Silicon Metal From Brazil: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil: Amended Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending its

final results of review, published on September 5, 1996, of the

antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil, to reflect the

correction of ministerial errors in those final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Alain Letort, or John

Kugelman, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import

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

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20230, telephone 202/482-2924 (Baker), 202/482-4243 (Letort), or 202/

482-0649 (Kugelman), fax 202/482-1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the

regulations are references to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Background

The Department published the final results of the second

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal

from Brazil on September 5, 1996 (61 FR 46763) (Second Review Final

Results), covering the period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. The

respondents are Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC),

Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--Minasligas (Minasligas), Eletroila,

S.A. (currently known as Eletrosilex Belo Horizonte (Eletrosilex)), and

Rima Industrial S.A. (RIMA). The petitioners are American Alloys, Inc.,

Elken Metals, Co., Globe Metallurgical, Inc., SMI Group, and SKW Metals

& Alloys.

On September 20, 1996, the petitioners filed clerical error

allegations with respect to each of the four respondents in the review.

The same day we received clerical error allegations from respondent

CBCC. On September 27, 1996, we received rebuttal comments from the

petitioners, CBCC, and Minasligas. On September 30, 1996, we received

rebuttal comments from Eletrosilex. The Department agreed that certain

of the allegations constituted ministerial errors, but the Department

was unable to issue a determination correcting these errors before the

petitioners filed a complaint with the Court of International Trade

(CIT) challenging the final results of review. Therefore, the

Department requested leave from the CIT to correct these errors. On

July 9, 1997, the CIT granted the Department leave to correct the

errors. See American Silicon Technologies et al., v. United States,

Slip Op. 97-94, July 9, 1997.

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 a higher aluminum content 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 2804.50 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 numbers are provided for convenience and

for U.S.

[[Page 47442]]

Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the

scope of product coverage.

Clerical Error Allegations

Comment 1

Petitioners argue that the Department used the wrong cost of

manufacture (COM) in the computation of constructed value (CV) for one

of CBCC's U.S. sales. We reviewed the sale at issue in the first (91-

92) administrative review of the order, but reviewed it again in the

second review of the order because, after issuing the final results of

the first review, we determined that the importer of the sale had no

entries during the first review period. In our analysis of this sale in

the first review, we made an upward adjustment to CBCC's reported COM

in order to account for costs that the Department determined at

verification to have been understated. However, in its analysis of this

sale for the second review, the Department used the COM as CBCC

originally reported it. Petitioners argue that this use of the

unadjusted COM constitutes a clerical error.

CBCC argues that the Department erred by using CV, rather than

third-country sales, as the basis for foreign market value (FMV) for

comparison to the U.S. sale at issue. In its final results analysis

memorandum for the second review, the Department stated that it used CV

as the basis for FMV because there were no Japanese sales

contemporaneous with this sale. (See the Department's September 12,

1996 final results analysis memorandum, at 4.) CBCC argues that this

stated rationale for using CV is fallacious because, in the first

review, the Department used third-country sales to Japan as the basis

of FMV for that sale. Thus, CBCC argues, there must have been

contemporaneous sales. Furthermore, CBCC argues that because the

Department performed a sales-based comparison for this sale in the

first review, and never indicated to CBCC that it intended to review

the sale again in the second review, the Department's decision to use

CV in the margin calculation for the sale in the second review violated

its due-process rights because CBCC never had an opportunity to comment

on it. It may also be illegal, CBCC argues, because only the CIT can

require the Department to re-open and re-analyze a determination which

is final under the statute.

Finally, CBCC argues that the Department's failure to use the

adjusted COM for the sale at issue is more than offset by a clerical

error it made in its calculation of CBCC's interest expenses. In its

calculation of interest expenses, the Department, CBCC alleges, used

the interest expense ratio for 1993, rather than the interest expense

ratio for 1992.

Department's Position:

We agree with petitioners that the Department's failure to use the

adjusted COM for the sale at issue constituted a clerical error. In

these amended final results of review, we have used the adjusted COM

for this sale as given in the first review final results analysis

memorandum dated February 2, 1994. The Department made this memorandum

part of the record of the second review. See the Department's June 12,

1996 letter to CBCC.

We disagree with CBCC's argument that its due-process rights were

violated by our decision to perform a CV-based, rather than a sales-

based, comparison for the sale at issue. In the first review the

Department made a sales-based comparison only in the preliminary

results of review, not the final results of review. In the final

results of the first review the Department used CV as the FMV. See the

final results analysis memorandum dated August 13, 1994, at 1.

We also disagree with CBCC's argument that there were

contemporaneous sales which could serve as the FMV in the margin

calculation for the sale at issue. In the final results analysis

memorandum, we stated explicitly that there were no above-cost third-

country sales. (See the first review final results analysis memorandum

dated August 13, 1994, at 1.) Thus, the Department's September 12, 1996

analysis memorandum that states that there were no contemporaneous

third-country sales should be amended to read that there were no above-

cost contemporaneous third-country sales. Therefore, in these amended

final results of review we have continued to use CV as the FMV.

We agree with CBCC that the Department used the wrong interest

expense ratio to calculate interest for the sale at issue. We have

corrected this error in these amended final results of review.

Comment 2:

Petitioners argue that the Department made a ministerial error by

failing to include IPI taxes in the computation of CV for one of CBCC's

U.S. sales. They argue that the final results notice states that the

Department intended to include these taxes in CV. See Second Review

Final Results at 46769.

CBCC argues that petitioners' comments regarding IPI taxes are

irrelevant because the Department acted illegally in re-analyzing this

U.S. sale using a methodology different from that supporting its final

results in the first review. It refers the reader to its comments

summarized under comment 1 (above).

Department's Position:

We agree with petitioners that in omitting IPI taxes from the

computation of CV for the sale at issue we made a ministerial error. In

these amended final results of review, we have included IPI taxes in

CV. We obtained the value of these taxes from CBCC's May 29, 1996

submission.

We disagree with CBCC that we acted illegally in our treatment of

this sale. As explained in response to comment 1 (above), we used CV

for this sale in the final results of the first review, as well as in

the final results of the second review.

Comment 3

Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error by

using an incorrect exchange rate for converting some of CBCC's and

Eletrosilex's expenses from Brazilian currency into U.S. dollars. This

error occurred, petitioners argue, because the Department incorrectly

believed that these expenses were denominated in cruzeiros, rather than

in cruzeiros reais. The expenses at issue are CBCC's brokerage,

warehousing, and foreign inland freight, and Eletrosilex's brokerage,

foreign inland freight, ocean freight, packing, and warehousing costs.

CBCC argues that there is no evidence on the record that any of the

charges it reported are in a currency other than cruzeiros.

Eletrosilex argues that the determination of the correct exchange

rate is a factual and judgmental determination, and not a clerical

error. By raising the issue at this stage of the proceeding,

Eletrosilex argues, petitioners are misusing the ministerial errors

correction process. For this reason, Eletrosilex argues, petitioners'

argument should be rejected.

Department's Position

We agree with petitioners. With respect to CBCC, we note that

exhibit 6 of CBCC's March 17, 1994 supplemental questionnaire response

demonstrates the currency conversion. That demonstration indicates that

the expenses in question were in fact denominated in cruzeiros reais,

and not cruzeiros. With respect to Eletrosilex, we find that

Eletrosilex demonstrated the correct currency conversion for the

charges at issue in exhibit 9 of its March

[[Page 47443]]

21, 1994 submission and on pages 3 and 4 of its September 12, 1994

submission. These demonstrations indicate that the charges at issue

were reported in cruzeiros reais, and not cruzeiros. Thus, for the

charges at issue, in these amended final results of review we have used

the exchange rates for converting cruzeiros reais into U.S. dollars,

rather than for converting cruzeiros into U.S. dollars.

We do not agree with Eletrosilex's argument that petitioners are

misusing the ministerial error corrections process. Our use of

incorrect exchange rates is an ``unintentional error'' within the

meaning of 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.28(d).

Comment 4

Petitioners argue that the Department made a ministerial error by

failing to deduct from one of CBCC's U.S. sales an unspecified charge

that CBCC reported as ``other expenses.'' Petitioners argue that these

``other expenses'' should be deducted from U.S. price in accordance

with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

CBCC argues that if the Department decides to deduct the ``other

expenses'' (which, it states, are movement expenses) from the U.S.

price, it should note that CBCC mislabeled the currency as U.S.

dollars. In fact, CBCC states, it reported them in cruzeiros, and they

must be converted into U.S. dollars for the margin calculation.

Department's Position

We agree that we made a ministerial error by failing to deduct the

``other expenses'' from U.S. price for the sale at issue. In these

amended final results of review we have corrected this error. We have

converted them into dollars because the amount of these expenses

relative to other reported expenses indicates that they were incurred

in cruzeiros. See CBCC's March 17, 1994 submission, exhibit 3.

Comment 5

CBCC argues that the Department made a ministerial error in its

calculation of CV by using the same interest ratio in the calculation

of CV as it used in the calculation of cost of production (COP). CBCC

argues that doing so was an error because CV includes imputed credit,

whereas COP does not. The Department's methodology, CBCC argues,

double-counts the interest expenses included in financial expenses.

Thus, CBCC argues the Department should calculate financial expenses

for CV net of the amount attributable to trade accounts receivables. To

correct the error, CBCC states that the Department should multiply the

CV interest expenses by the formula: (1-accounts receivable/total

assets).

Petitioners argue that the Department made this error in only one

of CBCC's U.S. sales. For CBCC's other U.S. sales, petitioners argue,

the Department made an offset to the interest expenses included in CV

for home-market imputed credit expenses. Thus, petitioners argue,

CBCC's allegation is not applicable to all of CBCC's U.S. sales.

Department's Position

We agree with CBCC that the Department normally allows an offset to

CV interest expenses. However, we did not offset CV financing costs for

CBCC in this review because it did not submit the offsetting figure,

nor did it submit the accounts receivable and total asset figures

necessary to perform the calculation as it suggests. Therefore, the

Department did not make a ministerial error by not allowing an offset

to CV interest expense in this case because the necessary information

was not on the record. Accordingly, we have not made an offset to

CBCC's financing costs in these amended final results.

Comment 6

CBCC argues that the Department made two clerical errors in its

calculation of interest expenses. First, CBCC alleges that the

Department calculated different monthly financial expense ratios for

each month of the period of review (POR), and applied these differing

ratios to the COM to calculate financial expenses. CBCC argues that

calculating a different financial expense ratio for each month of the

POR was an error, and that the Department intended to calculate an

annual weighted-average rate in order to calculate a single weighted-

average COP/CV for the POR. CBCC bases its argument on the fact that

the Department allegedly calculated general and administrative (G&A)

expenses by multiplying the COM by a single annual rate. Second, CBCC

argues that the Department made a clerical error by applying the

calculated interest expense ratio to the replacement cost COM, rather

than the historical cost COM. It argues that this was an error because

the Department calculated the interest expense ratio based on

historical costs, and not replacement costs. Thus, CBCC argues, the

Department should have either calculated the interest expenses on a

replacement cost basis and applied the resulting ratio to the

replacement cost COMs (as it did for G&A expenses), or calculated the

interest expense ratio on historical costs and applied it to the

historical cost COMs.

Petitioners argue that CBCC is incorrect in asserting that the

Department calculated different interest expense ratios for different

months of the POR. In fact, petitioners argue, the Department

calculated one interest expense ratio for 1992, which it applied to the

months July through December 1992, and one interest expense ratio which

it applied to the months January through June 1993. Furthermore,

petitioners argue that CBCC is incorrect in saying that the Department

intended to calculate a single COP/CV for the POR. The Department's

practice in hyperinflationary-economy cases, petitioners argue, is to

calculate monthly COPs and CVs, and to make comparisons for both the

cost test and the margin calculation on a monthly basis. Finally,

petitioners argue that CBCC is incorrect in stating that the Department

made a clerical error by applying the interest expense ratios to

replacement costs in calculating COP and CV. In fact, petitioners

argue, the Department specifically addressed this issue in the final

results. It said, ``We do not have the necessary information on the

record to index monthly interest costs. Therefore, we calculated

financial expenses based on our established practice prior to the CIT

decision because it is still a viable method (see Comment 27 for

details).'' See Second Review Final Results at 46773. Thus, petitioners

argue, the Department's method of calculating interest expenses does

not constitute a clerical error.

Department's Position

We disagree with CBCC that we intended to calculate a single

weighted average interest rate for the POR. In the case of G&A costs,

we computed a single weighted-average rate because the monthly G&A

information was available. The monthly information required for the

interest expense rate calculation, however, was not available.

Therefore, as a reasonable alternative, we used available information

to calculate separate interest expense rates for 1992 and 1993.

Moreover, because all data needed to compute the appropriate interest

expense ratio was not available, as a reasonable estimate of the

interest expense, we applied the computed rate to replacement cost

COMs. This is the method we intended to employ in the final results,

and therefore does not constitute a clerical error.

Comment 7

Petitioners argue the Department made a clerical error in its

computation

[[Page 47444]]

of the profit used in calculating CV for RIMA, Eletrosilex, and CBCC.

Petitioners state that the Department calculated profit as the

difference between COP and home-market selling prices from which the

Department had subtracted imputed credit. Petitioners argue that

because COP includes interest (which by definition includes the cost of

financing receivables), it is incorrect and a ministerial error to

calculate profit by comparing COP to home-market prices from which the

cost of financing receivables has already been deducted.

Eletrosilex argues that the exclusion of imputed credit was not a

ministerial error, and that therefore the petitioners' contention

should be rejected from consideration at this stage of the proceeding.

Department's Position

We agree with petitioners. It was not our intent to understate

profit by including imputed credit in COP but excluding it from

revenue. Furthermore, we reviewed this issue in the final results of

the third review of this order, and determined there too that in the

profit calculation the home-market prices should not be net of imputed

credit. See Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Review and

Determination Not to Revoke in Part; 62 FR 1954, 1967 (January 14,

1997) (Third Review Final Results). In these amended final results of

review, we have continued to include interest expenses in the

calculation of COP, but have adjusted home-market prices so as not to

deduct imputed credit from such prices in the computation of revenue.

Comment 8

Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error when it

calculated the percentage of overhead allocated to RIMA's silicon metal

production by using unadjusted direct material costs. The Department

calculated the percentage of overhead allocated to RIMA's silicon metal

production by averaging ratios for direct labor, electricity, and

direct materials calculated by comparing the usage of each item for

silicon metal production to the usage for overall production. In

calculating the ratio for direct materials, the Department, petitioners

allege, used the unadjusted direct materials costs for silicon metal

production that RIMA reported in verification exhibit 15, rather than

the adjusted material costs that the Department calculated following

the verification.

Department's Position

We disagree with petitioners that it was a ministerial error not to

adjust RIMA's primary direct material costs used in allocating the

company's overhead. For the final results, we allocated RIMA's overhead

costs based on the relation between RIMA's primary direct material

consumed in the silicon production (numerator) and its total primary

direct material consumed in the furnaces (denominator). These figures

are unadjusted for RIMA's understatement of its direct material costs.

Therefore, if we adjust the numerator as suggested by the petitioner,

we must also adjust the denominator, which (like the numerator) was

unadjusted in the final results calculations. If, however, we adjust

both the numerator and the denominator, the allocation factor does not

change. Therefore, the Department did not err in concluding that it was

unnecessary to adjust these figures.

Comment 9

Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in its

calculation of the direct selling expenses to include in Eletrosilex's

CV. Eletrosilex reported its direct selling expenses inclusive of

inland freight. However, because inland freight is a movement expense,

and not a selling expense, the Department subtracted inland freight

from Eletrosilex's total direct selling expenses in its calculation of

the direct selling expenses to be included in CV. Petitioners argue

that the value for inland freight that the Department used in

performing this subtraction was an aggregate amount, and not a per-unit

amount. Using this aggregate amount was an error, petitioners argue,

because all the other elements of Eletrosilex's reported direct selling

expenses were per-unit amounts.

Eletrosilex argues that if the Department determines that it

subtracted aggregate inland freight costs from the reported direct

selling expenses, rather than per-unit inland freight costs, and

therefore makes the correction requested by petitioners, it should also

ascertain that it correctly applies the inflation rate for 30 days

after the invoice, as discussed on page 4 of its March 21, 1994

submission.

Department's Position

We agree with petitioners that we inadvertently used aggregate

inland freight costs rather than per-unit inland freight costs. We have

corrected this error in these amended final results of review. With

regard to Eletrosilex's argument that we apply the correct inflation

rate, we have determined that because the reported inland freight costs

already include an inflation adjustment, no further inflation

adjustment is necessary. Moreover, Eletrosilex's citation to the

discussion on page 4 of its March 21, 1994 submission is inapposite

because that discussion concerns the conversion from Brazilian currency

into U.S. dollars, and the calculations at issue here do not include a

currency conversion. Therefore, because no further inflation adjustment

is required, we used the invoiced inland freight costs as Eletrosilex

reported them.

Comment 10

Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error by

failing to include duty drawback in Eletrosilex's CV. In the Second

Review Final Results the Department stated, ``n order to make an

`apples-to-apples` comparison between USP [United States Price] and CV,

we need to add to CV the full amount of the duty drawback that we added

to USP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. We

have done so in these final results of review.'' See Second Review

Final Results at 46770. Petitioners argue that in fact the Department

added duty drawback to CV for some of Eletrosilex's U.S. sales, but not

for all of them.

Department's Position

We agree with petitioners that we failed to add duty drawback to CV

for some of Eletrosilex's sales, but we believe that the petitioners

incorrectly identified the set of sales for which we made this error.

In these amended final results of review we have corrected the final

results programs to ensure that duty drawback was added to CV.

Comment 11

Petitioners argue that the Department erred with respect to

Eletrosilex by failing to deduct home-market commissions from the gross

home-market price in computing the net home-market price (variable name

NPRICOP) to be compared to COP in the sales-below-cost test. They

argue, based on Policy Bulletin 94.6, that this failure was a violation

of the Department's established practice.

Eletrosilex argues that this was not a clerical error because

Eletrosilex pays no commissions on its home-market sales.

Department's Position

We disagree with Eletrosilex and agree with petitioners in part.

Eletrosilex's home-market sales listing indicates that it did pay a

commission

[[Page 47445]]

on some of its home-market sales. See page 14 of Eletrosilex's November

12, 1992 submission, and the home-market sales listing contained

therein. We agree with petitioners that we made no adjustment for these

commissions in the calculation of NPRICOP, but we disagree with

petitioners' argument that our failure to do so was an error. In this

review we included in COP the direct and indirect selling expenses

Eletrosilex reported in section D of its questionnaire response, as

intended, and made no adjustment for selling expenses in the

calculation of NPRICOP, also as intended. Thus, because both COP and

NPRICOP contained selling expenses, the cost test was proper and not

distorted. Furthermore, this treatment of Eletrosilex's selling

expenses in the cost test is identical to our treatment of selling

expenses in the cost test for all other respondents in this review.

Comment 12

Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in its

calculation of Eletrosilex's CV by subtracting home-market packing

expenses from CV before adding U.S. packing expenses to CV. This was an

error, petitioners argue, because the calculated CV did not include

home-market packing.

Eletrosilex argues that the inclusion or exclusion of variables in

an analysis is not a ministerial act, but an act of judgment. Thus,

Eletrosilex argues, the Department should reject petitioners' argument

at this stage of the proceeding.

Department's Position

The inclusion or exclusion of variables in an analysis can be

intentional or unintentional. Here, the Department inadvertently

omitted home-market packing from CV in the computer program used to

calculate the margin for some of Eletrosilex's U.S. sales. Therefore,

because the omission was unintentional, it is properly considered a

ministerial error. In these amended final results of review we have

corrected this error.

Comment 13

Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in its

margin calculation for Minasligas by converting the cruzeiro value of

its U.S. sales into dollars, rather than using the actual U.S. dollar

value of the sales. Petitioners argue that this was an error because

the selling price of the U.S. sales was denominated in U.S. dollars.

Petitioners argue that the Department should have used the dollar-

denominated price, rather than the cruzeiro-denominated price, for

Minasligas' U.S. sales.

Minasligas argues that it reported its U.S. sales in cruzeiros (as

recorded in its books), and that the Department correctly converted

them into dollars using the average exchange rate of the month of

shipment. This methodology, Minasligas argues, is in accordance with

the Department's practice of comparing the U.S. price to the CV or FMV

of the month of shipment. Minasligas also argues that the dollar value

that the petitioners urge the Department to use is from the section of

its questionnaire response where it reported its total home-market,

third-country, and U.S. sales volumes and values for the purpose of the

viability test. This information, Minasligas states, did not relate to

the information Minasligas provided in its U.S. sales listing.

Department's Position

We agree with petitioners. Our practice is to use the actual U.S.

price in the currency in which it was originally denominated. We also

seek to avoid any unnecessary currency conversions. In this case, we

did not intend to convert currencies twice. Therefore, in these amended

final results of review we have used the actual sales prices in the

currency in which they were originally denominated. This is the same

methodology we employed in the final results of the third review of

this order. See Third Review Final Results at 1961.

Comment 14

Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in its

computation of Minasligas' imputed U.S. credit by using the date of

shipment from the U.S. port as the start of the credit period, rather

than the date of shipment from Minasligas' plant.

Minasligas argues the Department did in fact use the date of

shipment from Minasligas' plant as the start of the credit period in

the computation of U.S. imputed credit.

Department's Position

We agree with Minasligas. The variable SHIPDTPM used in the imputed

credit calculation (line 730 of the final results margin calculation)

is the date of shipment from Minasligas' plant. See exhibit VII-1 of

Minasligas' November 1, 1993 submission.

Comment 15

Petitioners argue that the Department used an incorrect exchange

rate in the currency conversion for Minasligas' warehousing expenses.

In its final results margin calculation, the Department, petitioners

allege, used the exchange rate of the date of shipment from the

Brazilian port. Petitioners argue that the Department's practice in

hyperinflationary economies is to convert U.S. movement expenses using

the exchange rate on the date such expenses were incurred, or, in the

absence of such information, on the date on which the respondent

shipped the merchandise from its plant. Here, petitioners argue, the

record contains no information on when Minasligas incurred the

warehousing expenses. Thus, petitioners argue, the Department should

have used the exchange rate on the date of shipment from Minasligas'

plant in converting warehousing expenses, rather than the exchange rate

of the date of shipment from the Brazilian port.

Minasligas argues that the Department's use of the exchange rate

for the date of shipment from the port is not a clerical error, and is

supported by substantial evidence on the record. It argues that

although the record does not indicate when Minasligas paid the

warehousing expenses, it does indicate that the expenses were incurred

at the port prior to loading on the ship. Accordingly, it was proper,

Minasligas argues, for the Department to use the exchange rate for the

month of shipment from the port as being the closest in time to the

date on which Minasligas incurred the warehousing expenses.

Department's Position

We agree with Minasligas. For the final results we intended to use

the exchange rate of the date of shipment from the port. Where the

record does not contain the actual dates of payment for export sale

movement expenses, and where the Department did not specifically

solicit the information, it is reasonable to use the date of shipment

from the port in making the currency conversion because it is the

closest date on record to the date on which the expenses were incurred.

Therefore, in these amended final results of review, we have continued

to use the exchange rate of the date of shipment in making currency

conversions. This is the same methodology we applied in a similar

situation in the final results of the third administrative review of

this order. See Third Review Final Results at 1962.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we have determined that the following

margins exist for the period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993:

[[Page 47446]]

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

Weighted-

average

Producer/manufacturer/exporter margin

(percent)

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

CBCC....................................................... 18.71

Minasligas................................................. 0.00

Eletrosilex................................................ 25.46

RIMA....................................................... 31.60

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

The Department shall determine, and the U. S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective

upon publication of this notice of amended final results of 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)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies named above will be the rates

published in the final results of review for the antidumping duty order

on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 1994 through June

30, 1995 (see Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part 62

FR 1970 (January 14, 1997) (Fourth Review Final Results); (2) for

previously investigated or reviewed 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 these reviews, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigations, 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 these reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue

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

investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 56 FR 26977 (June 12, 1991).

This notice serves as a final 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 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 section 353.34(d) of the Department's

regulations. Timely 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.

These amended final results of review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and

section 353.28(c) of the Department's regulations.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-23853 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P