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 January 14, 1997, of the

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

correction of ministerial errors in those final results. These amended

final results are for the review covering the period July 1, 1993

through June 30, 1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 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 third

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal

from Brazil on January 14, 1997 (62 FR 1954) (Third Review Final

Results), covering the period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994. The

respondents are Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC),

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

Belo Horizonte (Eletrosilex), Rima Industrial S.A. (RIMA), and Camargo

Correa Metais (CCM). The petitioners are American Alloys, Inc., Elken

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

Alloys.

On February 12, 1997, the petitioners filed clerical error

allegations with respect to CCM and Minasligas. The same day we

received clerical error allegations from respondent CCM. On February

18, 1997, we received rebuttal comments from the petitioners regarding

CCM's clerical error allegations. Pursuant to the CIT's order, we are

now addressing the ministerial allegations and amending our final

results of the third review. See American Silicon Technologies et al.,

v. United States, Slip Op. 97-114, August 18, 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. Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive

as to the scope of product coverage.

Clerical Error Allegations

Comment 1

CCM argues that the Department erred in its calculation of its U.S.

imputed credit expenses in three ways. First, it argues that the

Department should have

[[Page 54095]]

used CCM's ``actual credit'' expense, rather than an imputed figure.

(The ``actual credit expense'' figure reported by CCM reflects the

actual interest charged on its export credit line for its U.S.

shipment.) CCM argues that this ``actual credit expense'' amount is the

most accurate, transaction-specific measure of CCM's interest expense

in connection with its U.S. sale. Second, CCM argues that if the

Department continues to believe that it should use an imputed credit

figure, it should use CCM's bill of lading date as the start of the

credit period, rather than the date of shipment from CCM's factory. It

bases this argument on the fact that title transfers from CCM to the

U.S. purchaser on the bill of lading date. Thus, CCM argues, the credit

period should begin on the bill of lading date because a credit expense

cannot be incurred until CCM is no longer in possession of the

merchandise. Third, CCM argues that the Department erred in its

calculation of credit by not removing from the U.S. price the value of

the ICMS tax (a value-added tax (VAT)) that the Brazilian government

assessed on the sale. Doing so was an error, CCM argues, because in its

response to comment 10 of the final results the Department stated that

its practice ``is to calculate imputed credit exclusive of VAT.'' See

Third Review Final Results at 1961.

Petitioners argue that the Department made no clerical error in

calculating an imputed figure for CCM's credit expenses or in using the

date of shipment from CCM's plant as the start of the credit period.

They argue that the Department specifically addressed these issues in

the final results of review when it stated:

We disagree with CCM that we should use its reported ``actual

expense'' for U.S. credit. The Department requires that the credit

expenses reflect the opportunity cost of the entire period between

shipment from the plant and payment by the customer. That is not the

case for CCM's reported ``actual expense.'' The actual expense

covers only a portion of the imputed credit expense period.

Therefore, in these final results of review we have calculated

imputed credit using the shipment date from CCM's plant as given in

verification exhibit 11.

See Third Review Final Results at 1962.

Department's Position: We agree with both parties in part. We agree

with petitioners that we did specifically address CCM's first two

contentions in our final results of review. Thus, calculating an

imputed credit figure and using the date of shipment from CCM's plant

as the start of the credit period did not constitute clerical errors.

However, we do agree with CCM that in the calculation of U.S. imputed

credit we inadvertently included the ICMS tax assessed on the sale. We

have corrected this error in these amended final results.

Comment 2

Petitioners argue that the Department made a ministerial error in

the cost test for CCM. It states that the Department made a number of

changes to CCM's reported costs, and that when it made these changes it

gave the revised costs the variable name COP. However, when the

Department performed the cost test, petitioners argue, it used the

variable TOTCOP, which represents CCM's reported costs without any of

the intended changes.

Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in

these amended final results of review.

Comment 3

Petitioners argue the Department made a clerical error in its

calculation of Minasligas' G&A expenses. It argues that the Department

incorrectly transcribed the G&A expenses for one month of the period of

review (POR).

Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in

these amended final results of review.

Comment 4

Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in

converting Minasligas' brokerage, foreign inland freight, and

warehousing expenses from Brazilian cruzeiros reais into U.S. dollars.

They argue that the Department should have used the exchange rates of

the dates of shipment for these expenses, rather than the exchange

rates of the dates of sale.

Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in

these amended final results of review.

In addition to the changes made in response to the above comments,

we have corrected an error in our calculations for all respondents with

calculated margins. In our final results, we calculated G&A and

interest expenses for the computation of COP/CV using a COM figure

inclusive of VAT. In these amended final results we have calculated G&A

and interest expenses using a COM figure exclusive of VAT. See our

amended final results analysis memoranda for our revised calculations.

Amended Final Results of Review

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

margins exist for the period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994:

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

Weighted-

average

Producer/manufacturer/exporter margin

(percent)

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

CBCC....................................................... 61.58

CCM........................................................ 35.23

Eletrosilex................................................ 38.39

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

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

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

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 amended final results of review for the antidumping

duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 1994

through June 30, 1995, published concurrently with this notice; (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)

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 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

[[Page 54096]]

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: October 10, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-27633 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P