[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28467-28472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9703]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-806]


Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of the 2005/2006 New Shipper Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently 
conducting the 2005/2006 new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty 
order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). 
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value 
(``NV'') with respect to certain exporters and that certain exporters 
are entitled to a separate rate in the new shipper reviews. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period 
of review (``POR'') for which the importer-specific assessment rates 
are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 21, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Christopher Riker, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1386 or (202) 482-3441, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department received timely requests from Shanghai Jinneng 
International Trade Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Jinneng'') and Jiangxi 
Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd. (``Jiangxi Gangyuan'') on June 23, 
2006, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for 
new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from 
the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal From the People's 
Republic of China, 56 FR 26649 (June 10, 1991).
    On June 2, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
silicon metal from the PRC. See Notice of Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 71 FR 32032 (June 2, 2006).
    On July 25, 2006, the Department initiated new shipper reviews of 
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan covering the period June 1, 2005, 
through May 31, 2006. See Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 42084 
(July 25, 2006).
    On December 21, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of the new shipper reviews until May 14, 2007. See 
Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of New Shipper 
Antidumping Duty Reviews: Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of 
China, 71 FR 76637 (December 21, 2006).

Scope of Order

    The product covered by the order and this review is silicon metal 
containing at least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by 
weight, and silicon metal with a higher aluminum content containing 
between 89 and 96 percent

[[Page 28468]]

silicon by weight. The merchandise under investigation is currently 
classifiable under item numbers 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 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 of silicon and provided for in subheading 
2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to this order. This order is 
not limited to silicon metal used only as an alloy agent or in the 
chemical industry. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Respondents

    On July 26, 2006, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to 
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan. See letters to Shanghai Jinneng 
and Jiangxi Gangyuan from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, China/
NME Group, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding Silicon Metal 
from the People's Republic of China, New Shipper Review (6/1/05 - 5/31/
06), (July 26, 2006).
    On August 31, 2006, both Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan 
responded to section A of the Department's questionnaire. The 
Department received responses to sections C & D of its questionnaire 
from both Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan on September 18, 2006. 
On October 2, 2006, the Department received responses to its importer 
questionnaire from both Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan.
    On September 28, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section 
A questionnaire to Jinagxi Gangyuan. On October 18, 2006, the 
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Jiangxi 
Gangyuan. On October 27, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Shanghai Jinneng. On November 3, 2006, Jianxi Gangyuan 
submitted its response to the Department's supplemental section A 
questionnaire. On November 16, 2006, Jiangxi Gangyuan submitted its 
response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On 
December 4, 2006, Shanghai Jinneng submitted its response to the 
Department's October 27, 2006, questionnaire.
    On February 2, 2007, the Department issued a third supplemental 
questionnaire to Jiangxi Gangyuan. On March 5, 2007, Jinagxi Gangyuan 
submitted its response to the third supplemental questionnaire. On 
March 6, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental response to 
Shanghai Jinneng. Shanghai Jinneng submitted its response to the 
Department's second questionnaire on March 28, 2007.

Surrogate Country and Factors

    On October 19, 2006, the Department provided parties with an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information (``PAI'') on 
surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary 
results. SeeLetter to All Interested Parties, from Christopher D. 
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 2005/
2006 New Shipper Reviews of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of 
China (October 19, 2006). On November 6, 2006, however, the Department 
extended the deadline for the aforementioned comments until December 
29, 2006. See Letter to All Interested Parties, from Christopher D. 
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 
Administration, regarding 2005/2006 New Shipper Reviews of Silicon 
Metal from the People's Republic of China: Deadline for Submitting 
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection and Publicly Available 
Information to Value Factors of Production (November 6, 2006). 
Furthermore, on December 21, 2006, in response to a request by Globe 
Metallurgical Inc., the petitioner, the Department extended the 
deadline again, until February 15, 2007. See Letter to All Interested 
Parties, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, Import Administration, regarding 2005/2006 New Shipper 
Reviews of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: 
Additional Extension of Deadline for Submitting Comments on Surrogate 
Country Selection and Publicly Available Information to Value Factors 
of Production (December 21, 2006).
    On February 15, 2007, the respondents\1\ and petitioner both 
submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate country. See Letter 
to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi 
Gangyuan, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China 
(February 15, 2007) (``Respondents' First Submission''); see also 
Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from petitioner, regarding 
Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China; New Shipper Reviews; 
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection (February 15, 2007) 
(``Petitioner's First Submission''). On February 26, 2007, petitioner 
and the respondents both submitted comments rebutting the other party's 
February 15, 2007, comments on the selection of a surrogate country. 
See Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Shanghai Jinneng 
and Jiangxi Gangyuan, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's 
Republic of China (February 26, 2007) (``Respondents' Second 
Submission''), see also Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from 
petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of 
China; New Shipper Reviews; Rebuttal Comments and Factual Information 
regarding the Selection of a Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values 
(February 26, 2007) (``Petitioner's Second Submission''). On March 8, 
2007, petitioner rebutted the respondents' February 26, 2007, rebuttal 
comments. See Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from 
petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of 
China; New Shipper Reviews; Rebuttal Comments and Factual Information 
regarding the Selection of a Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values 
(March 8, 2007) (``Petitioner's Third Submission''). On March 14, 2007, 
respondents submitted rebuttal comments on petitioner's March 8, 2007, 
submission (see Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from 
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan, regarding Silicon Metal from the 
People's Republic of China (March 14, 2007) (``Respondents' Third 
Submission'')), and on March 16, 2007, petitioner responded to the 
respondents' March 14, 2007, submission (see Letter to the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, from petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from 
the People's Republic of China; New Shipper Reviews; Response to 
Respondents' March 13 Letter (March 16, 2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The respondents are Shanghai Jinneng International Trade 
Co., Ltd. and Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Company, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 6, 2007, petitioner submitted rebuttal surrogate value 
data (see Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from petitioner, 
regarding Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China; New 
Shipper Review; Submission of Rebuttal Surrogate Value Factual 
Information and Comments (April 6, 2007)). On April 20, 2007, 
respondents responded to the preceding petitioner surrogate value 
submission (see Letter to U.S. Department of Commerce, from Shanghai 
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan, regarding Silicon Metal from the People's 
Republic of China: Surrogate Value Rebuttal (April 20, 2007)). Finally, 
petitioner submitted surrogate value information and comments on April 
27, 2007 (see Letter to the U.S.

[[Page 28469]]

Department of Commerce, from petitioner, regarding Silicon Metal from 
the People's Republic of China; New Shipper Review; Submission of 
Rebuttal Surrogate Value Factual Information and Comments (April 27, 
2007)).

Verification

    The Department verified the questionnaire responses of Jiangxi 
Gangyuan on April 4-6, 2007, and Shanghai Jinneng on April 9-10, 2007 
(which included a verification of Shanghai Jinneng's affiliated 
producer, Datong Jinneng, on April 11-12, 2007). For these companies, 
we used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection 
of the manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and examination of 
relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are 
outlined in the verification report for each company. For a further 
discussion, see Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton, 
Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding Verification 
of the Questionnaire Responses of Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry 
Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Silicon Metal from 
the People's Republic of China (``Jiangxi Gangyuan Verification 
Report''); see also Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. 
Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation, Office 9, from Scot T. 
Fullerton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, and Michael 
J. Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding 
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Shanghai Jinneng 
International Trade Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of 
Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China (``Shanghai Jinneng 
Verification Report''); and see also Memorandum to the File, through 
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation, Office 9, from 
Scot T. Fullerton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, and 
Michael J. Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analyst, regarding 
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Shanghai Jinneng that 
relate to Datong Jinneng Industrial Silicon Co., Ltd., in the 
Antidumping New Shipper Review of Silicon Metal from the People's 
Republic of China (``Datong Jinneng Verification Report'').

Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Shanghai Jinneng & Jiangxi Gangyuan

    For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Shanghai 
Jinneng's and Jiangxi Gangyuan's reported U.S. sales during the POR 
appear to be bona fide based on the totality of the facts on the 
record. Specifically, we find that: (1) The prices of Shanghi Jinneng's 
and Jiangxi Gangyuan's sales were within the range of the prices of 
other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United 
States during the POR; (2) Shanghai Jinneng's and Jiangxi Gangyuan's 
sales were made to unaffiliated parties at arm's length; and (3) there 
is no record evidence that indicates that Shanghai Jinneng's and 
Jiangxi Gangyuan's sales were not made based on commercial principles. 
See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, Import Administration, through Christopher D. Riker, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael J. Quigley, 
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 
2005/2006 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide 
Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Shanghai Jinneng International 
Trade Co., Ltd. (May 11, 2007); see also Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton, 
Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
regarding 2005/2006 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of 
China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Jiangxi Gangyuan 
Silicon Industry Co., Ltd. (May 11, 2007).

Non-Market Economy Country

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. 
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a 
foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked 
by the administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). 
None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. 
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market-economy countries that (A) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. Of the five countries 
identified by the Office of Policy as economically comparable to the 
PRC, data supplied by respondents and petitioner indicate that both 
India and Egypt are both significant producers of merchandise 
comparable to silicon metal. The record, however, lacks Egyptian data 
to value quartzite (the source of silicon in silicon metal), charcoal, 
and rice straw, as well as contemporaneous Egyptian values for certain 
other inputs as well as freight. However, with respect to India, 
sufficient publicly available surrogate value information is available 
on the record. Therefore, we used India as the primary surrogate 
country to value all inputs. See Memorandum to the File, through 
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
from Michael J. Quigley, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding Surrogate Values Used for the 
Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 New Shipper Reviews of Silicon 
Metal from the People's Republic of China (May 11, 2007) (``Factor 
Valuation Memo'').
    For further discussion of our surrogate country selection, see 
Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9 and Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Reviews of Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: 
Selection of a Surrogate Country (May 11, 2007) (``Surrogate Country 
Memorandum'').

Separate Rates

    To establish whether a company operating in an NME is sufficiently 
independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes 
each exporting entity under the test established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 
(May 2, 1994). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department 
assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto

[[Page 28470]]

governmental control over export activities.

De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following criteria in determining 
whether an individual company is free of de jure absence of government 
control over export activities: (1) an absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control 
of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20588.
    In their questionnaire responses, Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi 
Gangyuan stated that they are independent legal entities, and placed 
evidence on the record that indicates that the PRC government does not 
have de jure control over their export activities. Shanghai Jinneng and 
Jiangxi Gangyuan submitted evidence of their legal right to set prices 
independent of governmental oversight. Furthermore, the business 
licenses of Shanghai Jinneng and Jianxi Gangyuan indicate that they are 
permitted to engage in the exportation of silicon metal. We also found 
no evidence of de jure governmental control restricting Shanghai 
Jinneng's and Jiangxi Gangyuan's exportation of silicon metal.
    The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this 
review, indicate a lack of de jure government control. The Company Law 
of the People's Republic of China, made effective on July 1, 1994, with 
the amended version promulgated on August 28, 2004, states that a 
company is legal entity, that shareholders shall assume liability 
towards the company to the extent of their shareholdings and that the 
company shall be liable for its debts to the extent of all its assets. 
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan also provided copies of the 
Foreign Trade Law of the PRC, promulgated on May 12, 1994, which 
identifies the rights and responsibilities of organizations engaged in 
foreign trade, grants autonomy to foreign-trade operators in management 
decisions and establishes the foreign trade operator's accountability 
for profits and losses. The Department, therefore, preliminarily 
determines that there is an absence of de jure control over the export 
activities of Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan.

De Facto Control

    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control over its 
exports: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices 
independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds 
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 
From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
    Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan have both asserted the 
following:
    (1) Each establishes its own export prices; (2) each negotiates 
contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or 
organizations; (3) each makes its own personnel decisions; and
    (4) each retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits 
according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its 
assets and to obtain loans. Moreover, the Department verified that 
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan are free of de facto government 
control. Based upon information on the record, there is a sufficient 
basis to preliminarily determine that Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi 
Gangyuan have demonstrated an absence of de facto governmental control 
over their export functions. Therefore, because Shanghai Jinneng and 
Jiangxi Gangyuan operate free of de jure and de facto government 
control, the Department has preliminarily determined that Shanghai 
Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan have satisfied the criteria for separate 
rates based on the documentation each has submitted on the record.

Normal-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Shanghai Jinneng's and Jiangxi Gangyuan's 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at 
prices below NV, their United States prices were compared to NV, as 
described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.

United States Price

    For Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan, the Department based 
U.S. price on export price (``EP'') in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act, because the first sales to unaffiliated purchasers were 
made prior to importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'') was 
not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP 
based on packed prices from the exporter to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Where applicable, foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and ocean freight 
were deducted from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance 
with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors of production (``FOP'') methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the available 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. The Department will base NV on the 
factors of production because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the 
calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. 
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 
FR 29744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in final results). See 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review.
    For purposes of calculating NV, we selected surrogate values for 
the PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to, hours 
of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of 
energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, 
including depreciation. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In choosing 
surrogate values, we selected, where possible, a publicly available 
value which was an average country-wide, non-export value, 
representative of a range of prices within the POR or most 
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 
(December 16, 2004) (``Chlorinated Isocyanurates''), unchanged in 
Notice of

[[Page 28471]]

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 10, 
2005). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. See Manganese Metal from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12442 (March 13, 1998).

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department 
calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Shanghai Jinneng and 
Jiangxi Gangyuan for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported per-unit 
factor quantities was multiplied by publicly available surrogate 
values. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight 
costs to reflect delivered prices. For a detailed explanation of all 
surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation Memo.
    Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using 
June 2005-May 2006 weighted-average Indian import values derived from 
the World Trade Atlas online (``WTA'') (see Factor Valuation Memo). The 
Indian import statistics we obtained from the WTA were published by the 
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry 
of Commerce of India and are contemporaneous with the POR. As the 
Indian surrogate values were denominated in rupees, they were converted 
to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate for India on the date of the 
applicable sale. The daily exchange rate was the exchange rate data 
from the Department's website, which are taken from publicly available 
data from the Federal Reserve and Dow Jones. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. Where we could not obtain 
publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which 
to value factors, we adjusted the publicly available information for 
inflation using Indian wholesale price indices (``WPIs'') as published 
in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics 
(``IFS''). See Factor Valuation Memo.
    In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, 
in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from 
both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all 
export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our 
surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 
See, also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color 
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 
66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final 
determination at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, imports 
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were 
excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be 
certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with 
generally available export subsidies.

Surrogate Valuations

    To value the input of quartzite, data from the 2005 edition of the 
Indian Minerals Yearbook published by the Indian Bureau of Mines that 
accounted for the period April 2004 through March 2005. This data 
precedes the POR and was adjusted for inflation. See Factor Valuation 
Memo, Attachment 3.
    To value charcoal, we used Indian import data that accounted for 
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS number 4402. This data 
coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See Factor 
Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
    To value carbon electrodes, we used Indian import data that 
accounted for the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS number 
8545.11.00. This data coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for 
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
    To value petroleum coke, we used Indian import data that accounted 
for the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS numbers 2713.11.00 
(petroleum coke not calcined). This data coincides with the POR and was 
not adjusted for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
    To value coal, we used Indian import data that accounted for the 
POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS number 2719.10.20, for steam 
coal. This data coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for 
inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
    To value fuel wood, we used Indian import data that accounted for 
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS numbers 4401.10. This data 
coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See Factor 
aluation Memo, Attachment 5.
    To value rice straw, we used Indian import data that accounted for 
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS numbers 1213.00.00. The 
data coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See 
Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
    To value silica fume, we used Indian import data that accounted for 
the POR from the Monthly Statistics for HTS numbers 2811.22.00. This 
data coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See 
Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
    To value the bags used as packing materials for subject merchandise 
and silica fume, we used Indian import data that accounted for the POR 
from the Monthly Statistics for HTS number 6305.33.00. This data 
coincides with the POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See Factor 
Valuation Memo, Attachment 5.
    Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the 
use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor 
input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC 
published by Import Administration on its website. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html.
    We valued electricity using rates from Key World Energy Statistics 
2003, published by the International Energy Agency (``IEA''). We 
adjusted the rate to make it contemporaneous with the POR. See Factor 
Valuation Memo, Attachment 7.
    To value truck freight expenses for both raw materials and subject 
merchandise, we used an average rate per kilometer per metric ton 
calculated from data obtained from the web site of an Indian transport 
company, InFreight Technologies India Ltd. This data coincides with the 
POR and was not adjusted for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memo, 
Attachment 8.
    To value rail freight expenses for the shipment of petroleum coke, 
we used the rail freight tariff in effect for August 2004 as published 
by Indian Railways, and inflated it for the POR. See Factor Valuation 
Memo, Attachment 9.
    To value SG&A, factory overhead and profit, the Department used the 
2005-2006 financial statements from Indsil Eletrosmelts Limited and 
Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 
10.
    We also note that Jiangxi Gangyuan erred in reporting the total 
product used in the calculation of the factors of production. 
Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are amending 
the reported total production

[[Page 28472]]

figure. For a more detailed explanation, see Jiangxi Gangyuan 
Verification Report; see also Memorandum to the File from Scot T. 
Fullerton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, through 
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
regarding, Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China - Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review Jiangxi 
Gangyuan Industry Silicon Co., Ltd. Calculation Memorandum (May 11, 
2007).
    Finally, we also note that Shanghai Jinneng erred in reporting its 
silica fume bags, and labor consumption. Therefore, for purposes of 
these preliminary results, we are amending the calculated consumption 
of both the silica fume bags and labor calculation. For a more detailed 
explanation, see Datong Jinneng Verification Report; see also 
Memorandum to the File from Michael Quigley, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding, Silicon Metal From the People's 
Republic of China - Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of 
New Shipper Review Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. 
Calculation Memorandum (May 11, 2007).

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions using exchange rates obtained from the 
website of Import Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for 
Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Gangyuan during the period June 1, 2005, 
through May 31, 2006:

                       Silicon Metal from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                       Company                         Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.......               80.74
Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd..........              124.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice.
    Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 
30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). 
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a 
hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written 
request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to 
those raised in the briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of these 
new shipper reviews. For assessment purposes, where possible, we 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for silicon metal from 
the PRC via \ duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total 
amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the 
total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these new 
shipper reviews if any assessment rate calculated in the final results 
of this review is above de minimis. The final results of these new 
shipper reviews shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping 
duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these 
reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of 
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) For the manufacturers/exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for subject merchandise 
exported by Shanghai Jinneng or Jiangxi Gangyuan, but not manufactured 
by Datong Jinneng or Jiangxi Gangyuan, respectively, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 139.49 percent); and 
(3) for subject merchandise produced by Jiangxi Gangyuan or Datong 
Jinneng but not exported by Jiangxi Gangyuan or Shanghai Jinneng, 
respectively, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the 
exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, should remain 
in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
    These new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.213 and 351.214.

    Dated: May 11, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-9703 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S