Amended Order and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon From Brazil

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-820]

Amended Order and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Ferrosilicon From Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amendment to Final Determination of Antidumping Duty

[[Page 40098]]

Investigation in Accordance with Decision upon Remand.

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

SUMMARY: On July 20, 1995, the United States Court of International

Trade (the CIT) remanded to the Department of Commerce (the Department)

the final determination and the amended final determination in the

antidumping duty investigation of ferrosilicon from Brazil. See Aimcor

et al. v. United States et al., Slip Op. 95-130 (CIT July 20, 1995). On

January 17, 1996, the Department filed its results of redetermination

pursuant to the CIT's order, and on May 21, 1996, the CIT affirmed the

Final Remand Determination. That decision was appealed. The petitioner

cross-appealed. On April 9, 1998, the CAFC affirmed the decision of the

CIT. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this

action, we will instruct the Customs Service to collect a cash deposit

of 42.17 percent for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this

notice, from ``all other'' manufacturers, producers or exporters. The

cash deposit rates calculated for CBCC and Minasligas as a result of

the remand have been superseded by subsequent administrative reviews

for these companies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or David J. Goldberger,

Office 5, 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) 482-4929 or (202) 482-4136, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions in effect

as of December 31, 1994. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations

codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (1994).

Background

On January 6, 1994, the Department published in the Federal

Register the Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value:

Ferrosilicon from Brazil (59 FR 732) (Final Determination). On February

23, 1994, the Department published the Amended Final Determination of

Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value: Ferrosilicon from Brazil (59 FR 8598)

(Amended Final Determination). Subsequently, AIMCOR and Minasligas

filed lawsuits with the CIT, challenging the Department's final

determination and amended final determination.

On July 20, 1995, the CIT remanded to the Department the Final

Determination and Amended Final Determination. See Aimcor, Alabama

Silicon, Inc., American Alloys, Inc., Globe Metallurgical, Inc., and

American Silicon Technologies v. United States and Companhia Ferroligas

Minas Gerais-Minasligas, Slip Op. 95-130 (CIT July 20, 1995). In its

remand instructions, the CIT upheld the Department's reduction of home

market price by the inflation premium (we determined that the home

market price erroneously included an adjustment for anticipated

inflation that did not permit a contemporaneous comparison of the home

market price at the time of shipment to the replacement cost in the

month of shipment) but directed the Department to determine if the

amount of the ``spread'' (the difference between the interest rate and

the inflation rate) was sufficiently quantified and, if so, to account

for this amount in the home market price. If this data was not found to

be sufficiently quantified, the Department was to grant Minasligas an

opportunity to provide such data. We determined that the spread

reported by Minasligas was not the most appropriate measure of

inflation in this case. We used the monthly Wholesale Price Index

because it more closely reflected the price increases experienced by

the producer due to inflation. Second, the CIT stated that the

Department must reconsider its profit calculation in CV because in this

hyperinflationary situation, the Department calculated profit based

upon an imputed home market credit expense that may be totally

unrelated to an appropriate CV. The Court further stated that the

Department must explain the rationale for whatever methodology it chose

to apply. We recalculated profit after using the weighted average of

home market spreads as imputed credit for CV because the spreads most

accurately reflect the real interest rate charged to customers during

the payment period. Third, the CIT instructed the Department to apply a

U.S. dollar-denominated interest rate in calculating Minasligas'

imputed U.S. credit expenses. We determined that the company's only

evidence of U.S. borrowing is an aircraft lease and, therefore, the

only evidence of what credit terms this company would encounter when

borrowing in U.S. dollars. Accordingly, for purposes of imputed credit

expenses, we used the interest rate on the aircraft lease. Fourth, the

CIT directed the Department to request from Minasligas data on the

appropriate monetary correction for loans, and if that data was

inadequate or not provided, to reconsider our selection of best

information available. Also, we were to reconsider whether the

Department's interest expense adjustment and the selection, if any, of

an adjustment for monetary correction for loans understated Minasligas'

interest expenses included in COP and CV. We recalculated the net

interest expense ratio for the combined companies (Delp and Minasligas)

based on the actual interest expense incurred consistent with our

normal methodology. We restated the cost of sales used in the

denominator of the net interest expense ratio by using the wholesale

price inflation index. We applied the actual interest expense ratio to

the replacement cost of manufacturing for each month of the period of

investigation. Fifth, the CIT directed the Department to determine

whether Minasligas' value-added taxes on the inputs at issue were fully

recovered prior to exportation of the subject merchandise. On September

13, 1995, the CIT determined that the fifth issue also pertained to

CBCC. The parties were unable to submit data to enable us to determine

whether the taxes paid on inputs for any specific sale were recovered.

Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the taxes

were fully recovered and we considered them a cost and included them in

the cost of production.

On January 17, 1996, the Department filed its results of

redetermination pursuant to the CIT's remand. As a result of the

redetermination upon remand, the dumping margin for Minasligas changed

from 3.46 percent to 19.73 percent, the dumping margin for CBCC changed

from 15.53 to 17.93 percent, and the All Others rate changed from 35.95

to 42.17 percent. On May 21, 1996, the CIT affirmed the Department's

results of the remand redetermination. See AIMCOR v. United States,

Slip Op. 96-79 (CIT May 21, 1996). That decision was appealed by both

AIMCOR and Minasligas. Specifically, Minasligas challenged the

inclusion of Brazilian value-added taxes as part of the cost of

materials in determining CV. AIMCOR cross-appealed, challenging the

interest rate used by the Department to calculate Minasligas' U.S.

credit expenses. On April 9, 1998, the CAFC affirmed the decision of

the CIT. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this

action, we are amending our

[[Page 40099]]

amended final determination in this matter.

Amended Final Determination

Pursuant to section 19 U.S.C. 1516A(e) of the Act, we are now

amending the amended final determination on the antidumping duty order

on ferrosilicon from Brazil. As a result of the remand redetermination,

the recalculated final weighted-average margins are as follows:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Customers ID No. percentage

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

CBCC............................. A-351-820-001 17.93

Minasligas....................... A-351-820-003 19.73

All Others....................... A-351-820-000 42.17

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

Assessment Instructions

On January 19, 1996, the Court granted an injunction preventing

liquidation of entries made on or after August 16, 1993, at the less-

than-fair-value (LTFV) or amended LTFV cash deposit rates for CBCC,

Minasligas, as well as ``all others'' (except Italmagnesio S.A.

Industria e Comercia, which was not covered by the injunction), and

required that any unreviewed entries be liquidated at the rates

determined in the litigation. We will, therefore, instruct Customs to

liquidate unreviewed entries of Minasligas, CBCC and ``all others,''

which were entered at the LTFV cash deposit rates, at the rates listed

above.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

section 736(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4)(1994).

Dated: July 17, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-20013 Filed 7-24-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P