Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results, Intent To Revoke in Part, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Extension of Time Limits.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results, Intent To Revoke

in Part, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,

and Extension of Time Limits.

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results, intent to revoke in part,

partial rescission of antidumping duty administrative review, and

extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by American Silicon Technologies,

Elkem Metals Company, and Globe Metallurgical, Inc. (petitioners), and

by Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio (CBCC), Ligas de Aluminio

S.A. (LIASA), and RIMA Industrial S/A (RIMA), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. The period of

review (POR) is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.

We preliminarily determine that one respondent (Eletrosilex S.A.

(Eletrosilex)) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV)

during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final

results of administrative review, we will instruct Customs to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested

parties to comment on the preliminary results. Parties who submit

comments in this proceeding should also submit with the argument: (1) A

statement of the issue(s), and (2) a brief summary of the argument (not

to exceed five pages).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor (RIMA), telephone: (202)

482-5831; Jack Dulberger (Eletrosilex), 482-5505; Mark Manning (LIASA),

482-3936, Zev Primor (CBCC), 482-4114; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office Four,

Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (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 (URAA). In addition, unless

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

to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).

Background

On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register

the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil (56 FR 36135).

On July 1, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register a

notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July

1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 (63 FR 35909). On July 29, 1998, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), LIASA and RIMA requested that the

Department conduct an administrative review of their respective sales.

On July 30, 1998, CBCC requested that the Department conduct an

administrative review of its sales and revoke the order with respect to

CBCC pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e). On July 31, 1998, petitioners

requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales

made by CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA, Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--

Minasligas (Minasligas), and RIMA. On August 27, 1998, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), the Department published in the Federal

Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative

review (63 FR 45796). On September 18, 1998, the Department issued the

antidumping administrative review questionnaire (antidumping

questionnaire) to the respondents. The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

The Department received questionnaire responses in October,

November, and December 1998. We issued supplemental questionnaires to

the parties in April, May, and June 1999, and received responses to

these supplemental questionnaires in April, May, June, and July 1999.

Extension of Time Limits

On February 9, 1999 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice

extending the deadline for the preliminary results until July 31, 1999

(64 FR 6325).

Additionally, because it is not practicable to complete the final

results of this review within the initial time limit established by the

URAA (120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are

published), in

[[Page 43162]]

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is

extending the time limit for completion of the final results until 180

days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. See

the Memorandum from Bernard T. Carreau to Robert S. LaRussa, dated

August 2, 1999, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in

room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this administrative 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 administrative review

is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent

silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum 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 2804.69.50 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. Although the HTS

item numbers are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs

purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.

Verification

Following the publication of these preliminary results, we plan to

verify, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, sales and cost

information submitted by CBCC. At that verification, we will use

standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the

manufacture's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and the selection of original source documentation

containing relevant information. We plan to prepare a verification

report outlining our verification results and place this report on file

in the CRU.

Partial Rescission: Minasligas

Minasligas claimed to have made no shipments of silicon metal from

Brazil to the United States during the POR. As a result of our analysis

of factual information submitted to us during the course of this

review, we have determined that Minasligas made no shipments of silicon

metal from Brazil to the United States during the POR. We confirmed

with the United States Customs Service (Customs) that Minasligas did

not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we

are rescinding the review with respect to Minasligas.

Intent To Revoke

On July 30, 1998, CBCC submitted a request, in accordance with 19

CFR 351.222(e), that the Department revoke the order covering silicon

metal from Brazil with respect to its sales of this merchandise. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), the request was accompanied by

certifications from CBCC that for a consecutive three-year period,

including this review period, it had sold the subject merchandise in

commercial quantities at not less than normal value (NV), and would not

do so in the future. CBCC also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in

the relevant antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the

order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that,

subsequent to revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than

NV.

On January 28, 1999, the Department requested additional

information from CBCC and interested parties regarding CBCC's

revocation request. We received comments from CBCC and from petitioners

in June 1999.

The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1) require, inter

alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit the following:

(1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise

at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company

will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that

the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities

during each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and

(3) an agreement to reinstatement of the order if the Department

concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject

merchandise at less than NV. Upon receipt of such a request, the

Department may revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the

company in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV

for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not likely

that the company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at

less than NV; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate

reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes that the

company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less

than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).

Petitioners do not challenge CBCC's fulfilment of the certification

requirements. However, petitioners oppose CBCC's claims that it sold

silicon metal in the United States in commercial quantities during the

last three PORs and that it is not likely to sell its merchandise in

the future at less than NV.

In determining whether the three years of no dumping are a

sufficient basis to make a revocation determination, the Department

must be able to determine that the company has continued to participate

meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at

issue. See Pure Magnesium from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 64

FR 12977 (March 16, 1999) (Pure Magnesium from Canada). This practice

is codified at 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1), which states that, ``before

revoking an order or terminating a suspended investigation, the

Secretary must be satisfied that, during each of the three (or five)

years, there were exports to the United States in commercial quantities

of the subject merchandise to which a revocation or termination will

apply.'' For purposes of revocation, the Department must be able to

determine that past margins are reflective of a company's normal

commercial activity. Sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are

an abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for

determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to

offset dumping.

After review of the record, in the present case, the Department has

preliminarily found that CBCC has had zero or de minimis dumping

margins for four consecutive reviews. Although in one of the four years

the sales were not as extensive as in the other three years, we note

that sales in the remaining three years were all made in commercial

quantities. Furthermore, CBCC shipped progressively more silicon metal

to the United States in each of those three years (i.e., these three

years represent, respectively, approximately 30, 45, and 70 percent in

comparison with the quantity shipped during the period of

investigation). Moreover, while increasing its sales volume, CBCC

maintained zero or de minimis margins despite the fact that the last

three years were marked with depressed prices and global oversupply of

silicon metal. CBCC has also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in

the order if we conclude, subsequent to the revocation, that CBCC has

sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.

[[Page 43163]]

Based on its four consecutive years of zero or de minimis margins,

three of which had exports to the United States in significant

commercial quantities, CBCC's reinstatement agreement, and the absence

of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that it is not likely that

CBCC will sell subject merchandise in the United States at less than

normal value. Consequently, as a result of our analysis of factual

information submitted to us during the course of this review, we have

preliminarily determined to revoke this order with respect to CBCC.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of silicon metal by the Brazilian

respondents to the United States were made at less than normal value,

we compared export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export

Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP

transactions.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all

products produced by the respondents, covered by the description in the

``Scope of Review'' section, above, to be foreign like products for

purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Further, based on comments submitted by the respondents and petitioners

in this segment of the proceeding, we have preliminarily determined all

silicon metal meeting the description of the merchandise under the

``Scope of Review'' section, above (with the exception of slag and

contaminated products) to be identical products for purposes of model-

matching. Therefore, where there were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of the

product sold in the U.S. market during the comparison period.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at

the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP transaction. The NV LOT is that

of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is

based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general

and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S.

LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from

the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales,

we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along

the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated

customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and

the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern

of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based

and the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home

and U.S. markets for each respondent, we examined whether the

respondent's sales involved different marketing stages (or their

equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories,

and selling functions (or services offered) to each customer or

customer category, in both markets.

CBCC reported sales through one LOT, consisting of three customer

categories (i.e., original equipment manufacturers, distributors and

silicon metal producers) which also represent three channels of

distribution for its home market sales. CBCC reported only EP sales in

the U.S. market. For EP sales, CBCC reported one customer category and

one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to an unaffiliated

trading company, for sale to the U.S. market). CBCC claimed in its

response that EP sales were made at the same LOT as home market sales

to unaffiliated customers. For this reason, CBCC has not asked for a

LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.

In analyzing CBCC's selling activities for the home and U.S.

market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided

for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal

in nature and usually limited to arranging for freight, if requested by

the customer. No other services were rendered for either home market or

EP sales. Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily

determined that the LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the

home market. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home

market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for CBCC.

Rima reported sales through one channel of distribution to one

customer category (i.e., original equipment manufacturers) for home

market sales. In the U.S. market, Rima reported EP sales through one

channel of distribution to one customer category (i.e., end users). In

its response, Rima stated that it performs the same type of services

for home market customers as it does for its foreign market customers.

For this reason, Rima has not requested a LOT adjustment.

In analyzing Rima's selling activities for the home and U.S.

market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided

for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal

in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. Therefore,

based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that the

LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market.

Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be

at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the

Act is warranted for CBCC.

Eletrosilex reported sales through one LOT consisting of two

customer categories (i.e., original equipment manufacturers and

retailers) which represent one channel of distribution for its home

market sales. Eletrosilex reported only EP sales in the U.S. market.

For EP sales, Eletrosilex reported one customer category and one

channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to original equipment

manufacturers). Eletrosilex claimed in its response that its U.S. and

home market sales were made at the same LOT. For this reason,

Eletrosilex has not asked for a LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to

its EP sales.

In analyzing Eletrosilex's selling activities for the home and U.S.

market, we determined that essentially the same services were provided

for both markets. These selling activities in both markets were minimal

in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. No other

services were rendered for either home market or EP sales. Therefore,

based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that the

LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market.

Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be

at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the

Act is warranted for Eletrosilex.

LIASA reported one customer category (i.e., ``end-user'') and one

channel of distribution for its home market sales. LIASA reported only

EP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, LIASA reported one customer

category and one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to

unaffiliated ``end-users'' in the U.S. market). LIASA claimed in its

response that EP sales were made at the same LOT as home market sales

to

[[Page 43164]]

unaffiliated customers. For this reason, LIASA has not asked for a LOT

adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.

In analyzing LIASA's selling activities for its EP sales, we noted

that the sales involved basically the same selling functions associated

with the home market LOT described above. These selling activities in

both markets were minimal in nature and usually limited to arranging

for freight, if requested by the customer. No other services were

rendered for either home market or EP sales. Therefore, based upon this

information, we have preliminarily determined that the LOT for all EP

sales is the same as that in the home market. Accordingly, because we

find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for

LIASA.

Export Price

For CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA, and RIMA, we used the Department's EP

methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was sold by each producer outside the United States

directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior

to importation (or to unaffiliated trading companies for export to the

United States) and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. We made

deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance

with section 772(c) of the Act. Movement expenses included, where

appropriate, foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, and

international freight.

Normal Value

1. Viability

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of

sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV

(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like

product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.

sales), we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of

the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject

merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since

each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign

like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home

market provides a viable basis for calculating NV for each respondent.

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on

home market sales.

2. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

In the most recently completed review of this proceeding, we

disregarded home market sales found to be below the cost of production

for CBCC, Eletrosilex, LIASA and Rima. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product

under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have

been made at prices below the COP as provided by section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine

whether these respondents made home market sales during the POR at

prices below their COP.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a

product-specific COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts

for home market SG&A expenses, including interest expenses and packing

costs.

We relied on the home market and COP information submitted by each

respondent in its questionnaire responses, except for the following

company-specific adjustments described below.

Eletrosilex

We adjusted Eletrosilex's G&A by calculating on an annual basis a

ratio of its G&A expenses to its cost of goods sold.

We recalculated Eletrosilex's financial expense ratio. Eletrosilex

incorrectly applied certain offsets to its reported financial expense.

We denied the offsets in question and adjusted its financial expenses

accordingly. Thus, we recalculated Eletrosilex's financial expense

ratio using its financial expenses and the costs of goods sold as

reported on its most recent financial statements.

Rima

We adjusted Rima's reported G&A expense, financial expense and

depreciation. We recalculated Rima's G&A expense ratio using its G&A

expenses and annual cost of goods sold from its financial statements.

We recalculated Rima's financial expense ratio. Rima incorrectly

applied certain offsets to its reported financial expense. We denied

Rima's reported offsets and adjusted its financial expenses

accordingly. Thus, we recalculated Rima's financial expense ratio using

its financial expenses and costs of goods sold as reported on its most

recent financial statements.

Rima reported depreciation expenses based on a period of time

greater than the POR. Therefore, we recalculated Rima's depreciation

expenses based on expenses incurred during the POR.

B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

We compared the weighted-average, per-unit COP figures for the POR

to home market sale prices of the foreign like product, as required

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these

sales were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to

disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined

whether: (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in

substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which

permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and discounts.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a

respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we

did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we

determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial

quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a

given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we

determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities''

within an extended period of time in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to

POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at

prices which would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.

We found less than 20 percent of RIMA's and CBCC's home market

sales to be below cost. Therefore, we did not disregard any of their

home market sales from our analysis. However, we found that all of

Eletrosilex's home market sales and 20 percent or more of LIASA's home

market sales, within an extended period of time, were at prices below

the COP. We therefore disregarded LIASA's below-cost sales from our

analysis and used the remaining home market sales as the basis for

determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For

Eletrosilex, because there were

[[Page 43165]]

no sales of the foreign like product made at prices at or above cost in

the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act,

we used CV as the basis for NV. We calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. (See below.)

Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication in

producing the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, the profit incurred

and realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign

like product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the cost of materials,

fabrication, and SG&A expenses as reported in the CV portion of the

questionnaire response, adjusted as discussed in the ``Calculation of

COP'' section, above. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the

U.S. sales portion of the questionnaire responses. For selling

expenses, we used the average of the direct and indirect selling

expenses reported for HM sales, weighted by the total quantity of those

sales. We were unable to derive actual profit based on home market

sales for Eletrosilex because all of its home market sales were below

cost. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the

Act, we calculated profit for Eletrosilex by using the weighted average

profit realized by the other respondents in this review.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices

above the COP (i.e., sales by CBCC, LIASA and RIMA), we based the

respondents' NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was

first sold to unaffiliated parties for consumption in Brazil, in the

usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We based NV on

sales at the same level of trade as the EP sales. For level of trade,

please see the ``Level of Trade'' section above. In accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we made adjustments to home market price,

where appropriate for inland freight, brokerage and handling charges,

and rebates. To account for differences in circumstances of sale

between the home market and the United States, where appropriate, we

adjusted home market prices by deducting home market direct selling

expenses (including credit) and commissions and by adding an amount for

late payment fees earned on home market sales, and adding U.S. direct

selling expenses (including U.S. credit expenses and where appropriate,

less an amount for late payment fees earned on U.S. sales). Where

commissions were paid on home market sales and no commissions were paid

on U.S. sales, we increased NV by the lesser of either (1) the amount

of commission paid on the home market sales or (2) the indirect selling

expenses incurred on U.S. sales. In order to adjust for differences in

packing between the two markets, we deducted HM packing costs and added

U.S. packing costs, where appropriate, in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Where home market prices were reported

exclusive of value added taxes (VAT) we made no adjustment. However,

where home market prices were reported inclusive of VAT, we deducted

the VAT from the gross home market price.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

With respect to Eletrosilex, where we could not determine NV based

on home market sales because there were no contemporaneous home market

sales of the silicon metal made in the ordinary course of trade, we

compared U.S. prices to CV.

Where we compared EP to CV, we made circumstance-of-sale

adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market

direct selling expenses and adding the U.S. direct selling expenses, in

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 351.410(c) of

the Department's regulations.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency

conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the

official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See Change in Policy

Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996).

Use of Partial Fact Available

LIASA

Upon reviewing LIASA's response to the Department's questionnaire

in this review, we determined that LIASA reported a credit expense for

U.S. sales using Brazilian interest rates. LIASA stated in its

questionnaire response that it had no U.S. dollar borrowings during the

POR. Therefore, the Department recalculated LIASA's imputed credit

expense for U.S. sales using the facts available (FA). Pursuant to the

Department's practice, we recalculated LIASA's U.S. imputed credit

expenses using a weighted-average U.S. dollar short-term interest rate

from the Federal Reserve based on quarterly rates for the POR. See

Policy Bulletin, Number 98.2, February 23, 1998, regarding Imputed

Credit Expenses and Interest Rates.

We also noted that LIASA, in reporting foreign inland freight for

its U.S. sales, inappropriately converted this expense, which was

incurred in Reais, into U.S. dollars. In the exhibits to its

questionnaire response LIASA provided the actual Reais expense for only

one of its U.S. sales. As FA, we have applied the per-unit Reais

expense reported for that sale to all of LIASA's U.S. sales and

converted the expense to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate

from the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Rima

Upon reviewing Rima's response to the Department's antidumping

questionnaire in this review, we determined that Rima did not calculate

indirect selling expenses using the methodology requested by the

Department. Rima reported indirect selling expenses based on selling

expenses that were not specific to the sale of silicon metal. In

addition, Rima divided these selling expenses by quantity, as opposed

to the total sales value of silicon metal sold in either the home or

foreign market. Because Rima failed to provide the requested

information using the required methodology, we are applying the FA to

calculate Rima's indirect selling expenses, in accordance with section

776(a)(2) of the Act. As FA, we used Rima's most recent financial

statement and divided Rima's selling expenses by its gross revenue.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1,

1997 through June 30, 1998, and we preliminarily determine to revoke

the order covering silicon from Brazil with respect to CBCC's sales of

this merchandise.

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

Weighted-

average

Manufacturer/exporter margin

percentage

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

CBCC....................................................... 0.06

Eletrosilex................................................ 17.44

LIASA...................................................... zero

RIMA....................................................... zero

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to

parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with

these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of

this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing

[[Page 43166]]

within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who

submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. All case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date

of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to

issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven

days after the case briefs are filed. A hearing, if requested, will be

held two days after the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or the first

business day thereafter.

The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this

administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis

of the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within

180 days from the publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this

review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to

Customs. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by

the determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty

assessment purposes, we calculated a per unit customer or importer-

specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated

for all U.S. sales to each customer/importer and dividing this amount

by the total quantity of those sales.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil entered, or withdrawn

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

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those established in the final results of this

review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 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, a prior 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) for all other manufacturers and/or

exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate will continue to

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

investigation, 56 FR 36135 (July 31, 1991). These requirements, when

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

of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations

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 administrative review and notice are published in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. sections

1675(a)(1) and 1677f(i)(1)), and 19 CFR 351.221.

Dated: August 2, 1999.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-20451 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P