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 November 22, 1996, the Department of Commerce published the

final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on ferrosilicon from Brazil. The review covered Companhia de

Ferro Ligas da Bahia, a manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States. The period of review is August 15,

1993 through February 28, 1995. The respondent and the petitioners

filed ministerial error comments with regard to these final results of

review on November 25, and November 26, 1996, respectively.

Subsequently, both parties filed suit with the Court of International

Trade regarding these final results of review. On August 18, 1997, the

Court on International Trade consolidated the court cases and gave

leave to the Department of Commerce to consider certain alleged

ministerial errors, and where appropriate, make corrections. Based on

the correction of certain ministerial errors made in the final results

of review, we are amending our final results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Werker or Wendy J. Frankel,

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-

3874 or (202) 482-5849, 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 Tariff Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department's regulations are to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR

353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

On November 22, 1996, the Department published the final results of

the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

ferrosilicon from Brazil (61 FR 59407), covering the period August 15,

1993 through February 28, 1995. The respondent is Companhia de Ferro

Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa). The petitioners are Aimcor and SKW Metals &

Alloys Inc.

On November 25, and November 26, 1996, respectively, Ferbasa and

the petitioners filed allegations that the Department made certain

ministerial errors in the final results of administrative review.

Subsequently, both parties filed suit with the Court of International

Trade (CIT) regarding the final results of review. On August 18, 1997,

the CIT consolidated the court cases and gave leave to the Department

to consider certain alleged ministerial errors, and where appropriate,

make corrections.

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

determined that the issues raised in the order from the CIT are

ministerial errors. On December 17, 1997, the Department released draft

amended final results of review to Ferbasa and to petitioners. On

January 7, 1998, Ferbasa submitted comments regarding the draft final

results of review. The petitioners did not submit comments.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

Issue 1: Ferbasa argues that the Department erroneously added to

constructed value (CV) an amount calculated for ICMS and IPI taxes

related to home market sales prices rather than materials costs.

Department's Position: We agree with Ferbasa. In our calculation of

CV for the final results of review, we inadvertently used the tax

amounts reported for home market sales. For these amended final results

we have used the amounts provided by Ferbasa in Exhibit D-16 of its

March 27, 1996, supplemental submission, which reflect the amount of

ICMS and IPI taxes incurred for material inputs used in the production

of ferrosilicon.

Issue 2: Ferbasa asserts that in calculating it's home market

indirect selling expenses, the Department erroneously used the

originally reported indirect selling expense figures rather than the

corrected values reported in Exhibit D-20 of it's March 27, 1996,

supplemental submission.

Department's Position: We agree with Ferbasa that we inadvertently

used the incorrect indirect selling expenses provided in Ferbasa's

original submission. For these amended final results, we have used the

corrected values reported by Ferbasa in Exhibit D-20 of its March 27,

1996, supplemental submission.

Issue 3: The petitioners argue that for the final results of

review, the Department failed to express the final dumping margin as a

percentage in the computer calculations, thereby understating the

margin by a factor of 100.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. For these

amended final results, we have formatted the calculation spreadsheet to

express the margin as a percentage.

Issue 4: The petitioners state that in calculating CV, the

Department used only the cost of production (COP) values for December

1994, and therefore, normal value, which was based on CV, was not based

on a six-month weighted average CV as discussed in the Department's

final results of review Federal Register notice.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that in our

calculation of normal value, we inadvertently failed to weight average

the six months of costs for the subject merchandise. We corrected this

error for the amended final results of review.

Issue 5: The petitioners allege that when converting normal value

from

[[Page 2363]]

reais to U.S. dollars, the Department incorrectly divided the reais

amount by the exchange rate.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The exchange

rate that the Department used was 1.182033 U.S. dollars = 1 real.

Therefore, when converting reais to U.S. dollars, we should have

multiplied the reais amount by 1.182033. We have corrected this

calculation for these amended final results of review.

Issue 6: The petitioners allege that the Department made the same

conversion error, noted in Issue 5 above, with regard to U.S. packing

expenses.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have

corrected this error for these amended final results of review.

Issue 7: The petitioners contend that in calculating adjustments to

CV the Department subtracted home market packing expenses from a CV

that did not include those expenses.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners, and have

eliminated this adjustment from the weighted-average margin calculation

for these amended final results of review.

Issue 8: The petitioners note that although the Department's final

results of review analysis memorandum states that the Department

calculated the ratio of net profit to cost of goods sold based on

information from Ferbasa's financial statements, it appears that the

Department actually calculated a ratio of net profit to net sales

value, thereby understating the profit ratio.

Ferbasa contends that in the draft amended final results of review,

the Department calculated the profit ratio using profit and cost of

manufacturing rather than profit and cost of goods sold. Ferbasa

further contends that the Department should apply the profit rate to a

pre-profit CV that does not include amounts for ICMS and IPI taxes

since the profit ratio is calculated based on a cost of goods sold

amount that is net of the ICMS and IPI taxes.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that in our

final results of review we inadvertently calculated a ratio of profit

to net sales value. We also agree with Ferbasa that for the draft

amended final results of review, we inadvertently used the cost of

manufacturing rather than the cost of goods sold in our profit rate

calculation. For these amended final results, we have corrected the

profit calculation to reflect a ratio of net profit to cost of goods

sold. However, there is no information on the record to substantiate

Ferbasa's claim that the cost of goods sold figure is calculated net of

ICMS and IPI taxes. Therefore, we are not changing the pre-profit CV in

our calculations to exclude these taxes.

Issue 9: The petitioners argue that the Department's final results

of review analysis memorandum states that the Department applied an 18

percent facts available (FA) rate for ICMS taxes incurred by Ferbasa on

electricity costs. Petitioners note, however, that in the calculations,

the Department applied as FA for ICMS taxes on electricity an actual

figure that was less than 18 percent of Ferbasa's electricity cost.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have

corrected this error for these amended final results of review.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our correction of the ministerial errors, we have

determined that the amended weighted-average margin for Ferbasa for the

period August 15, 1993 through February 28, 1995 is 30.69 percent.

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 final amended results of administrative review, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The amended 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 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 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 amended deposit requirements, when imposed, shall

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

administrative review.

Assessment Rates

For assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-specific

assessment rate. For the export price (EP) sale, we divided the total

dumping margin (calculated as the difference between normal value and

EP) by the total entered value of the merchandise. Upon completion of

this review, we will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the

resulting ad valorem rate against the entered value of each entry of

the subject merchandise by the importer during the period of review.

This notice also serves 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 the

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

These amended final results of administrative review and notice are

in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and (h) of the Tariff Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and (h) and 19 CFR 353.28.

Dated: January 12, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-1158 Filed 1-14-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P