Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-820]

Ferrosilicon 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: On August 14, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the

final results of the second administrative review of the antidumping

duty order or ferrosilicon from Brazil. The review covered Companhia

Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas and Companhia Brasileria Carbureto

de Calcio manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the

United States. The period of review is March 1, 1995 through February

29, 1996. Interested parties submitted ministerial error allegations

with respect to the final results of administrative review for

Minasligas on August 20, 1997. Based on the correction of certain

ministerial errors made in the final results of review, we are amending

our final results of review with respect to Minasligas and the All

Others rate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sal Tauhidi or Irene Darzenta, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Import Administration, International Trade

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

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

4851 or (202) 482-6320, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department of Commerce (the Department) has now amended the

final results of this administrative review in accordance with section

751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Act are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to

the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are

to the regulations set forth at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1996).

Background

On August 14, 1997, the Department published the final results of

the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order or

ferrosilcon from Brazil (62 FR 43504), covering the period March 1,

1995 through February 29, 1996. The respondents are Companhia

Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas (Minasligas) and Companhia

Brasileria Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC). The petitioners are Aimcor and

SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc.

On August 20, 1997, the petitioners and Minasligas filed

allegations that the Department had made certain ministerial errors in

this administrative review with respect to Minasligas. Specifically,

the petitioners alleged three ministerial errors with respect to the

following issues: (1) the use of Brazilian reais-denominated gross unit

prices instead of U.S. dollar-denominated gross unit prices for U.S.

sales; (2) the treatment of marine insurance expenses for certain U.S.

sales; and (3) the date of sale for one U.S. sale. Minasligas alleged

two ministerial errors with respect to the following issues: (1) the

adjustment to U.S. price for insurance revenue applicable to one U.S.

sale; and (2) the treatment of value-added taxes (VAT) on U.S. sales.

On August 27, 1997, both parties submitted comments on these

allegations. For a complete discussion of the allegations, see the

Department's October 6, 1997, Decision Memorandum Re: Alleged

Ministerial Errors in the Calculation of the Final Antidumping Duty

Margin for Companhia Ferroligas Minas-Gerais-Minasligas.

As discussed below, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have

determined that certain ministerial errors were made in our margin

calculations for Minasligas. In addition, the Department also

determined that a clerical error was made regarding the

[[Page 54086]]

``All Others'' rate as stated in the notice of the final results.

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 ferrosilcon 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. Although 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.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

Issue 1: The Use of Brazilian Reais-denominated Gross Unit Prices

Instead of U.S. Dollar-denominated Gross Unit Prices for U.S. Sales

The petitioners contend that because the Department believed that

Minasligas' U.S. dollar prices were not on the record, it used

Brazilian reais-denominated gross unit prices instead of U.S. dollar-

denominated gross unit prices for U.S. sales in its margin analysis.

The Department thus mistakenly converted the U.S. sales prices reported

in Brazilian currency to U.S. dollars on the date of sale. However, the

petitioners assert that in Exhibit 6 of Minasligas' October 11, 1996

supplemental response, Minasligas reported the gross unit prices for

its U.S. sales in U.S. dollars. The petitioners argue that the

Department should have used the U.S. dollar-denominated gross unit

prices for Minasligas' U.S. sales, as reported in Exhibit 6 of

Minasligas' October 11, 1996 supplemental response, instead of the

Brazilian reais-denominated gross unit prices in its margin analysis.

Minasligas contends that because the Department was able to verify

the accuracy of the Brazilian reais-denominated prices by examining

relevant commercial invoices for selected U.S. sales at verification,

it should reject petitioners' request to use the U.S. dollar-

denominated gross unit prices reported in Exhibit 6. In this respect,

Minasligas argues that the Department did not make a clerical error but

applied an appropriate methodology.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioners. In the final results of review, the

Department mistakenly concluded that Minasligas' U.S. dollar-

denominated gross unit prices for U.S. sales were not on the record

and, therefore, used the Brazilian reais-denominated U.S. prices in its

final margin analysis. Upon further review of the record, we find that

Minasligas reported U.S. dollar-denominated prices in Exhibit 6 of its

October 11, 1996 supplemental response and that these prices were

consistent with sales documentation obtained at verification. Thus, we

inadvertently omitted the U.S. dollar-denominated price data contained

in Exhibit 6 from our original final margin analysis. For complete

discussion and analysis see the Department's October 6, 1997, Decision

Memorandum Re: Alleged Ministerial Errors in the Calculation of the

Final Antidumping Duty Margin for Companhia Ferroligas Minas-Gerais-

Minasligas. Therefore, for these amended final results, we have used

the U.S. dollar-denominated gross unit prices for U.S. sales as

reported in Exhibit 6 of Minasligas' October 11, 1996 supplemental

response.

Issue 2: Clerical Error Allegations Regarding the Treatment of Marine

Insurance Expenses for Certain U.S. Sales, the Date of Sale for One

U.S. Sale, and the Adjustment to U.S. Price for Insurance Revenue

Applicable to One U.S. Sale

The petitioners and Minasligas contend that the Department failed

to correctly input certain data for certain U.S. sales in its final

margin calculations. Specifically, the petitioners contend that the

Department made input errors with respect to marine insurance expenses

for certain U.S. sales and the date of sale for one U.S. sale.

Minasligas contends that the Department made an input error with

respect to the adjustment to U.S. price for insurance revenue

applicable to one U.S. sale.

DOC Position

We agree with both the petitioners and Minasligas' allegations and

have corrected these clerical errors. For complete discussion and

analysis, see the Department's October 6, 1997, Decision Memorandum Re:

Alleged Ministerial Errors in the Calculation of the Final Antidumping

Duty Margin for Companhia Ferroligas Minas-Gerais-Minasligas.

Issue 3: Value-added Taxes Collected on U.S. Sales

Minasligas asserts that the Department stated in its final results

that Minasligas was unable to substantiate its claim that VAT charges

are passed along to U.S. customers and are included in the reported

U.S. prices. Minasligas maintains that for purposes of making price-to-

price comparisons, however, the Department treated VAT on U.S. export

sales as if it had been passed along to U.S. customers and included it

in the U.S. price. According to Minasligas, there is a contradiction

between the Department's finding of fact (i.e., that Minasligas was

unable to substantiate its claim that VAT charges are passed along to

U.S. customers and are included in the reported prices) and the

Department's calculation methodology. Minasligas maintains that if the

Department's finding of fact is correct, it was a mistake to deduct VAT

from the U.S. price or to account for it

[[Page 54087]]

in price-to-price comparisons. However, if the Department's finding of

fact is not correct, Minasligas maintains that it is the Department's

practice to calculate U.S. imputed credit expenses based on a U.S.

price exclusive of VAT.

The petitioners contend that the Department did not subtract VAT

taxes on U.S. sales from the U.S. price. Instead, petitioners argue

that the Department determined the difference between the weighted-

average per unit VAT taxes collected on home market sales and the per-

unit VAT taxes owed by Minasligas on each U.S. sale, and then

subtracted this difference from normal value (NV) which included VAT

taxes collected on home market sales, in accordance with its normal

practice.

Department's Position

We agree with Minasligas that this adjustment was inappropriate.

For complete discussion and analysis, see the Department's October 6,

1997, Decision Memorandum Re: Alleged Ministerial Errors in the

Calculation of the Final Antidumping Duty Margin for Companhia

Ferroligas Minas-Gerais-Minasligas. Therefore, for these amended final

results, we have not made an adjustment to NV for VAT on U.S. sales.

Issue 4: All Others Rate

The Department erroneously reported an ``All Others Rate'' of 91.06

percent in the notice of final results. The correct ``All Others Rate''

is 35.95 percent. (See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value (LTFV): Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 59 FR 8599, February

23, 1995.) Thus, we are amending the final results to replace the

incorrect rate of 91.06 percent with the correct rate of 35.95 percent.

Amended Final Results

As a result of our correction of the ministerial errors for

Minasligas, we have determined the following amended margin exists for

Minasligas for the period covering March 1, 1995 through February 29,

1996:

Amended

Weighted-

Manufacturer/Exporter Average

Margin

(percent)

Minasligas................................................. 2.54

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

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly

to the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be

effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication

date of these amended final results of administrative review, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate

for the reviewed company named above will be the rate as stated above;

(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 this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for

the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)

if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this

review, the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters

will be 35.95 percent, the All Others rate established in the amended

final LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice services as the final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

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

return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with

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

These amended final results of administrative review and notice are

in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR 353.28(c)).

Dated: October 10, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-27631 Filed 10-14-97; 3:02 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M