As discussed in

the cost verification report (December 17, 1993), the revised costs

calculated by Minasligas and filed with the Department on November 9,

1993 reflect a methodology which understates the delivered cost of type

A quartz, by allocating the delivery charges among all quartz

purchases. Accordingly, we have rejected the revised replacement cost

for quartz and relied upon the cost information Minasligas reported in

its original COP/CV response. As Minasligas notes, this is the

information we used in reaching the preliminary results of review.

Comment 15: Petitioners state that the Department determined at

verification that Minasligas did not include forest amortization costs

in its calculation of charcoal replacement costs. Petitioners argue

that omission of these expenses significantly understates the cost of

the charcoal which Minasligas produced. Petitioners contend that the

Department should use the costs associated with Minasligas's purchase

of charcoal from unrelated suppliers in the final calculation of

charcoal replacement costs.

Minasligas argues that the charcoal replacement costs it reported

in its original COP/CV response were exclusively based on the delivered

price charged to the company by suppliers cutting trees on land that

Minasligas did not own. Minasligas contends that it pays less for

charcoal cut from trees on its own land, and that its corrected

charcoal costs are significantly lower than those reported in its

original COP/CV response. Minasligas indicates that the Department

should use the charcoal replacement costs reported in its original COP/

CV response, if the Department decides not to use the corrected

charcoal replacement costs supplied by Minasligas.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. As discussed in

the cost verification report (December 17, 1993), the revised costs

calculated by Minasligas and filed with the Department on November 9,

1993 reflect a methodology which understates the replacement cost of

charcoal by averaging the payment to subcontractors for charcoal

obtained from company-owned land with the higher costs from unrelated

charcoal vendors. This calculation does not include any cost to

Minasligas for acquiring forests or planting and maintaining forests.

Accordingly, we have rejected the revised replacement cost for charcoal

and relied upon the cost information provided by Minasligas in its

original COP/CV response.

Comment 16: Petitioners contend that the Department found at

verification that Minasligas had not accurately accounted for loss

allowances for quartz and charcoal used in 1991 silicon metal

production. Petitioners contend that the Department should make an

upward adjustment to Minasligas's reported 1991 quartz and charcoal

costs to account for this expense. Petitioners suggest that the

Department use the loss allowances provided by Minasligas for 1992

silicon metal production to make this adjustment.

Minasligas contends that the question of whether quartz and

charcoal losses were understated prior to 1992 is irrelevant because

Minasligas had no U.S. sales during that time. Minasligas notes that it

did provide an acceptable calculation for charcoal and quartz losses

for 1992.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that, prior to

1992, the measured consumption of charcoal and quartz into the furnace

was not consistently and scientifically adjusted to reflect losses

sustained between the time the material was delivered into the factory

stockyard and introduced into a furnace. Beginning in 1992, Minasligas

established a loss allowance and consistently applied it to both quartz

and charcoal. For 1991 quartz and charcoal, Minasligas estimated loss

allowances and recorded them on an occasional basis. We have

recalculated loss allowances for 1991 based upon BIA. As BIA, we have

used the loss allowance established by the company in 1992 and applied

this percentage to both quartz and charcoal consumption for all months

in 1991. We disagree with Minasligas's assertion that the 1991 costs

are irrelevant, since they are used to determine whether home market

sales were sold at or above their COP.

Comment 17: Petitioners contend that the Department should allocate

Minasligas's consumption of iron rods and tubes over all months of the

period of review, instead of accepting Minasligas's approach.

(Minasligas recognized the entire expense associated with these charges

in the month in which they were requisitioned out of inventory.)

Petitioners suggest that for those months for which Minasligas did not

report iron rods and tube costs, the Department should use the per-unit

output costs for rods and tubes from the most recent month with an

adjustment for inflation.

Minasligas contends that allocating the consumption of rods and

tubes over the period of review would only marginally change the cost

of materials for the month that Minasligas had a U.S. sale. Minasligas

contends that more rods were requisitioned during that month than were

consumed.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that it is more

accurate to allocate the number of rods and tubes removed from

inventory to production tons over the period in which they were

consumed, rather than just the month of requisition. Accordingly, we

have reallocated the total rods and tubes consumed during the period of

review equally to tons produced during this same time period. Each

month's allocated consumption quantity was then valued at the reported

replacement cost for that same month. We also agree with Minasligas

that this adjustment does not have a serious impact on the reported

cost information.

Comment 18: Petitioners assert that verification revealed that

Minasligas's supplier measures electricity from the fifth of one month

to the fifth of the following month. Petitioners further argue that

Minasligas used the invoice received from its supplier on approximately

the tenth of the month to represent the electricity costs for that

month. Petitioners contend that such a methodology understates the

replacement costs for electricity since it primarily reflects the costs

incurred during the previous month. Petitioners contend that for each

month of the review period the Department should use the electricity

costs reported by Minasligas for the following month.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. Minasligas

reported the replacement cost of monthly electricity for the month in

which the bill was received. Each month's bill reflects the cost of

electricity purchased in the prior month. Therefore, the reported

replacement cost of electricity is understated since it lags the actual

cost by one month. We have corrected for this understatement by

matching each month's bill with the month that it covered.

Comment 19: Petitioners contend that Minasligas's allocation of G&A

expenses is incorrect. (Minasligas allocated monthly G&A expenses to

individual products based upon the number of furnaces used in the

production of each product.) Petitioners contend that the Department

should allocate G&A expenses to total COGS as was done in the

preliminary results.

Minasligas contends that a larger portion of its operation is

devoted to ferrosilicon than to silicon metal. Minasligas contends that

allocating G&A expenses to total COGS overstates the amount of G&A

expenses relating to silicon metal.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. G&A expenses are

period expenses which relate to the operation of the company as a whole

and are not customarily associated with a particular product or

process. Therefore, we recalculated G&A expenses on a company-wide

annual historical basis and, in order to avoid overstating G&A expenses

and to neutralize hyperinflationary effects, we applied the G&A ratio

to each month's COM calculated on a historical basis.

Comment 20: Petitioners contend that the Department should

calculate Minasligas's interest expense as the consolidated expenses of

Minasligas and Delp Engenharia S.A. (Delp). Petitioners note that Delp

controls over 93 percent of Minasligas's common stock and thus has a

controlling interest in Minasligas. Petitioners suggest that the

Department use Delp's 1991 and 1992 financial statements to perform

this calculation.

Minasligas contends that Delp and Minasligas are separate entities,

maintain separate financial statements, and have their own interest

expense and income. Therefore, Minasligas asserts that it would be

improper to calculate interest expense on a consolidated basis.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that Minasligas

should report interest expense on a consolidated basis. See our

response to comment 2.

In the case of Minasligas, Delp does not consolidate its accounts

with Minasligas. In addition, because there are no significant

intercompany transactions between the two companies, we combined the

financial expenses of the two companies and calculated an interest

expense as a ratio to cost of sales, effectively creating consolidated

accounts. The Department only allows income generated from investments

of working capital, which the company documents as short-term in

nature, to offset interest expense (see, e.g., Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Cellular Mobile Telephones from Japan,

54 FR 45447, 45455 (October 31, 1985), and Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value, Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan, 55 FR

335, 342 (January 4, 1990)). Minasligas was able to substantiate only a

portion of the investments to be short-term; consequently, we have

allowed only the documented portion of interest income as an offset. We

did not allow an offset to Minasligas's parent, Delp, for interest

expense because the information required to substantiate such an

adjustment is not contained in the record of this review.

In order to avoid overstating financing charges, we applied the

interest expense ratio (i.e., the ratio of net interest expense to cost

of goods sold) to each month's COM calculated on a historical basis

rather than to amounts computed under the replacement cost basis. This

is consistent with the methodology used in the remand determination in

the underlying investigation.

Comment 21: Petitioners contend that Minasligas did not submit

information regarding short-term interest income at the consolidated,

parent company level. Accordingly, the petitioners contend that it is

not feasible to ``compute interest expense using the sum of

Minasligas's and Delp's financial expenses adjusted for intercompany

interest transactions'', as suggested by the Department's cost

verification report. Finally, petitioners assert that the Department

should apply this allocation to COM to properly account for Brazilian

hyperinflation.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that the record

does not contain information regarding short-term interest income at

Minasligas's parent company, Delp. Accordingly, we have not allowed any

such offset for Delp's interest income in our calculation of combined

interest expense. Consistent with our practice in the Final

Determination of Sales At Less Than Fair Value; Ferrosilicon from

Brazil, 59 FR 732, 736-737, January 6, 1994, we have applied the

calculated interest expense ratio to the monthly COMs calculated on a

historical basis rather than amounts computed under the replacement

cost basis.

Comment 22: Petitioners contend that Minasligas's calculation of

inventory holding gains/losses is flawed because Minasligas failed to

properly ``layer'' inventory according to the month that the

merchandise was placed in inventory. Petitioners contend that

Minasligas's calculation reflects one level of inventory even though

Minasligas held merchandise in inventory for at least two preceding

months. Petitioners contend that this flaw makes Minasligas's

calculation unusable. Accordingly, petitioners contend that the

Department should disregard Minasligas's calculation, and make no

adjustment for inventory holding gain or loss in the final COP

calculations.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Minasligas's

calculation of inventory holding gains/losses did not account for

merchandise that spent multiple months in inventory. Accordingly, we

have rejected Minasligas's claimed inventory holding gain.

Comment 23: Petitioners contend that the Department should disallow

the portion of Minasligas's duty drawback claim pertaining to IPI and

ICMS taxes. Petitioners contend that these expenses are taxes, not

duties. Petitioners also note that these two taxes were not listed in

the duty drawback regulations provided by Minasligas.

Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. Article 314 of

the Brazilian Customs Regulations provides for the ``suspension of

payments of tributes due when importing merchandise to be exported * *

*.'' (Emphasis added.) The suspension is not limited to customs duties.

It includes all ``tributes'' paid upon importation of the merchandise.

IPI and ICMS taxes incurred on imported electrodes are two such

tributes which are suspended upon exportation of the merchandise. Thus,

Minasligas correctly included these expenses in its claimed adjustment

for duty drawback.

Comment 24: Petitioners contend that the Department should use

adverse, noncooperative BIA for RIMA. Petitioners make reference to the

Department's December 22, 1993 verification report regarding RIMA's

COP/CV response. That report indicated that RIMA: (1) Was unwilling to

supply the Department with necessary worksheets, schedules, or source

documents, (2) that the aspect of RIMA's COP/CV response pertaining to

related party transactions, G&A expenses, finance costs, and profit

were not verified, (3) that RIMA's calculation of charcoal and quartz

costs were not reflective of monthly replacement costs, and (4) that

RIMA did not adjust the value of its electrode purchases to account for

inflation.

Petitioners assert that the verification report indicates that RIMA

based its cost response on a managerial cost accounting system that was

not used for purposes of valuing inventory in the financial statements.

As such, petitioners contend that RIMA's submitted cost information

could not be reconciled with RIMA's financial statements. According to

petitioners, the verification report also indicates that RIMA based its

calculation of labor hours on theoretical times and that actual labor

hours exceeded these theoretical hours by a significant amount.

Finally, petitioners find that the Department determined that RIMA's

COP response did not account for costs associated with write-downs or

obsolescence.

Petitioners contend that RIMA's refusal to provide requested

information significantly impeded the completion of this review. In

accordance with the Department's practice, petitioners argue that the

Department should assign as BIA the higher of the highest prior margin

established for any company or the highest margin determined in this

administrative review.

Department's Position: At verification we encountered serious and

pervasive problems in our efforts to verify the information submitted

by RIMA. We found that these problems were so extensive that we could

not test major areas of the response. For those areas we tested, we

found significant discrepancies in the amounts reported, in addition to

a lack of sufficient data to corroborate the response. We outlined the

major deficiencies that we found during verification in the public

version of the cost verification report (December 22, 1993) and the

RIMA calculation memorandum, both of which are on file in the Central

Records Unit.

Under these circumstances, the Department cannot properly base its

determination on the information submitted by RIMA. The Department

cannot be placed in the position of having to identify and perform

numerous and substantial revisions to develop accurate cost data, if

indeed such revisions were even possible in this case. As stated in

Photo Albums and Filler Pages From Korea; Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value, 50 FR 43754, 43755-43756 (October 29, 1985):

It is the obligation of respondents to provide an accurate and

complete response prior to verification so that the Department may

have the opportunity to analyze fully the information and other

parties are able to review and comment on it. Verification is

intended to establish the accuracy and completeness of a response

rather than to supplement and reconstruct the information to fit the

requirements of the Department.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we have determined that

rejection of the cost response submitted by RIMA is appropriate for

these final results and is consistent with past practice (see, e.g.,

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

the Federal Republic of Germany, et al.., 54 FR 18992 (May 3, 1989),

31704-31709, and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber From Taiwan, 55 FR

34586 (August 23, 1990, 34586-34587)).

In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we use BIA in

cases where a party refuses or is unable to produce information in a

timely manner and in the form required. The Department generally uses a

two-tiered approach in its choice of BIA. For uncooperative

respondents, the Department uses the higher of: (1) The highest rate

for any company from the original investigation or a prior

administrative review, or (2) the highest rate found in the current

review for any company. For respondents that attempt to cooperate, the

Department uses the higher of: (1) The highest rate ever applicable to

the firm for the subject merchandise, or (2) the highest calculated

rate in the current review for any firm (see Antifriction Bearings

(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et

al., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR

39729, 39739, July 26, 1993).

RIMA responded to our questionnaire and to each of our requests for

supplemental information. Therefore, we have determined that RIMA

attempted to cooperate, even though it was unable to substantiate much

of the information contained in its COP/CV response. Since RIMA

attempted to cooperate, we have applied a rate of 91.06 percent, the

highest rate ever applicable to RIMA for the subject merchandise (see

Silicon Metal from Brazil, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 56 FR 26972, June 12, 1991).

Comment 25: Petitioners contend that it is the Department's

established practice to exclude from the dumping calculations sales

that were sold during the review period but shipped outside the period

of review. Because Eletrosilex's only sale was shipped after the close

of this review period, petitioners argue that Eletrosilex had no sales

subject to review for the current 1991-1992 administrative review.

Petitioners contend that the Department should maintain the 91.06

percent all others rate for Eletrosilex since this constitutes the most

recent information available for Eletrosilex. Petitioners note that in

Asahi Chemical Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 585 F. Supp 1261,

1267 (CIT 1982), the CIT held that when there were no shipments during

the period of review, the Department uses the most recent information

to determine margins.

Department's Position: We disagree. Section 353.22(b) of our

regulations stipulates that administrative reviews ``normally will

cover, as appropriate, entries or sales of the merchandise during the

12 months immediately preceding the most recent anniversary month.''

We based this review upon sales because (1) the selling price and

each of the expenses associated with this sale were known by

Eletrosilex and reported to the Department at an early stage of the

review process, and (2) use of this sale in our margin calculations

constitutes the most accurate reflection of Eletrosilex's pricing

practices during the review period. Moreover, we note that we have

based some other administrative reviews upon sales rather than entries

(see Portable Electric Typewriters from Japan, Final Results of

Administrative Review, 56 FR 56393, 53697, November 4, 1991, and Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan, Final Results of Administrative

Review, 58 FR 48826, 48832, September 20, 1993). Finally, we note that

the question addressed in Asahi was whether we could conduct an

administrative review in the absence of exports, entries or sales

during the period of review. In this case, Eletrosilex clearly had

sales during the period of review.

Comment 26: CBCC and RIMA contend that the Department violated the

statute and the regulations by failing to publish the final results of

review by July 31, 1993. CBCC and RIMA note that section 751(a)(1) of

the Tariff Act stipulates that the Department will issue a final

determination ``(A)t least once during each 12-month period'', and that

Sec. 353.22(c)(7) of the regulations indicates that the Department will

publish a final determination ``not later than 365 days after the

anniversary month.''

CBCC and RIMA contend that the Department abused its discretion by

conducting a verification of sales and cost data since these

verifications further delayed the issuance of the final results. CBCC

and RIMA suggest that the final results should be based upon the record

that existed on July 31, 1993, and that the record at that time

indicated no dumping margins for either company.

Department's Position: We disagree. The CIT has determined that the

completion of administrative reviews within the one-year time period is

``directory'' rather than ``mandatory'' (see Koyo Seiko Co., v. United

States, 796 F. Supp. 517,523 (CIT 1992)). While we strive to complete

administrative reviews within a year, the issuance of our final results

is sometimes delayed by other regulatory and statutory requirements

associated with the administration of the antidumping law.

In this case, petitioners demonstrated that ``good cause'' existed

for verification pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.22(c) and 353.36(a).

Specifically, petitioners noted potential deficiencies in the

replacement cost data provided by CBCC and RIMA. Because ``good cause''

existed for verification, our decision to verify the COP responses of

CBCC and RIMA was appropriate.

Comment 27: Minasligas indicates that it agrees with the statement

in the Department's cost verification report (December 17, 1993) that

an allocation of direct and indirect labor, maintenance, and other

overhead items based upon production quantity would result in lower

fabrication charges than those reported in its questionnaire response.

(Minasligas allocated these charges on the number of furnaces in its

COP/CV response.)

Department's Position: Consistent with our finding in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Ferrosilicon from

Brazil, 59 FR 732, 739, January 6, 1994, we have determined that the

number of furnaces is not an adequate basis for allocating labor or

other fabrication costs. The number of furnaces in a facility is an

arbitrary measure which does not necessarily reflect the actual level

of labor and overhead expended in the production of the subject

merchandise. In the instant case, output tons is a more accurate

allocation basis because these costs are directly related to production

amounts. Therefore, we have revised the submitted costs to reflect an

allocation based on actual production units.

Comment 28: Eletrosilex contends that the Department incorrectly

based its conversions of certain cruzeiro-denominated expenses (inland

freight, port charges, ocean freight, warehousing, and packing) on the

U.S. sale date. Eletrosilex argues that the Department's policy in

countries with hyperinflationary economies is to base currency

conversions on the date that the expenses were incurred. Eletrosilex

requests that the Department follow this policy with respect to the

conversion into dollars of the cruzeiro-denominated expenses outlined

above.

Department's Position: We agree. As is our standard practice in

cases where the economy is hyperinflationary, we based our currency

conversions on the date that the cost was incurred, rather than on the

date of the U.S. sale (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, Industrial Nitrocellulose from Yugoslavia (55 FR 34946,

34949, August 27, 1990), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Israel (52 FR 1511, 1513,

January 14, 1987)). We have adjusted our final calculations for

Eletrosilex accordingly.

Comment 29: Eletrosilex contends that the allocation of G&A and

selling expenses that the Department used in its preliminary results is

improper because it does not accurately reflect Eletrosilex's

experience as a silicon metal producer and seller during the period of

review. Eletrosilex notes that the Department relied upon the 1991

financial statement to perform this calculation, and that these

financial statements do not fully reflect Eletrosilex's experience for

the review period. Eletrosilex contends 1991 was an ``aberrational

year'' in which it incurred G&A and selling expenses which were

unrelated to the production of silicon metal.

Eletrosilex indicates that on March 10, 1993, it submitted total

G&A and selling expenses by month for every month included in the

period of review. Eletrosilex urges the Department to derive G&A and

selling expenses by summing all selling expenses and dividing the total

amount of these expenses by the total COM that Eletrosilex reported for

the period March 29, 1991 through June 30, 1992.

Department's Position: As noted in our response to Comment 11, our

current practice in cases in which the economy is hyperinflationary is

to apply the G&A and selling expenses ratio to each month's COM

calculated on a historical basis. We did not ask Eletrosilex to supply

historical COM information in this review. Accordingly, as a reasonable

alternative to our current practice, we have summed all selling

expenses reported by Eletrosilex for the period of review, and divided

this total amount by the total COM that Eletrosilex reported for the

review period.

Comment 30: RIMA contends that the Department's December 22, 1993

COP/CV verification report incorrectly characterized its personnel as

``unwilling'' to supply worksheets, schedules, and source documents.

RIMA states that it cooperated with the verification team and that the

difficulties encountered during the verification were due to: (1) The

fact that the verification outline was not made available to RIMA until

a week before commencement of the verification, (2) the company had

never previously undergone a verification, (3) there had been a good

deal of turnover in the company and the personnel responsible for the

verification did not participate in the preparation of the response,

and (4) the verification began on Saturday, continued through Sunday,

and a Brazilian national holiday.

Department's Position: We disagree with RIMA. RIMA's suggestion

that the company's problems relate to having only one week of

preparation time after receipt of the verification agenda is completely

erroneous. The verification outline was in fact released to counsel for

RIMA on October 28, 1993, and verification of RIMA's cost response

began on November 13, 1993. Thus the agenda was available more than two

weeks prior to the start of verification. Further, the verification

agenda merely indicates the Department's approach to performing the

verification. Any suggestion that the company did not realize the

Department intended to review the underlying source documents is

unsupported. The fact that the Department is particularly concerned

with each company's methodology for linking the cost response to its

cost and financial accounting system is indicated in the Department's

questionnaire (September 1, 1992), which requires the company to

provide detailed explanations of this connection. The questionnaire

also instructed company personnel to contact the Department if for any

reason they did not intend to rely on the company's cost accounting

records to prepare the response (September 1, 1992 at page 53).

RIMA's further assertions that the company's problems related to

conducting verification on a weekend and a lack of verification

experience are not persuasive. Company personnel and their counsel knew

well in advance of the need to schedule verification time on the

weekends; in fact, counsel for each of the respondents, including

counsel for RIMA, provided input in setting the verification schedule

for this case. It should also be noted that the Department's personnel

conducting the verification noted no improvement in the company's

ability to provide verification support as the verification progressed

into the regular work week. Indeed we know of no reasons why it would

improve on a particular day of the week since the information the

Department requested should be available within the company, and all of

the company personnel who participated in the verification were

available on the weekend.

It is not unusual for a respondent to be unfamiliar with the

verification process and the Department does not expect such

experience. However, if company personnel are unable to explain the

methodology followed in preparing the response and provide the source

documents which were relied upon, we are not able to conclude that this

is simply a result of being unfamiliar with the verification process.

Comment 31: RIMA argues that it used a reasonable methodology to

report quartz and charcoal costs. RIMA contends that it used its

financial accounting system to price these inputs because (1) its cost

system does not use replacement values, and (2) the cost system was

subject to distortions that were known to RIMA's management. Moreover,

RIMA argues that the variations between these two cost systems were

minor, and that RIMA provided the most accurate information in its COP/

CV response that it could.

RIMA argues that the COP/CV verification report indicates that

RIMA's production standard specifies the use of specific types of

charcoal and quartz. However, RIMA, in practice, sometimes used other

types of these materials, depending on availability. RIMA contends that

use of these other materials resulted in a lower calculated cost than

RIMA reported in its COP/CV response.

Department's Position: We disagree with RIMA's assertions that its

reported material cost were overstated. As discussed in the cost

verification report, the monthly replacement costs noted for certain of

the materials actually used in production were higher than the unit

costs for the specific materials which RIMA had indicated were used in

production. Thus these unit prices were understated.

Comment 32: RIMA asserts that it provided ``critical source

documentation'' concerning the quantity of inputs used in the

production of silicon metal, contrary to the assertion of the

Department's verification report. RIMA contends that during the

verification it made the ``underlying statistical measurements''

available for inspection by the verification team. RIMA argues that it

should not be expected to produce daily or hourly source documents

because of the great volume of papers involved.

Department's Position: We disagree with RIMA's contention that it

provided source documents. We also disagree with RIMA's assertion that

we expected the company to provide daily or hourly source documents.

RIMA was expected to provide an accurate response to the Department's

specific requests for information. As discussed in the Department's

verification report (December 22, 1993), prior to verification RIMA

completely failed to indicate the true nature of its cost and financial

accounting systems, and even stated that the systems reflect the same

costs. RIMA also indicated that its cost accounting system was relied

upon in preparing the submitted cost information. We found each of

these assertions to be inaccurate.

Although RIMA was able to provide pages of graphs which purportedly

reflected the actual material consumption, RIMA was unable to reconcile

this information to either the cost or financial accounting system.

Thus, the reported material consumption quantities were presented to

the Department quite literally in a complete vacuum, merely a handful

of graphs, unreconcilable to any other recorded measure of material

consumption. This was the extent of the underlying statistical

measurements which were made available to the Department for

inspection.

As discussed in our response to comment 24, the discrepancies noted

in the material quantity input together with other significant

inconsistencies have caused us to reject RIMA's cost submission.

Comment 33: RIMA argues that it is unfair for the Department to

penalize the company for having a cost accounting system that does not

tie to its financial accounting system. RIMA contends that its former

cost accounting system was not designed to tie into its financial

accounting system, and argues that rejection of its response is

equivalent to a penalty for providing accurate data.

Department's Position: The Department is not penalizing RIMA for

having any particular type of accounting system. RIMA's cost

information was rejected for the specific reasons which are outlined in

the public version of the cost verification report and the calculation

memorandum. We found that these problems were so extensive that major

areas of the response could not be tested. For those areas which were

tested we found significant discrepancies in the amounts reported, in

addition to a lack of sufficient data to corroborate the response.

Finally, we are unable to understand RIMA's argument that rejection

of its response is equivalent to a penalty for providing accurate data.

The record does not begin to establish that the information provided by

RIMA is accurate in any way.

Comment 34: RIMA argues that the Department's COP/CV verification

report erroneously characterized the reported labor hours as

``theoretical'' rather than ``actual''. RIMA states that it used its

statistical process control reports to calculate labor expense, and

asserts that this constitutes a more accurate way of reporting this

expense than would have been reflected in RIMA's ``managerial'' costing

system.

Department's Position: We disagree that the cost verification

report provides an erroneous characterization. The Department's cost

verification report outlines the findings at verification. As the

report indicates, the analysis upon which the reported labor cost was

based is no longer performed by RIMA and was never used for any purpose

other than the company's submission. Based upon the company's inability

to relate this analysis to any other recorded measure of costs, we

cannot conclude that the information provided reflected a ``more

accurate'' measure of the costs.

Comment 35: RIMA argues that it properly did not report several of

the home market transactions characterized as ``unreported sales'' in

the Department's December 20, 1993 sales verification report. RIMA

contends that commercial samples and intracompany transfers are not

``sales'' and should not have been reported.

Department's Position: We agree with RIMA that several of the home

market transactions which are characterized as unreported sales in our

December 23, 1993 verification report were in fact commercial samples

or intracompany transfers. We note, however, that our determination to

use BIA for RIMA was based upon RIMA's inability to provide reliable

cost data. The commercial samples and intracompany transfers referenced

in the December 23, 1993 sales verification report were not factors in

our decision to use BIA for RIMA.

Comment 36: RIMA argues that the home market sales that it did not

report made no difference in the determination of market viability or

foreign market value.

Department's Position: As noted in our response to comment 24 we

used BIA for RIMA because RIMA was unable to provide reliable cost

data. Thus, the question of whether these unreported sales would have

made a difference in the determination of foreign market value is moot.

Addendum

We have made an additional change in our analysis for these final

results: We have amended our COP calculations to adjust for the amount

of the Brazilian inflation that was factored into the home market

selling price. To make this adjustment, we compared Minasligas's and

Eletrosilex's selling prices to their respective COPs in effect as of

the date of payment rather than the date of sale.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine

that the following margins exist for the period March 9, 1991 through

June 30, 1992:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)

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

CBCC......................................................... 0

Minasligas................................................... 0

Eletrosilex.................................................. 0

RIMA......................................................... 91.06

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

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences

between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of these final results of administrative review for

all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as

provided by Section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, and will remain in

effect until the final results of the next administrative review: (1)

The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be those listed

above, (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the

cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published

for the most recent period, (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered

in this review, or the original 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 (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be the ``all

others'' rate established in the final notice of the LTFV investigation

of this case, in accordance with the CIT's decisions in Floral Trade

Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79 (CIT May 25, 1993), and

Federal Mogul Corporation and Torrington Company v. United States,

Slip. Op. 93-83 (CIT May 25, 1993). The all others rate is 91.06

percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in

effect until publication of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of

return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

Section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22 (1993).

Dated: August 13, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-20455 Filed 8-18-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P