Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Ferrosilicon From Brazil

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-820]

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Ferrosilicon From Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On April 8, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Ferrosilicon from Brazil. This review covers

exports of this merchandise to the United States by two manufacturers/

exporters, Companhia Brasileria Carbureto de Calcio (``CBCC'') and

Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas (``Minasligas''), during

the period March 1, 1995, through February 29, 1996.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and

the correction of certain clerical and computer programming errors, we

have changed our results from those presented in our preliminary

results, as described below in the comment section of this notice. The

final results are listed below in the section ``Final Results of

Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Werker or Sal Tauhidi, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Office Four, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

3874 and (202) 482-4851, respectively.

The 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

[[Page 43505]]

regulations codified at 19 C.F.R. part 353 (April 1, 1996).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 8, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (67 FR 16763) the preliminary results

of review of the antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon from Brazil

(March 14, 1994, 59 FR 11769). On May 8, 1997 and May 15, 1997, we

received case and rebuttal briefs from the respondents, CBCC and

Minasligas, and from petitioners, SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc. and Aimcor

Inc. At the request of both petitioners and respondents, we held a

hearing on May 22, 1997. In response to questions raised by the

Department at the hearing, the petitioners submitted additional

information on June 11, 1997, regarding the Department's product

concordance program with respect to the distinction between lumps and

fines. (For more information on lumps and fines, see Comment 1 below.)

The Department has now completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this review is ferrosilicon, a ferro

alloy generally containing, by weight, not less than four percent iron,

more than eight percent but not more than 96 percent silicon, not more

than 10 percent chromium, not more than 30 percent manganese, not more

than three percent phosphorous, less than 2.75 percent magnesium, and

not more than 10 percent calcium or any other element. Ferrosilicon is

a ferro alloy produced by combining silicon and iron through smelting

in a submerged-arc furnace. Ferrosilicon is used primarily as an

alloying agent in the production of steel and cast iron. It is also

used in the steel industry as a deoxidizer and a reducing agent, and by

cast iron producers as an inoculant.

Ferrosilicon is differentiated by size and by grade. The sizes

express the maximum and minimum dimensions of the lumps of ferrosilicon

found in a given shipment. Ferrosilicon grades are defined by the

percentages by weight of contained silicon and other minor elements.

Ferrosilicon is most commonly sold to the iron and steel industries in

standard grades of 75 percent and 50 percent ferrosilicon. Calcium

silicon, ferrocalcium silicon, and magnesium ferrosilicon are

specifically excluded from the scope of this review. Calcium silicon is

an alloy containing, by weight, not more than five percent iron, 60 to

65 percent silicon, and 28 to 32 percent calcium. Ferrocalcium silicon

is a ferro alloy containing, by weight, not less than four percent

iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon, and more than 10 percent calcium.

Magnesium ferrosilicon is a ferro alloy containing, by weight, not less

than four percent iron, not more than 55 percent silicon, and not less

than 2.75 percent magnesium.

Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable under the following

subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS): 7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000, 7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000,

7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. Our written description of the scope

of this review is dispositive. Ferrosilicon in the form of slag is

included within the scope of this order if it meets, in general, the

chemical content definition stated above and is capable of being used

as ferrosilicon. Parties that believe their importations of

ferrosilicon slag do not meet these definitions should contact the

Department and request a scope determination.

Product Comparison

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all

products produced by CBCC and Minasligas, covered by the description in

the ``Scope of the Review'' section, above, and sold in the home market

during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no

sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like

product based on the following criteria: (1) The grade of ferrosilicon

(i.e., standard, high purity and low aluminum); (2) the percentage

range, by weight, of silicon content; and (3) the sieve size.

Although we have used the sieve size category as a matching

criterion in past reviews, we reconsidered the matching criteria for

CBCC and Minasligas in light of additional data on the record in this

review. Although cost differences among sieve size categories do not

exist, we considered whether the merchandise was a ``lump'' or a

``fine'' in making our product comparisons because sales of

ferrosilicon fines command significantly lower market prices than sales

of ferrosilicon lumps. In addition, it appears that the two products

have different end-uses. Lumps are defined as having a minimum

dimension of equal to or greater than one millimeter and fines as

having a minimum dimension of less than one millimeter. We did not

consider any difference in sieve size ranges within the lump or fine

categories in determining the most appropriate product comparison

because significant price differences within the lump or fine sieve

size category did not exist.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) if the Act, on February 17 through

28, 1997, we verified information provided by CBCC and Minasligas by

using standard verification procedures, including onsite inspection of

one of the respondent's production facilities (CBCC), the examination

of relevant sales and financial records, and original documentation

containing relevant information. The results of those verifications are

outlined in the public versions of the verification reports dated March

19, 1997, on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce building.

Comment 1: Fines and Lumps. The petitioners contend that the

dimensions used by the Department to define lumps and fines in the

preliminary results were confusing and left gaps because the Department

defined lumps and fines based on a minimum and maximum dimension,

respectively. As a result, the petitioners claim that merchandise with

one dimension smaller or larger than the established maximum and

minimum ranges cannot be classified as either lumps or fines. The

petitioners argue that in the final results, the Department should use

a distinction that defines lumps and fines based only on a maximum or a

minimum dimension. Consistent with their argument, petitioners noted at

the May 22, 1997, hearing, that the Department's use of the minimum

dimension to define both lumps and fines in the product concordance

program, was in fact, correct.

CBCC states that although the criteria chosen by the Department for

defining fines are not perfect, it agrees that the Department's

criteria generally makes sense from a market point of view. Citing the

Department's April 1, 1997 Concurrence Memorandum, CBCC contends that

because the selling price of ferrosilicon of less than 1mm in diameter

is lower than ferrosilicon of 1mm higher in diameter, the criteria used

by the Department in this review appear to be reasonable.

DOC Position: We agree with the petitioners. While the product

concordance program developed by the Department in the preliminary

results defined lumps and fines in terms of minimum dimensions, we

stated in the Federal Register notice that we used a

[[Page 43506]]

maximum dimension to define fines and a minimum dimension to define

lumps (see Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 62 FR 16763 (April 8,

1997)). We agree that this inconsistency in the parameters defining

lumps and fines was confusing, and that we should use the same

parameters in the narrative definition and the product concordance

program. Since none of the parties dispute that our product concordance

program accurately matched lumps and fines to the appropriate

comparison products, we have revised the language in the ``Product

Comparisons'' section of this notice rather than alter the concordance

program. See the ``Product Comparisons'' section, above.

Comment 2: The Sales Below Cost Test. Minasligas and CBCC contend

that the Department overstated the quantity of home market sales below

cost by comparing a domestic price that was exclusive of value added

taxes (VAT) to a cost of production (COP) which was inclusive of VAT.

Minasligas and CBCC argue that such a comparison results in an

inequitable comparison and creates below cost sales where none would

have otherwise existed. Minasligas and CBCC further maintain that in

order to produce a fair comparison, it is the Department's practice to

compare COP and the domestic price on the same basis. To support their

claim, Minasligas and CBCC cite the Department's practice of comparing

the net COP and the net home-market prices on the same basis in

Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Final Results of Administrative Review, 61 FR

59407, 59410 (November 22, 1996) (Ferrosilicon from Brazil 96).

Minasligas and CBCC further contend that the Department's Import Policy

Bulletin at 94.6 states that ``both the net COP and the net home market

prices should be on the same basis.''

Petitioners agree that if the Department excludes VAT from the home

market net prices that are compared to COP, it is proper to exclude VAT

paid on material inputs from COP in order to make an ``apples-to-

apples'' comparison. However, petitioners contend that the Department

should include in COP the amounts for PIS (Program Intergracao Social)

and COFINS (Social Contributions on Gross Sales) taxes that CBCC

excluded from the direct materials costs that the Department used for

the preliminary results calculations. Citing Silicon Metal from Brazil:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 62 FR 1976 (January 14, 1997)

(Silicon Metal from Brazil 97), the petitioners contend that the

Department determined that PIS and COFINS taxes are gross revenue taxes

and, therefore, are not taxes that a buyer pays directly when

purchasing materials. In order for the COP to reflect the full purchase

price of the materials, petitioners claim that the Department's policy

is to add to CBCC's reported material costs the hypothetical values

that CBCC reported as PIS and COFINS taxes on its material inputs.

For these reasons, the petitioners contend that for the final

results, the Department should exclude VAT from the cost of manufacture

(COM) used to calculate COP, but should include PIS and COFINS taxes.

In addition, petitioners maintain that PIS and COFINS taxes should be

included in the calculation of constructed value (CV) for the same

reasons explained above.

DOC Position: We agree with petitioners and respondents that we

incorrectly compared COPs inclusive of VAT to VAT-exclusive home market

prices for purposes of the preliminary results. Therefore, for purposes

of the final results, we excluded VAT (ICMS and IPI) taxes from the

calculation of COP for purposes of performing the sales below cost

test, as we excluded these taxes from the home market prices.

In addition, for reasons fully explained in Comments 8 and 26 of

Silicon Metal from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review 61

FR 4673, 46764 (September 5,1996) (Silicon Metal from Brazil 96) and

also in Comment 4 below, we agree with the petitioners that the

Department should not reduce materials costs in COP and CV by amounts

for PIS and COFINS taxes claimed by CBCC and Minasligas. As stated in

Silicon Metal from Brazil 96, ``PIS and COFINS taxes are gross revenue

taxes, and therefore are not taxes that a buyer pays directly when

purchasing materials. For this reason, in order for COP to reflect the

complete cost of materials, the costs the Department uses in its

calculation of COP must not be net of any hypothetical tax amounts that

are presumably imbedded within the purchase price of the materials.''

Furthermore, we note that PIS and COFINS are internal taxes. In this

review, these taxes are paid by the supplier on the revenue generated

from the sale of material inputs. As such, in order for the COP to

reflect the full purchase price of the materials, we must add to its

reported material costs the hypothetical values that CBCC reported as

PIS and COFINS taxes on its material inputs. Thus, in accordance with

our determination in Silicon Metal from Brazil 96, we determine that

these taxes are not imposed directly upon the merchandise or components

thereof, and as a result have no statutory basis to deduct them from

the cost of manufacture used to calculate COP and CV. (See also Silicon

Metal from Argentina, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, 56 FR 37891, 37893 (August 9, 1991) (Silicon Metal from

Argentina 91)).

However, we disagree with petitioners that CBCC excluded PIS and

COFINS taxes from its direct materials cost. Although CBCC provided

these taxes separately in its questionnaire response, we found at

verification that the direct material costs reported by CBCC included

both PIS and COFINS taxes. Similarly, Minasligas also reported, and we

verified, that its direct material costs were inclusive of PIS and

COFINS. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results, the COP for

both respondents was calculated inclusive of PIS and COFINS. We have

made no changes in the final results for PIS and COFINS taxes.

Comment 3: Advance Exchange Contracts (ACCs) on U.S. Sales.

Minasligas claims that by using ACCs to finance its export sales, the

company obtains payment prior to shipment. Minasligas argues that in

the final results the Department should recognize the economic benefit

arising from prepayment and allow Minasligas to offset its imputed

credit expenses with negative imputed credit expenses or credit revenue

resulting from prepayment. Specifically, Minasligas contends the

following:

(1) The ACCs are directly related to U.S. sales. Minasligas

maintains that the Department was able to identify exactly which ACCs

were associated with each U.S. sale and the product is fixed at the

time the ACC is signed and cannot be changed. Therefore, Minasligas

asserts that the ACCs are secured in advance for export sales of

ferrosilicon;

(2) The Department found that bank charges incurred between the

date Minasligas receives an ACC and the date the merchandise is shipped

from the plant were directly related to the U.S. sales and subsequently

used these expenses to calculate imputed credit costs in the

preliminary results. Minasligas argues that this demonstrates a direct

relationship between the ``credit revenue'' reported by Minasligas and

the U.S. sales;

(3) The Department's rejection of Minasligas' negative imputed

credit expense contradicts the Department's regulations which state

that the Department will make a circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustment

for selling expenses ``which bear a direct

[[Page 43507]]

relationship to the sales compared.'' Minasligas contends that the

negative credit expenses are a direct result of a specific U.S. sale of

ferrosilicon because without a U.S. sale there would be no credit

revenue; and

(4) The Department's treatment of ACCs is contrary to its

treatment of identical credit expenses in prior and parallel

proceedings involving Minasligas.

Minasligas and CBCC argue that in the event the Department

determines not to use the negative credit expenses or credit revenue

reported by the companies for its imputed U.S. credit calculation, the

credit calculation used by the Department in the preliminary results

contains several errors:

First, Minasligas and CBCC argue that the bank charges overstate

the credit period. Specifically, Minasligas and CBCC claim that the

bank charges represent the interest expense incurred between the date a

company receives an advance under an ACC and the date of payment by the

U.S. customer. Because the date of receipt of the advance can predate

the date of shipment from the plant, Minasligas and CBCC contend that

the bank charges overstate the imputed credit expense (an expense which

is intended to capture the cost of extending credit between the date

the merchandise is shipped to the customer and the date the respondent

receives payment from the customer). Minasligas and CBCC contend that

the Department should calculate imputed credit expenses using the

actual period between the date of shipment and the date of payment.

Furthermore, Minasligas asserts that in its preliminary results the

Department inadvertently double-counted the bank charges in the

calculation of normal value (NV). The bank charges were added both as

part of the reported direct selling expenses and as the imputed credit

expense. Finally, Minasligas argues that the Department erred by

calculating credit expenses based on a U.S. price which was inclusive

of VAT. Minasligas contends that it is the Department's practice to

calculate credit expenses on a price exclusive of VAT.

Petitioners agree with the Department's decision in the preliminary

results to disregard Minasligas' reported imputed credit revenue based

on the finding that ACCs are not directly tied to specific export

sales. The petitioners argue that the Department's preliminary finding

was correct because: (1) The export value of the sale was not fixed on

the date the ACC was signed; (2) the ACCs were obtained prior to the

U.S. date of sale for all of CBCC's U.S. sales and certain sales made

by Minasligas, and thus not directly tied to a specific U.S. sale for

future unspecified shipments; (3) the amount borrowed under certain

ACCs did not correspond exactly with the value of the U.S. sale which

was later shipped; (4) in certain cases, more than one ACC was used to

finance a single U.S. transaction; and (5) certain ACCs were used to

finance more than one U.S. export.

Moreover, the petitioners agree with Minasligas and CBCC that the

Department's practice to use the interest and bank charges Minasligas

paid for the ACCs to determine U.S. imputed credit expenses for each

U.S. sale is inconsistent with the Department's determination that ACCs

are not directly related to U.S. sales. For this reason, petitioners

argue that the Department should calculate U.S. imputed credit expenses

for Minasligas and CBCC in accordance with its established practice

(i.e., based on the period from the date of shipment from Minasligas's

plant to the date of payment by the U.S. customer).

DOC Position: We agree with petitioners that ACCs are not directly

tied to specific export sales at the time the ACC is opened, and

therefore, we determine that the advance resulting from the ACC does

not represent prepayment for an export sale. In fact, all parties agree

that, as of the date an ACC is opened with a bank, no tie exists

between an ACC and specific export sales. The link between ACC and sale

does not occur until the respondents present the issuing bank with the

export documentation for a given sale. Until that time, each respondent

is able to use the money from the ACC to finance any export sale of

ferrosilicon to any export market.

This fact pattern is similar to that of the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Industrial Nitrocellulose from Brazil,

55 FR 23,120 (June 6, 1990) (``Nitrocellulose''). (Upheld by the CIT,

March 2, 1995.) In Nitrocellulose, the Department disallowed a negative

credit expense adjustment because the respondent ``borrowed money which

was to be repaid with the proceeds from future unspecified export

sales'' and the Department found ``that the U.S. sales were not paid

for in advance.'' Therefore, for purposes of the final results, the

Department finds that the ACC bank loans are not directly related to

the U.S. sales. We have therefore continued to disallow the claimed

negative credit expenses and/or interest revenue.

Regarding the calculation of imputed credit expenses, we agree with

all parties that by using the reported bank charges, we calculated

credit using a period longer than that period normally captured by our

imputed credit calculation (i.e., the period between the date of

shipment from the plant and the date of payment from the customer).

Therefore, for purposes of the final results, we have calculated

imputed credit based on a credit period between the date of shipment

from the plant and the date of payment from the customer. In addition,

we have used the average ACC interest rates derived from the ACCs

examined at verification for each of the respondents. These interest

rates represent the actual interest rates received by each respondent

for U.S. dollar-denominated short-term loans. (See the Sales

Calculation Memorandums from Cameron Werker to the File for both CBCC

and Minasligas, each dated August 6, 1997, for further discussion of

the calculations of credit periods and interest rates.)

We also agree with CBCC and Minasligas that we double-counted bank

charges in the preliminary results. It is inappropriate to use bank

charges as a surrogate for credit expenses for specific U.S. sales

having determined that there is no direct link between an ACC and a

sale at the time the sale is made. In addition, the money received from

opening an ACC is used by each of the respondents as working capital to

finance future, unspecified export sales. As a result, each respondent

is then responsible for paying the bank interest on the loan. It is

reasonable to assume that these interest payments are captured by each

respondent in their respective ``Interest'' accounts. Therefore, the

Department has already captured these expenses as part of our interest

calculation, and thus, we have made no further adjustments for these

expenses (i.e., we did not include them as direct selling expenses).

Finally, regarding Minasligas contention that the Department

calculated credit expenses based on U.S. prices inclusive of VAT, we

note that at verification Minasligas was unable to substantiate its

claim that VAT charges are passed along to U.S. customers and are

included in the reported prices. Therefore, we have not made a

deduction from U.S. price for VAT.

Comment 4: Treatment of Taxes in the Calculation of Normal

Value(NV). A. PIS/OFINS Taxes. Minasligas and CBCC contend that the

Department's failure to deduct the PIS and COFINS taxes from NV for

price-to-price comparisons in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1677b

(a)(6)(C)(iii) led to an unfair comparison since these taxes are paid

on home market sales but not on U.S. sales.

[[Page 43508]]

Minasligas and CBCC assert that these taxes are directly related to

home market sales since they are generated directly by sales of

ferrosilicon in the home market. Minasligas and CBCC further assert

that the Department should account for these taxes in the final results

by making a circumstance of sale (COS) adjustment as directed by 19

U.S.C. 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii), or an adjustment to NV under 19 U.S.C.

1677b (a)(6)(B)(iii).

Petitioners contend that the Department was correct in using a NV

that was not reduced by PIS and COFINS taxes. Citing section 773(a)

(6)(B)(iii) of the Act, the petitioners argue that NV may only be

reduced by taxes imposed directly upon the foreign like product or

components thereof. The petitioners further contend that this language

is identical to that of section 772(d)(1)(C), the parallel provision in

effect prior to the enactment of the URAA, which they claim provided

for an upward adjustment to the U.S. price.

To support their argument, petitioners cite Silicon Metal from

Argentina 91. In that case, petitioners contend that the Department

determined that taxes similar to the PIS and COFINS taxes were not

taxes directly imposed upon the merchandise or components thereof and,

therefore, did not qualify for an adjustment to U.S. price. As in

Silicon Metal from Argentina 91, petitioners maintain that the taxes at

issue in this case do not qualify for a COS adjustment pursuant to

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for the same reason that they do not

qualify for an adjustment to NV. Petitioners state that the

Department's regulations specify that the Department will limit

allowances for differences in the circumstances of sales ``to those

circumstances which bear a direct relationship to the sales compared''

(see 19 CFR section 353.56(a)(1)). In this instance, petitioners argue

that the PIS and COFINS taxes are not imposed on ferrosilicon sales

transactions, but instead, are assessed on gross receipts from

operations, including sales and other revenues, but excluding revenues

from export sales. Consistent with the Department's determinations in

the 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 administrative reviews on silicon metal

from Brazil, petitioners maintain that PIS and COFINS are not directly

related to specific sales and do not qualify for a COS adjustment. For

these reasons and for the similar reasons presented in Comment 2, the

petitioners argue that the Department was correct not to adjust NV or

U.S. price by PIS and COFINS taxes.

DOC Position: We agree with petitioners. As stated in Comment 2

above, information on the record demonstrates that the PIS and COFINS

taxes are taxes on gross revenue exclusive of export revenue. Thus,

these taxes are not imposed on the merchandise or components thereof.

Therefore, because these taxes cannot be tied directly to ferrosilicon

sales, we have no statutory basis to deduct them from NV. This position

is consistent with our practice in Silicon Metal from Argentina 91 at

Comment 8 and Comment 26. We also agree with petitioners that because

the PIS and COFINS taxes are gross revenue taxes, they do not bear a

direct relationship to home market sales and, therefore, do not qualify

for a COS adjustment. Therefore, for the purposes of these final

results, we have not made an adjustment to NV for PIS and COFINS taxes.

B. VAT Incurred on Material Inputs. CBCC argues that the Department

improperly included VAT (ICMS and IPI) in the calculation of CV. CBCC

maintains that CV inclusive of VAT incurred on the purchase of material

inputs led to an unfair comparison in the preliminary results. CBCC

contends that in a tax scheme such as Brazil's, a respondent may be

able to show that VAT on inputs did not in fact constitute a cost of

materials for the exported product within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.

1677b(e)(1)(A). Citing Silicon Metal from Brazil 96, CBCC contends that

Article VI of the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping

Code requires that dumping assessments be tax neutral and that this

requirement has continued under the Agreement on Implementation of

Article VI of the GATT. CBCC further contends that the above-referenced

cite states that the URAA explicitly amended the antidumping law to

remove consumption taxes from the home market price and eliminated the

addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that no consumption tax is included

in the price in either market. CBCC also contends that the Statement of

Administrative Action states that this amendment was intended to result

in tax neutrality which is the Department's guiding principle for

dealing with VAT. For these reasons, CBCC asserts that it is improper

for the Department to compare CV inclusive of VAT to a U.S. price

exclusive of VAT, without first determining whether the VAT paid on the

material inputs is a cost of materials for the exported product.

The petitioners argue that the Department was correct in including

VAT (ICMS and IPI) paid on ferrosilicon material inputs in CV.

Petitioners contend that the source of the language on tax neutrality

that CBCC refers to in Silicon Metal from Brazil 96 only addresses

adjustments for taxes paid on sales of the final product in price-based

margin calculations but does not address taxes paid on inputs and the

treatment of those taxes in CV-based margin calculations. Rather,

petitioners contend that the Department's treatment of taxes on inputs

used to produce exported merchandise in calculating CV is directly

governed by the statute. Petitioners state that section 773(e)(1) of

the Act provides that the CV of imported merchandise shall be an amount

equal to the sum of the cost of materials. Furthermore, petitioners

argue that section 773(e) provides that ``* * * that the cost of

materials shall be determined without regard to an internal tax in the

exporting country imposed on such materials or their disposition which

are remitted or refunded upon exportation of the subject merchandises

produced from such materials.''

Therefore, petitioners contend, the plain language of the statute

states that a home market tax that is directly applicable to materials

used in the manufacture of merchandise exported to the United States

constitutes an actual cost of producing the exported merchandise

unless, and only if, the tax is remitted or refunded upon the

subsequent exportation of that merchandise. Petitioners argue that it

is undisputed that CBCC paid ICMS and IPI taxes on inputs it used to

produce exported ferrosilicon and that these taxes were not remitted or

refunded upon exportation. As a result, petitioners maintain that the

Department followed its established practice (see Silicon Metal from

Brazil 96) of including ICMS and IPI taxes in CV.

The petitioners further assert that CBCC's claim that the

Department must determine whether CBCC paid more VAT on inputs used to

produce exported ferrosilicon than it collected on home market sales of

ferrosilicon has already been rejected by the Department. Again citing

Silicon Metal from Brazil 96, petitioners argue that the Department, in

accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, did not account for

the reimbursement to the respondents of ICMS and IPI taxes by means of

home market sales of silicon metal.

DOC Position: We made only price-to-price comparisons for purposes

of these final results. Therefore, since we did not resort to the use

of CV, it was not necessary to address the above issue.

Comment 5: Home Market Credit Expenses. Minasligas argues that

because Minasligas did not have short-

[[Page 43509]]

term borrowings during the POR, the Department understated the short-

term borrowing rate used to calculate home market credit expenses by

utilizing the ``taxa referential'' (TR). However, Minasligas contends

that the TR rate is only a reference rate published by the Brazilian

Central Bank and that Brazilian companies do not have access to this

rate. In addition, Minasligas asserts that the TR rate is

unrealistically low when compared to other short-term rates offered by

commercial banks during the POR. For the final results, Minasligas

contends that the Department should calculate home market credit

expenses using a rate obtained from a commercial lender in effect

during the POR such as those contained on the record in this

proceeding. Minasligas contends that this practice is consistent with

the Department's treatment of home market credit expenses calculated

for Ferbasa in Ferrosilicon from Brazil 96.

The petitioners contend that the Department's use of the TR rate to

calculate home market credit expenses and inventory carrying cost is

consistent with the Department's previous practice. In this regard,

petitioners cite Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (62 FR 18,486,

18,487 (April 15, 1997)) (Cut-to-Length Plate from Brazil) where the

Department determined that the TR rate is a benchmark comparable to a

prime rate published by the Bank of Brazil and, therefore, used the TR

rate to calculate home market credit expenses. Petitioners further

claim that Minasligas itself stated that the TR rate was established to

measure the cost of credit and that it is also the rate most widely

used by companies in Brazil to determine the interest rate for short-

term borrowing. (See Final Redetermination on Remand: Ferrosilicon from

Brazil, LFTV Investigation (January 17, 1996) (Final Redetermination on

Remand).)

Further, the petitioners argue that under established Department

practice, ``it is up to a respondent to substantiate and document any

adjustment or claim to the Department.'' (See Silicon Metal From Brazil

97.) Petitioners maintain that Minasligas failed to provide the

Department with any evidence that the alternative interest rates on the

record constitute ``published commercial bank prime short-term lending

rates.'' The petitioners contend that Minasligas' submission of the

monthly short-term borrowing rates of a commercial bank, BEMGE, that

were in effect during the POR, were in fact only a fax listing 30-day

interest rates for the period December 1994 through May 1996.

Petitioners assert that Minasligas failed to provide any evidence that

the listed rates were published or that they constitute prime rates.

Similarly, petitioners also contend that no evidence exists to support

Minasligas' claim that the bank lending rate published by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) constitutes prime rates or commercial

bank interest rates for business loans. Rather, petitioners assert that

the IMF rate is not a published commercial interest rate for short-term

business loans, but rather a rate at which banks, not companies, can

borrow. For these reasons, the petitioners argue that the Department

properly used the TR rate in calculating Minasligas' home market

imputed credit expenses.

DOC Position: We agree with petitioners. Consistent with Cut-to-

Length Plate from Brazil, we determine that the TR rate is a benchmark

comparable to a prime rate published by the Bank of Brazil. Therefore,

in the absence of actual home market short-term borrowings and the lack

of substantiated evidence that Minasligas could have borrowed at the

interest rates provided at verification, we have used the TR rate as

the interest rate in the calculation of imputed home market credit.

Further, in response to Minasligas' argument that the Department did

not use the TR rate in the preceding review of this case, we note that

the company in question had actual home market short-term borrowings

and, therefore, it was not necessary to resort to the use of the TR

rate.

Comment 6: Date of Sale. Minasligas submits six arguments on the

date of sale. First, Minasligas contends that the Department erred when

it changed the date of sale for one U.S. sale reported as sold prior to

the POR to within the POR. Minasligas argues that there is no sales

document on the record justifying the use of a sale date within the POR

for the sale in question. Moreover, Minasligas asserts that by using

the date within the POR as the date of sale, the Department incorrectly

used a date of sale that was subsequent to the date of shipment from

the plant. Minasligas maintains that, as stated in the questionnaire,

the date of sale cannot occur after the date of shipment. Therefore,

Minasligas contends that the sale was improperly included in the

calculation of export price in the preliminary results.

Second, Minasligas contends that the Department's position to

exclude several U.S. sales of merchandise produced by Minasligas from

the calculation of export price is supported by past Department

practice. (See Silicon Metal from Brazil 96 and Silicon Metal From

Brazil 97.)

Third, Minasligas contends that the issue as to whether to conduct

a review and what sales to consider within the POR for dumping purposes

are two different determinations which involve the two different

concepts of entry and sale. In reviews where a respondent had one or

more entries during the POR, Minasligas asserts that the Department's

practice is to review the respondent's sales to determine the

antidumping duty margin and, in accordance with section 751(a)(2), use

this margin to assess the entries during the POR. In reviews where the

respondent had no entries during the POR, Minasligas contends that the

Department normally conducts a no shipment review.

Fourth, Minasligas contends that the Department is not required to

tie sales to entries. (See Silicon Metal from Brazil 96.) Minasligas

further contends that when the Department reviews all sales to an

importer during the POR, the Department relies on the date of such

sales to determine whether they are within the POR. The date of entry

is of no relevance because the date of sale is the date on which the

basic terms of the sale, particularly price and quantity, are agreed

upon by the buyer and the seller. (See Department's 1996 Questionnaire,

Appendix 1 at 5, Glossary of Terms.)

Fifth, Minasligas further argues that petitioners' arguments repeat

that which was already rejected by the Department in the above-

referenced final determinations. Finally, Minasligas also notes that

all the determinations cited by the petitioners in support of their

argument predate the determinations cited by Minasligas. For all of

these reasons, Minasligas asserts that for the final results, the

Department should determine Minasligas' antidumping duty rate based on

Minasligas' sales during the POR and exclude from its dumping analysis

sales which fall outside the POR.

Petitioners argue that regardless of the date of sale, the statute,

legislative history, intended purpose of administrative reviews, and

established Department practice require that the margin calculations in

administrative reviews be based on entries that were made into the U.S.

Customs territory during the POR. According to petitioners, the

quantity, the ship date, and the name of the consignee of at least one

of the sales in question is identical to the Piers Import/Export

Reporting Service data indicating that this sale entered the United

States during the POR. The petitioners, therefore, conclude that the

Department should

[[Page 43510]]

include the sale in question in the final results margin calculations.

Morever, the petitioners argue that although these sales had dates

of sale prior to the POR, these sales entered the U.S. customs

territory during the POR and should therefore be included in the

calculation of export price (see e.g., High-Tenacity Rayon Filament

Yarn from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 51,421, 51,422 (October 2, 1996)). The petitioners argue

that these entries have never been reviewed and that by excluding these

sales, Minasligas' dumping margin for the preliminary results was

understated.

DOC Position: We agree with Minasligas regarding its first point,

that the Department erred when it changed the date of sale for one U.S.

sale reported as sold prior to the POR to within the POR. After

reviewing the sales documentation for this sale, we found that the

verification report was incorrect with respect to the actual date of

sale for this transaction. As a result, we determine that Minasligas

correctly reported the date of sale for this transaction in its sales

listing. However, we have included this sale in our final analysis

based on the fact that this sale was shipped during the POR.

We agree with petitioners regarding the review of sales entered

during the POR in export price situations. It has been the Department's

practice to calculate dumping margins for export price sales based on

sales entered during the POR. In fact, the antidumping questionnaire

issued in this review specifically required companies to ``report each

U.S. sale of merchandise entered for consumption during the POR,

except: (1) For EP sales, if you do not know the entry dates, report

each transaction involving merchandise shipped during the POR. * * *''

We note that, in response to these questionnaire instructions,

Minasligas reported certain sales with dates of sale prior to the POR.

Minasligas appears, therefore, to have complied with the questionnaire

instructions by reporting sales shipped or entered during the POR

regardless of whether the date of sale was within the POR. Moreover,

Minasligas does not deny that these sales were shipped or entered

during the POR. Therefore, for these final results, we have included

all such sales in our analysis.

Comment 7: The Dumping Margin Calculation. CBCC contends that the

Department incorrectly calculated the dumping margin as a percentage of

total U.S. sales value based on net U.S. prices, rather than gross unit

prices. In doing so, CBCC claims that the Department overstated the

dumping margin.

Petitioners contend that section 731(2)(B) of the Act requires that

whenever the Department determines that foreign merchandise is being

sold in the United States at less than fair value, there shall be

imposed upon such merchandise an antidumping duty in an amount equal to

the amount by which the NV exceeds the export price (or constructed

export price) for the merchandise. Therefore, petitioners assert that

by using the aggregate export prices for all U.S. sales as the

denominator in the calculation of the dumping margin, the Department

calculated CBCC's weighted-average dumping margin in accordance with

the statute.

DOC Position: We disagree with CBCC. CBCC's margin was calculated

in accordance with the Department's standard methodology of using

aggregate value of net export prices to derive total U.S. sales value.

(See Notice of Final Determination at LTFV: Certain Steel Concrete

Reinforcement Bars from Turkey, 62 FR, 9737, (March 4, 1997).)

Therefore, we have made no change for the final results.

Comment 8: Calculation of General and Administrative (G&A) and

Interest Expense. Minasligas contends that the Department overstated

the G&A used in the calculation of COP in the preliminary results.

Specifically, Minasligas argues that the Department calculated a G&A

rate as a percentage of the cost of sales based on the figures reported

by Minasligas and Delp Enganharia Mecanica S.A. (Delp) in their

financial statements and then mistakenly applied this rate to a COM

which included VAT. Minasligas contends that due to the fact that VAT

is neither an income nor an expense, VAT is not reflected in sales

revenue or cost of sales on the income statement. To support its

contention, Minasligas cites the Department's remand proceeding

relating to the final determination of ferrosilicon from Brazil where

the Department stated that it was incorrect to apply the calculated

interest factor and profit percentage to a COM inclusive of VAT. (See

Memorandum from Peter Scholl, Senior Accountant to Catherine Miller,

Program Manager, January 17, 1996, Remand of July 20, 1995,

Consolidated Court 90. 94-03-00182). Minasligas, therefore, contends

that because VAT was not part of the cost of sales upon which the G&A

rate was calculated, the Department should apply the G&A rate to a COM

exclusive of VAT.

Similarly, CBCC contends that in the preliminary results the

Department overstated G&A and interest expenses used in the calculation

of CV. Specifically, CBCC argues that the G&A expenses and interest

expenses were overstated because the Department applied these ratios on

a COM that included VAT. Because the countries in which CBCC and its

parent company are located (i.e., Brazil and Belgium, respectively) are

countries with a VAT system, CBCC asserts that for the final results

the Department should deduct ICMS from COM to calculate the G&A and

interest expense. CBCC provided revised calculations for G&A and

interest.

Although petitioners agree with Minasligas and CBCC that the

Department overstated G&A and interest expenses when it calculated

those expenses using a COM inclusive of VAT paid on inputs, petitioners

contend that CBCC's revised percentages are wrong. First, petitioners

maintain that CBCC failed to include PIS and COFINS taxes in its

calculations of CV. Second, petitioners argue that CBCC did not use the

correct ratios for calculating G&A and interest.

DOC Position: We agree with all parties that it was incorrect to

apply the calculated ratios for G&A and interest to a COM inclusive of

VAT in the calculation of COP. However, we note that both respondents

reported G&A and/or interest expenses based on a COM inclusive of VAT.

Thus, for purposes of the final results, we calculated the G&A for

Minasligas and G&A and interest expenses for CBCC used in the

calculation of COP, based on the COM exclusive of VAT. For the reasons

stated in Comment 2 above, we have continued to include PIS and COFINS

taxes in COP (see Cost Calculation Memorandums for Minasligas and CBCC,

each dated July 28, 1997, for further discussion). Since we made only

price-to-price comparisons for purposes of these final results, it was

not necessary to address this issue with respect to CV.

Comment 9: Calculation of Depreciation Expense for Minasligas.

Petitioners argue that the Department understated depreciation in its

COP and CV calculations by using the amount reported by Minasligas

which understated depreciation in the current period as a result of its

use of accelerated depreciation in prior years. For the final results,

petitioners contend that the Department should recalculate depreciation

for Minasligas, eliminating any prior year's accelerated depreciation.

Minasligas argues that it has historically used accelerated

depreciation in its financial records and

[[Page 43511]]

such methodology is consistent with Brazilian GAAP. Minasligas

maintains that the Department has accepted its use of accelerated

depreciation in prior proceedings.

DOC Position: We disagree with petitioners that Minasligas'

depreciation calculation is unacceptable because it is based on

accelerated depreciation. Minasligas' methodology of depreciation is

based on its financial records, which are consistent with Brazilian

GAAP and do not distort actual costs. In this regard, the Department's

position is consistent with the decision of the Court of International

Trade, which supported the Department's calculation of depreciation

based on a respondent's actual financial records which do not distort

actual costs. Moreover, in previous silicon metal reviews, we have used

accelerated depreciation where Minasligas has historically reported

depreciation on this basis for purposes of its financial statements

(see Silicon Metal From Brazil 97). Moreover, we have applied this

practice in other instances (see Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value Foam Extruded PVC and Polystyrene Framing Stock from

the United Kingdom; 61 FR 51411, 51418 (October 2, 1996)) and Laclede

Steel Co. v. United States, 18 CIT 965, 975 (1994)). Therefore, for

purposes of these final results of review, we have continued to use

Minasligas' reported depreciation in calculating COP and CV.

Comment 10: Calculation of G&A Expenses. Petitioners claim that the

Department failed to include amounts for social contributions in the

reported G&A expense despite the fact that the Department has a

longstanding practice of including social payments such as severance,

social security or pension expenses in the G&A expense. Petitioners

argue that the Department should include provisions for social

contributions in the calculation of the G&A expense.

Minasligas argues that petitioners misinterpreted Minasligas'

financial statements because the social contributions are not a cost of

producing the merchandise, but a federal tax similar to the income tax

levied by the government as a percentage of profit. Minasligas further

argues that the social contributions are not social payments such as

social security or pension expenses which were properly reported either

as part of direct labor costs or as part of the G&A expenses for

administrative employees.

DOC Position: We agree with Minasligas. The social contributions at

issue are a type of federal income tax which is deducted from profit.

All other social charges and fringe benefits were properly accounted

for either as part of direct labor costs or as part of G&A expenses.

Accordingly, no adjustment has been made for the final results.

Comment 11: Calculation of Indirect Selling Expenses. Petitioners

contend that the Department determined per-unit indirect selling

expenses for Minasligas by multiplying the gross-unit price for home

market sales by an indirect selling expense ratio. Petitioners state

that, in calculating the ratio, the Department divided the sum of the

monthly company-wide indirect selling expenses by the sum of the

monthly sales values for all products during the POR. However, the

petitioners claim that in calculating the monthly values, the

Department incorrectly added rather than subtracted the value of

returned merchandise. In doing so, petitioners argue that the

Department overstated the denominator of the indirect selling expense

ratio, thus understating the ratio, which in turn understated the

calculated per-unit indirect selling expenses.

Regarding CBCC, the petitioners claim that CBCC allocated indirect

selling expenses among its products to the relative sales volume of

those products. Petitioners note that the Department's verification

report in this proceeding states that ``because indirect selling

expenses are a value-based expense, CBCC should have allocated the

total commercial department expenses over the value of merchandise sold

during the POR, not the tonnage sold.'' Petitioners further note that,

while at verification, the Department did not collect data regarding

the total value of CBCC's sales of silicon metal and calcium carbide

during January and February 1996. As a result, it is not possible to

perform the proper allocation of indirect selling expenses based on

sales value. Therefore, petitioners argue that the Department should

request CBCC to provide a worksheet and supporting documentation

showing the total sales value of the above products for January and

February 1996.

DOC Position: We made only price-to-price comparisons for purposes

of these final results. Therefore, since we did not resort to the use

of CV, it was not necessary to address the above issues.

Comment 12: Conversion of U.S. Sales Prices Denominated in U.S.

Dollars. The petitioners contend that the prices for Minasligas' U.S.

sales were negotiated in U.S. dollars and paid for in U.S. dollars.

However, Minasligas reported the gross unit price for its U.S. sales in

Brazilian reais. Petitioners maintain that the Department used these

Brazilian-currency prices in its preliminary results margin

calculations. Petitioners cite Silicon from Brazil 96 and 97, as the

Department's established practice of using the actual U.S. price in the

currency in which it was originally denominated on the date of sale,

and to avoid any unnecessary currency conversion. Therefore, for the

final results, the petitioners contend that the Department should use

U.S. dollar-denominated gross prices reported in the sales listing,

rather than the Brazilian-reais denominated gross unit prices, as the

starting U.S. price for calculating the dumping margin.

DOC Position: We agree in part with petitioners. It is established

Department policy to use the actual U.S. price in the currency in which

it was originally denominated on the date of sale and to avoid any

unnecessary currency conversion. (See Ferrosilicon from Brazil,

(January 14, 1997).) In this case, Minasligas reported its U.S. sales

in Brazilian currency rather than U.S. dollars. However, at

verification, we were able to confirm the accuracy of the Brazilian

currency amounts reported by Minasligas because, in addition to the

commercial invoice (denominated in U.S. dollars), Minasligas also

issues a Brazilian-denominated invoice which we examined for selected

U.S. sales. Further, for purposes of the preliminary results, we did

convert the U.S. sales prices reported in Brazilian currency to U.S.

dollars on the date of sale for purposes of calculating Minasligas'

margin. We have continued this practice for these final results as

Minasligas' U.S. dollar prices are not on the record.

Comment 13: Calculation of Depreciation for CBCC. The petitioners

argue that in its preliminary results, the Department failed to take

into account idle asset depreciation for a certain number of furnaces.

The petitioners contend that record evidence indicates that the

furnaces were idle during a portion of the POR. Therefore, petitioners

maintain that the Department should include in COP/CV the total

depreciation expenses for the furnaces for the periods during which

those furnaces were idle.

CBCC claims that the furnaces which were idle during the POR are

fully depreciated since they were built in 1934 and 1947. CBCC states

that there is no factual justification for allocating depreciation

expense for idle assets which were fully depreciated.

DOC Position: We agree with CBCC. At verification, we confirmed

that the furnaces at issue were fully depreciated long before the POR.

Accordingly, we determine that the adjustment to COP

[[Page 43512]]

proposed by the petitioners is not warranted here. Since we made only

price-to-price adjustments or purposes of these final results, it was

not necessary to address this issue with regards to CV.

Comment 14: Calculation of Interest Expense. The petitioners argue

that in the preliminary results the Department incorrectly calculated

CBCC's financial expenses based on the consolidated financial statement

of its Belgian parent company, Solvay & Cie. The petitioners claim that

it was incorrect to use the consolidated financial statements because

Solvay & Cie's actual financial expense is less than one half of the

financial expense actually incurred by CBCC. Therefore, the petitioners

contend that calculating financial expenses using a ratio based on

Solvay & Cie's consolidated financial statements resulted in a gross

understatement of the financial expenses actually incurred by CBCC.

Thus, for the final results, the petitioners assert that the Department

should calculate financial expenses based on CBCC's financial

statements.

DOC Position: We disagree with the petitioner. The Department's

established policy is to calculate interest expense incurred on behalf

of the consolidated group of companies to which the respondent belongs,

based on consolidated financial statements, regardless of whether or

not the respondent's financial expense is higher than that of the

controlling entity. This practice recognizes two facts: (1) The

fungible nature of invested capital resources such as debt and equity

of the controlling entity within a consolidated group of companies, and

(2) the controlling entity within a consolidated group has the power to

determine the capital structure of each member country within its

group. (See Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly ParaPhneylene Terephthalamide

From the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 62 FR 136 (July 16, 1997), Silicon Metal From Brazil 97, Final

Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon from Brazil: 59 FR

732, 736 (January 6, 1994) and Cambargo Correa Metais, S.A. v. United

States, Slip Op. 93-163 (CIT August 13, 1993.) Therefore, for these

final results, we have calculated CBCC's net interest expense based on

the consolidated financial statements of its parent company, Solvay &

Cie.

Comment 15: Interest Income as an Offset to Interest Expenses. The

petitioners argue that the Department should not make an adjustment to

the reported interest expense for the amount of interest income

reported on CBCC's financial statement. The petitioners claim that it

is CBCC's responsibility to substantiate and document any adjustment or

claim to the Department. Since CBCC provided no information in its

questionnaire response regarding the interest income earned, the

petitioners assert that the Department should calculate the financial

expense ratio without any offset for interest income.

CBCC contends that in its questionnaire response CBCC calculated

consolidated financial expenses based solely on interest expense

without any deduction for interest income. CBCC argues that should the

Department depart from its well-established practice of using

consolidated financial expenses, CBCC requests the opportunity to

submit all information needed to support its interest income.

DOC Position: As explained in our response to Comment 14, we have

used CBCC's consolidated financial expenses. Therefore, we have made no

adjustments to the reported consolidated interest for interest income

as CBCC did not report interest income on a consolidated basis.

Comment 16: Alleged Errors in the Calculation of CV. Minasligas

asserts that the Department did not make any price-to-CV comparisons in

the preliminary results, but in the event that the Department resorts

to the use of CV in the final results, Minasligas contends the

following:

(1) That the Department incorrectly calculated the field CVTAX as

equal to the greater of the VAT paid on inputs or the VAT collected on

export sales in the computer margin program. Minasligas argues that the

statute does not require that VAT collected on export sales be included

in CV. Minasligas asserts that the Department's position, which is

currently challenged in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(see Aimcor et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-130 (July 20, 1995) at

20 et seq.), is that only taxes on material inputs which are not

remitted or refunded upon export are included in CV as a part of the

cost of material. Minasligas argues that if tax collections on sales

exceed payments on inputs, the Department should make the required

adjustments in calculating the foreign unit price in dollars (FUPDOL).

(2) That the Department failed to deduct home market imputed credit

expenses from the calculation of CV, resulting in an overstatement of

the FUPDOL because the COS adjustment only added U.S. credit expenses.

(3) That the Department erred when it weight-averaged the profit

rate based on sales quantity rather than sales value. Instead,

Minasligas contends that the Department should have calculated the

average home market profit using its normal methodology (i.e., the sum

of the total profit for each transaction divided by the total COP value

for all the transactions). Morever, Minasligas argues that under its

normal methodology, the Department calculates an overall profit rate

for the transactions weighted on value rather than quantity.

With respect to the first issue, petitioners contend that the

Department's margin calculations demonstrate that the Department

included VAT paid on inputs in CV, not ICMS tax collected on export

sales. Further, the petitioners claim that the Department properly

included those taxes in CV because they are a cost of materials for the

reasons presented in Comment 4 (B).

With respect to the third issue, the petitioners contend that a

review of the profit margin calculation shows that the Department did

not do what Minasligas claims the Department did and, in fact, did what

Minasligas claims the Department should have done. The petitioners

argue that the Department first determined the aggregate value of net

home market prices for all of the above-cost sales and the aggregate

COP for those sales. The Department then subtracted the aggregate COP

from the aggregate value of net home market prices for above-cost

sales, thereby determining the aggregate amount of profit for those

sales. This aggregate profit amount was then divided by the aggregate

COP to arrive at a profit ratio. Thus the petitioners assert that,

contrary to Minasligas's claims, the Department properly calculated the

profit ratio.

DOC Position: We made only price-to-price comparisons for purposes

of these final results. Therefore, since we did not resort to the use

of CV, it was not necessary to address the above issues.

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 1, 1995 through

February 29, 1997:

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

Percent

Manufacturer/exporter margin

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

CBCC......................................................... 0.00

Minasligas................................................... 3.51

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment

purposes, we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty

assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the

[[Page 43513]]

total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales

during the POR to the total quantity of sales examined during the POR.

This method has been upheld by the courts. (See e.g., Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) from France, Germany,

Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 2081, 2083 (January 15,

1997); FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer KgaAv. United States, No. 92-07-

00487, 1995 Ct. Int'l Trade LEXIS 209, at CIT*10 (September 14, 1995),

aff'd. No. 96-1074 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 11544 (Fed. Cir. May 1996).

The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the

Customs Service. Individual differences between United States price and

NV may vary from the percentages stated above. Furthermore, the

following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of

these final results of review for all shipments of ferrosilicon from

Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act, and will remain in effect until publication of the final results

of the next administrative review: (1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates listed above except for CBCC,

which had a de minimis margin, and whose cash deposit rate is therefore

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed

above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific

rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a

firm covered in this review, a prior 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 (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer

is a firm covered in this or any previous review or in the LTFV

investigation conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will

be 91.06 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

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

the 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 Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: August 6, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-21583 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P