Silicon Metal from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Intent Not To Revoke in Part

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-351-806]

Silicon Metal from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review; Intent Not To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty

administrative review; intent not to revoke in part.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal

from Brazil in response to requests by respondents Eletrosilex Belo

Horizonte (Eletrosilex), Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--Minasligas

(Minasligas), Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC), and RIMA

Industrial S/A (RIMA). We also received a request for a review of the

same four companies and Camargo Correa Metais (CCM) from a group of

four domestic producers of silicon metal (the petitioners). The four

domestic producers are American Silicon Technologies, Elkem Metals

Company, Globe Metallurgical, Inc., and SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc. This

review covers sales of this merchandise during the period July 1, 1994,

through June 30, 1995.

We do not intend to revoke the order with respect to RIMA, CBCC, or

Minasligas. RIMA and CBCC submitted requests for revocation, but in the

final results of our most recently completed administrative review of

this order they both had margins that were greater than de minimis. As

a result, they have not had three consecutive years with zero or de

minimis dumping margins, and therefore do not qualify for revocation.

Minasligas also submitted a request for revocation. We do not intend to

revoke the order with respect to this company at the completion of this

administrative review because at this time we intend to revoke the

order with respect to this company at the completion of the third

administrative review, covering the period immediately preceding the

period covered by this administrative review.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit argument are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fred Baker or John Kugelman, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

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

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC

20230; telephone (202) 482-2924.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in

the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping

duty order on silicon metal from Brazil on July 31, 1991 (56 FR 36135).

On July 3, 1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR 34511) a

notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil covering the period

July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), Eletrosilex, Minasligas,

CBCC, and RIMA requested that we conduct an administrative review of

their sales. Petitioners requested that we conduct an administrative

review of the sales of Eletrosilex, Minasligas, CBCC, RIMA, and CCM. We

published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on August 16, 1995 (60 FR 42500). On April 25,

1996, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice

extending the deadline in this review (61 FR 18375). The Department is

conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of

the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this 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 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 (HTS) 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 HTS) is not subject to the

order. HTS item

[[Page 46780]]

numbers are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs purposes. The

written description remains dispositive as to the scope of product

coverage.

The review period is July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995. This

review involves four manufacturers/exporters of Brazilian silicon

metal.

Use of Facts Available

As explained in the preliminary results of the third administrative

review (covering the period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994), none

of the RIMA's sales made during the third period of review (POR)

entered U.S. customs territory during the third POR. Therefore, we

treated RIMA as a non-shipper for the third administrative review. In

these preliminary results of the fourth POR (covering the period July

1, 1994 through June 30, 1995), we included all of RIMA's sales made

during the third POR that entered U.S. customs territory during the

fourth POR. We also included in these preliminary results of review all

of RIMA's U.S. sales during the fourth POR for which RIMA's U.S.

customers made at least one import of silicon metal manufactured by

RIMA. This policy is consistent with that outlined in the Department's

response to comment 1 of the final results of the second administrative

review.

For these reasons, because some of RIMA's sales included in this

review were made during the prior POR, we conducted two separate

verifications of RIMA. The first of these verifications covered RIMA's

sales made during the third POR; the second covered RIMA's sales made

during the fourth POR. We found that at RIMA's third review

verification, RIMA was unable to substantiate significant portions of

its responses.

Section 776(a) of the Act requires that the Department use the

facts otherwise available when necessary information is not on the

record or an interested party withholds requested information, fails to

provide such information in a timely manner, significantly impedes a

proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified. In

addition, section 776(b) permits the Department to use ``adverse

inferences'' in determining facts available where a party does not

cooperate to the best of its ability. In this case, as explained above,

we determined at RIMA's verification covering sales from the third POR

that RIMA could not substantiate significant portions of its response.

(See Use of Facts Available Memorandum to Joseph Spetrini, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Enforcement Group III.) For this reason, we have

resorted to the facts otherwise available pursuant to section 776(2).

However, the sales during the third POR were comparatively few in

number. Therefore, we are not using total facts available. We do find,

however, that RIMA did not cooperate to the best of its ability with

respect to the third review sales. Therefore, we have determined to

apply ``adverse inferences'' pursuant to section 776(b) for RIMA's

third review sales.

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as facts

otherwise available information derived from the petitioner, the final

determination, a previous administrative review, or other information

placed on the record. The rate we have assigned to RIMA for its third

review sales is 91.06 percent, which is the highest rate ever assigned

to RIMA in any previous review. The rate we have calculated for RIMA

for this review reflects the weighted-average rate for those sales for

which we did not apply facts available (its fourth review sales and

those sales for which we did apply facts available (its third review

sales).

Because the facts available information which we used in this

review constitutes secondary information, we are required under section

776(c) of the Act to corroborate, to the extent practicable, the facts

available from independent sources reasonably at our disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate''

means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative value.

To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the

extend practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the

information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,

such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent

sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is

administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if

the Department relies upon a calculated dumping margin from a prior

segment of the proceeding as facts available, it is not necessary to

question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the

Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to

whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not

relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as facts available, the Department will disregard the

margin and determine an appropriate margin (see e.g., Fresh-Cut Flowers

from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

(61 FR 6812, February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the

highest margin in that case as adverse facts available because the

margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense

resulting in an unusually high margin). In this case, for those sales

for which we have used facts available we have used the highest rate

ever calculated for RIMA in a previous review because there is not

evidence on the record indicating that it is not appropriate as facts

available.

United States Price

In calculating United States Price (USP) we used export price (EP),

as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject

merchandise was first sold to unrelated purchasers prior to the date of

importation into the United States.

We based EP on the packed, F.O.B., C.I.F., or C&F price to the

first unrelated purchaser in the United States, or to unrelated trading

companies who export to the United States. We made deductions from USP,

where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, international freight,

marine insurance, weighing and sampling charges, and brokerage and

handling. We made an addition to USP, where appropriate, for duty

drawback. These adjustments were made in accordance with section

772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act. We also adjusted USP for taxes in

accordance with our practice as outlined in the ``Consumption Tax''

section of the final results of the second administrative review of

this proceeding, published concurrently with this notice.

No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Cost of Production Analysis

In prior segments of this proceeding, we disregarded home market

sales found to be below the cost of production (COP). Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales below the COP may

have occurred during the review period. Thus, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, in this review we initiated a COP investigation of

all five respondents.

We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of

materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like

product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and packing costs in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We

[[Page 46781]]

relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by each

respondent in its questionnaire responses.

On July 17 and 18, 1996, the petitioners filed comments about the

appropriateness of using historical costs, rather than replacement

costs, for two of the respondents. Although we received these comments

too late in the review to consider them for these preliminary results,

we intend to request information from the two respondents that will

better enable us to evaluate the petitioners' argument. We will then

consider using replacement costs for the final results of this review.

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended

period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2)

whether such sales were made at prices which permitted recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.

We compared model-specific COP to the reported home market price less

any applicable movement charges.

Pursuant to section 773(b) (2) (C) of the Act, where less than 20

percent of the respondents' home market sales of a given model were at

prices less than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that

model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made

within an extended period of time ``in substantial quantities.'' Where

20 percent or more of a respondent's home market sales of a given model

were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales

because we determined that the below-cost sales were made within an

extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance

with section 773(b) (2) (B) of the Act), and because we determined that

the below-cost home market sales of a given product were at prices

which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period

of time (in accordance with section 773(b) (2) (D) of the Act).

We found that, for certain models of silicon metal, more than 20

percent of the home market sales were at below-cost prices within the

period of review and that such sales were in substantial quantities,

and that sales of these models were at prices which would not premit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. As a result,

we excluded these below-cost sales and used the remaining above-cost

sales as the basis of determining normal value if such sales existed,

in accordance with section 773(b) (1) of the Act.

Normal Value (NV)

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,

we compared such of the respondents' volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) (1) (C) of the Act.

Because each respondent'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 for all

respondents.

We compared the EPs of individual transactions, pursuant to section

777A(d) (2) of the Act, to the monthly weighted-average price of sales

of the foreign like product. In such cases we based NV on packed, ex-

factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. Where applicable, we made adjustments to home market price for

inland freight, early payment discounts, and interest revenue. To

adjust for differences in circumstances of sale between the home market

and the United States, we reduced home market price by an amount for

home market credit and packing expenses, and increased it by U.S.

packing costs and U.S. credit expenses. We increased NV, where

appropriate, for bank charges and warehousing expenses incurred on U.S.

sales. We decreased NV, where appropriate, by the amount of commissions

paid in the home market, but limited this amount to the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19

CFR Sec. 353.56(b) (1).

Non-Shippers

CCM stated that it did not have shipments during the POR, and we

confirmed this information with the U.S. Customs Service. Therefore, we

are treating CCM as a non-shipper for this review, and are rescinding

this review with respect to this company. See Sulfanilic Acid from the

People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission

of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 29073, 29077 (June 7,

1996). The cash deposit rate for CCM will continue to be the rate

established for CCM in the LTFV determination, which is the last

segment of this proceeding in which the Department analyzed CCM's

sales.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of EP and NV, we preliminarily

determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for

the period July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

CBCC....................................................... 7.54

Minasligas................................................. 2.12

Eletrosilex................................................ 9.95

RIMA....................................................... 3.67

CCM........................................................ \1\ 93.2

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

\1\ No shipments during the POR; margin taken from the last completed

segment in which there were shipments.

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of

the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may

request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this

notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of

publication. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of

the argument. The Department will publish a notice of final results of

this administrative review, which will include the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such comments or at a hearing.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion

of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this 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 for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the

final results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered

in this review, or the original LTFV 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 producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash

deposit rate shall be 91.06 percent, the all others rate

[[Page 46782]]

established in the LTFV investigation (56 FR 36135, July 31, 1991).

These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

Dated: August 27, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-22681 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M