Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47441

realized at the grower level. In this

instance, we used the average profit of

the twenty sampled growers as the

profit figure in our margin calculations.

With respect to selling expenses, we

have used the selling expenses

associated with the home market sales.

See Final Results of Administrative

Review, Ferrosilicon from Brazil, (61 FR

59407), dated November 22, 1996.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our correction of the

ministerial errors, we have determined

the following margin exists for the

period June 1, 1994, through May 31,

1995:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

New Zealand Kiwifruit

Marketing Board .......... 0.00

The Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions concerning the respondent

directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following 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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 results of

administrative review, as provided for

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm

will be 0.00 percent; and (2) the cash

deposit rate for merchandise exported

by all other manufacturers and exporters

will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 98.60

percent established in the less-than-fairvalue investigation; in accordance with

the Department practice. See Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.

Supp. 766 (1993), and Federal Mogul

Corporation, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice 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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: August 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23851 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil: Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is amending its final

results of review, published on

September 5, 1996, of the antidumping

duty order on silicon metal from Brazil,

to reflect the correction of ministerial

errors in those final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

Baker, Alain Letort, or John Kugelman,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group III—Office

8, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone 202/

482–2924 (Baker), 202/482–4243

(Letort), or 202/482–0649 (Kugelman),

fax 202/482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Background

The Department published the final

results of the second administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on silicon metal from Brazil on

September 5, 1996 (61 FR 46763)

(Second Review Final Results), covering

the period July 1, 1992 through June 30,

1993. The respondents are Companhia

Brasileira Carbureto de Ca ́lcio (CBCC),

Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais—

Minasligas (Minasligas), Eletroila, S.A.

(currently known as Eletrosilex Belo

Horizonte (Eletrosilex)), and Rima

Industrial S.A. (RIMA). The petitioners

are American Alloys, Inc., Elken Metals,

Co., Globe Metallurgical, Inc., SMI

Group, and SKW Metals & Alloys.

On September 20, 1996, the

petitioners filed clerical error

allegations with respect to each of the

four respondents in the review. The

same day we received clerical error

allegations from respondent CBCC. On

September 27, 1996, we received

rebuttal comments from the petitioners,

CBCC, and Minasligas. On September

30, 1996, we received rebuttal

comments from Eletrosilex. The

Department agreed that certain of the

allegations constituted ministerial

errors, but the Department was unable

to issue a determination correcting these

errors before the petitioners filed a

complaint with the Court of

International Trade (CIT) challenging

the final results of review. Therefore,

the Department requested leave from the

CIT to correct these errors. On July 9,

1997, the CIT granted the Department

leave to correct the errors. See American

Silicon Technologies et al., v. United

States, Slip Op. 97–94, July 9, 1997.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is silicon metal from Brazil

containing at least 96.00 percent but less

than 99.99 percent silicon by weight.

Also covered by this review is silicon

metal from Brazil containing between

89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by

weight but which contains a higher

aluminum content than the silicon

metal containing at least 96.00 percent

but less than 99.99 percent silicon by

weight. Silicon metal is currently

provided for under subheadings

2804.69.10 and 2804.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) as a

chemical product, but is commonly

referred to as a metal. Semiconductor

grade silicon (silicon metal containing

by weight not less than 99.99 percent

silicon and provided for in subheading

2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not subject to

the order. HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and for U.S.
47442 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive as to the

scope of product coverage.

Clerical Error Allegations

Comment 1

Petitioners argue that the Department

used the wrong cost of manufacture

(COM) in the computation of

constructed value (CV) for one of

CBCC’s U.S. sales. We reviewed the sale

at issue in the first (91–92)

administrative review of the order, but

reviewed it again in the second review

of the order because, after issuing the

final results of the first review, we

determined that the importer of the sale

had no entries during the first review

period. In our analysis of this sale in the

first review, we made an upward

adjustment to CBCC’s reported COM in

order to account for costs that the

Department determined at verification

to have been understated. However, in

its analysis of this sale for the second

review, the Department used the COM

as CBCC originally reported it.

Petitioners argue that this use of the

unadjusted COM constitutes a clerical

error.

CBCC argues that the Department

erred by using CV, rather than thirdcountry sales, as the basis for foreign

market value (FMV) for comparison to

the U.S. sale at issue. In its final results

analysis memorandum for the second

review, the Department stated that it

used CV as the basis for FMV because

there were no Japanese sales

contemporaneous with this sale. (See

the Department’s September 12, 1996

final results analysis memorandum, at

4.) CBCC argues that this stated

rationale for using CV is fallacious

because, in the first review, the

Department used third-country sales to

Japan as the basis of FMV for that sale.

Thus, CBCC argues, there must have

been contemporaneous sales.

Furthermore, CBCC argues that because

the Department performed a sales-based

comparison for this sale in the first

review, and never indicated to CBCC

that it intended to review the sale again

in the second review, the Department’s

decision to use CV in the margin

calculation for the sale in the second

review violated its due-process rights

because CBCC never had an opportunity

to comment on it. It may also be illegal,

CBCC argues, because only the CIT can

require the Department to re-open and

re-analyze a determination which is

final under the statute.

Finally, CBCC argues that the

Department’s failure to use the adjusted

COM for the sale at issue is more than

offset by a clerical error it made in its

calculation of CBCC’s interest expenses.

In its calculation of interest expenses,

the Department, CBCC alleges, used the

interest expense ratio for 1993, rather

than the interest expense ratio for 1992.

Department’s Position:

We agree with petitioners that the

Department’s failure to use the adjusted

COM for the sale at issue constituted a

clerical error. In these amended final

results of review, we have used the

adjusted COM for this sale as given in

the first review final results analysis

memorandum dated February 2, 1994.

The Department made this

memorandum part of the record of the

second review. See the Department’s

June 12, 1996 letter to CBCC.

We disagree with CBCC’s argument

that its due-process rights were violated

by our decision to perform a CV-based,

rather than a sales-based, comparison

for the sale at issue. In the first review

the Department made a sales-based

comparison only in the preliminary

results of review, not the final results of

review. In the final results of the first

review the Department used CV as the

FMV. See the final results analysis

memorandum dated August 13, 1994, at

1.

We also disagree with CBCC’s

argument that there were

contemporaneous sales which could

serve as the FMV in the margin

calculation for the sale at issue. In the

final results analysis memorandum, we

stated explicitly that there were no

above-cost third-country sales. (See the

first review final results analysis

memorandum dated August 13, 1994, at

1.) Thus, the Department’s September

12, 1996 analysis memorandum that

states that there were no

contemporaneous third-country sales

should be amended to read that there

were no above-cost contemporaneous

third-country sales. Therefore, in these

amended final results of review we have

continued to use CV as the FMV.

We agree with CBCC that the

Department used the wrong interest

expense ratio to calculate interest for the

sale at issue. We have corrected this

error in these amended final results of

review.

Comment 2:

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a ministerial error by failing to

include IPI taxes in the computation of

CV for one of CBCC’s U.S. sales. They

argue that the final results notice states

that the Department intended to include

these taxes in CV. See Second Review

Final Results at 46769.

CBCC argues that petitioners’

comments regarding IPI taxes are

irrelevant because the Department acted

illegally in re-analyzing this U.S. sale

using a methodology different from that

supporting its final results in the first

review. It refers the reader to its

comments summarized under comment

1 (above).

Department’s Position:

We agree with petitioners that in

omitting IPI taxes from the computation

of CV for the sale at issue we made a

ministerial error. In these amended final

results of review, we have included IPI

taxes in CV. We obtained the value of

these taxes from CBCC’s May 29, 1996

submission.

We disagree with CBCC that we acted

illegally in our treatment of this sale. As

explained in response to comment 1

(above), we used CV for this sale in the

final results of the first review, as well

as in the final results of the second

review.

Comment 3

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a clerical error by using an

incorrect exchange rate for converting

some of CBCC’s and Eletrosilex’s

expenses from Brazilian currency into

U.S. dollars. This error occurred,

petitioners argue, because the

Department incorrectly believed that

these expenses were denominated in

cruzeiros, rather than in cruzeiros reais.

The expenses at issue are CBCC’s

brokerage, warehousing, and foreign

inland freight, and Eletrosilex’s

brokerage, foreign inland freight, ocean

freight, packing, and warehousing costs.

CBCC argues that there is no evidence

on the record that any of the charges it

reported are in a currency other than

cruzeiros.

Eletrosilex argues that the

determination of the correct exchange

rate is a factual and judgmental

determination, and not a clerical error.

By raising the issue at this stage of the

proceeding, Eletrosilex argues,

petitioners are misusing the ministerial

errors correction process. For this

reason, Eletrosilex argues, petitioners’

argument should be rejected.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners. With

respect to CBCC, we note that exhibit 6

of CBCC’s March 17, 1994 supplemental

questionnaire response demonstrates

the currency conversion. That

demonstration indicates that the

expenses in question were in fact

denominated in cruzeiros reais, and not

cruzeiros. With respect to Eletrosilex,

we find that Eletrosilex demonstrated

the correct currency conversion for the

charges at issue in exhibit 9 of its March
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47443

21, 1994 submission and on pages 3 and

4 of its September 12, 1994 submission.

These demonstrations indicate that the

charges at issue were reported in

cruzeiros reais, and not cruzeiros. Thus,

for the charges at issue, in these

amended final results of review we have

used the exchange rates for converting

cruzeiros reais into U.S. dollars, rather

than for converting cruzeiros into U.S.

dollars.

We do not agree with Eletrosilex’s

argument that petitioners are misusing

the ministerial error corrections process.

Our use of incorrect exchange rates is an

‘‘unintentional error’’ within the

meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 353.28(d).

Comment 4

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a ministerial error by failing to

deduct from one of CBCC’s U.S. sales an

unspecified charge that CBCC reported

as ‘‘other expenses.’’ Petitioners argue

that these ‘‘other expenses’’ should be

deducted from U.S. price in accordance

with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended.

CBCC argues that if the Department

decides to deduct the ‘‘other expenses’’

(which, it states, are movement

expenses) from the U.S. price, it should

note that CBCC mislabeled the currency

as U.S. dollars. In fact, CBCC states, it

reported them in cruzeiros, and they

must be converted into U.S. dollars for

the margin calculation.

Department’s Position

We agree that we made a ministerial

error by failing to deduct the ‘‘other

expenses’’ from U.S. price for the sale at

issue. In these amended final results of

review we have corrected this error. We

have converted them into dollars

because the amount of these expenses

relative to other reported expenses

indicates that they were incurred in

cruzeiros. See CBCC’s March 17, 1994

submission, exhibit 3.

Comment 5

CBCC argues that the Department

made a ministerial error in its

calculation of CV by using the same

interest ratio in the calculation of CV as

it used in the calculation of cost of

production (COP). CBCC argues that

doing so was an error because CV

includes imputed credit, whereas COP

does not. The Department’s

methodology, CBCC argues, doublecounts the interest expenses included in

financial expenses. Thus, CBCC argues

the Department should calculate

financial expenses for CV net of the

amount attributable to trade accounts

receivables. To correct the error, CBCC

states that the Department should

multiply the CV interest expenses by the

formula: (1-accounts receivable/total

assets).

Petitioners argue that the Department

made this error in only one of CBCC’s

U.S. sales. For CBCC’s other U.S. sales,

petitioners argue, the Department made

an offset to the interest expenses

included in CV for home-market

imputed credit expenses. Thus,

petitioners argue, CBCC’s allegation is

not applicable to all of CBCC’s U.S.

sales.

Department’s Position

We agree with CBCC that the

Department normally allows an offset to

CV interest expenses. However, we did

not offset CV financing costs for CBCC

in this review because it did not submit

the offsetting figure, nor did it submit

the accounts receivable and total asset

figures necessary to perform the

calculation as it suggests. Therefore, the

Department did not make a ministerial

error by not allowing an offset to CV

interest expense in this case because the

necessary information was not on the

record. Accordingly, we have not made

an offset to CBCC’s financing costs in

these amended final results.

Comment 6

CBCC argues that the Department

made two clerical errors in its

calculation of interest expenses. First,

CBCC alleges that the Department

calculated different monthly financial

expense ratios for each month of the

period of review (POR), and applied

these differing ratios to the COM to

calculate financial expenses. CBCC

argues that calculating a different

financial expense ratio for each month

of the POR was an error, and that the

Department intended to calculate an

annual weighted-average rate in order to

calculate a single weighted-average

COP/CV for the POR. CBCC bases its

argument on the fact that the

Department allegedly calculated general

and administrative (G&A) expenses by

multiplying the COM by a single annual

rate. Second, CBCC argues that the

Department made a clerical error by

applying the calculated interest expense

ratio to the replacement cost COM,

rather than the historical cost COM. It

argues that this was an error because the

Department calculated the interest

expense ratio based on historical costs,

and not replacement costs. Thus, CBCC

argues, the Department should have

either calculated the interest expenses

on a replacement cost basis and applied

the resulting ratio to the replacement

cost COMs (as it did for G&A expenses),

or calculated the interest expense ratio

on historical costs and applied it to the

historical cost COMs.

Petitioners argue that CBCC is

incorrect in asserting that the

Department calculated different interest

expense ratios for different months of

the POR. In fact, petitioners argue, the

Department calculated one interest

expense ratio for 1992, which it applied

to the months July through December

1992, and one interest expense ratio

which it applied to the months January

through June 1993. Furthermore,

petitioners argue that CBCC is incorrect

in saying that the Department intended

to calculate a single COP/CV for the

POR. The Department’s practice in

hyperinflationary-economy cases,

petitioners argue, is to calculate

monthly COPs and CVs, and to make

comparisons for both the cost test and

the margin calculation on a monthly

basis. Finally, petitioners argue that

CBCC is incorrect in stating that the

Department made a clerical error by

applying the interest expense ratios to

replacement costs in calculating COP

and CV. In fact, petitioners argue, the

Department specifically addressed this

issue in the final results. It said, ‘‘We do

not have the necessary information on

the record to index monthly interest

costs. Therefore, we calculated financial

expenses based on our established

practice prior to the CIT decision

because it is still a viable method (see

Comment 27 for details).’’ See Second

Review Final Results at 46773. Thus,

petitioners argue, the Department’s

method of calculating interest expenses

does not constitute a clerical error.

Department’s Position

We disagree with CBCC that we

intended to calculate a single weighted

average interest rate for the POR. In the

case of G&A costs, we computed a single

weighted-average rate because the

monthly G&A information was

available. The monthly information

required for the interest expense rate

calculation, however, was not available.

Therefore, as a reasonable alternative,

we used available information to

calculate separate interest expense rates

for 1992 and 1993. Moreover, because

all data needed to compute the

appropriate interest expense ratio was

not available, as a reasonable estimate of

the interest expense, we applied the

computed rate to replacement cost

COMs. This is the method we intended

to employ in the final results, and

therefore does not constitute a clerical

error.

Comment 7

Petitioners argue the Department

made a clerical error in its computation
47444 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

of the profit used in calculating CV for

RIMA, Eletrosilex, and CBCC.

Petitioners state that the Department

calculated profit as the difference

between COP and home-market selling

prices from which the Department had

subtracted imputed credit. Petitioners

argue that because COP includes

interest (which by definition includes

the cost of financing receivables), it is

incorrect and a ministerial error to

calculate profit by comparing COP to

home-market prices from which the cost

of financing receivables has already

been deducted.

Eletrosilex argues that the exclusion

of imputed credit was not a ministerial

error, and that therefore the petitioners’

contention should be rejected from

consideration at this stage of the

proceeding.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners. It was not

our intent to understate profit by

including imputed credit in COP but

excluding it from revenue. Furthermore,

we reviewed this issue in the final

results of the third review of this order,

and determined there too that in the

profit calculation the home-market

prices should not be net of imputed

credit. See Silicon Metal from Brazil;

Final Results of Review and

Determination Not to Revoke in Part; 62

FR 1954, 1967 (January 14, 1997) (Third

Review Final Results). In these amended

final results of review, we have

continued to include interest expenses

in the calculation of COP, but have

adjusted home-market prices so as not

to deduct imputed credit from such

prices in the computation of revenue.

Comment 8

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a clerical error when it calculated

the percentage of overhead allocated to

RIMA’s silicon metal production by

using unadjusted direct material costs.

The Department calculated the

percentage of overhead allocated to

RIMA’s silicon metal production by

averaging ratios for direct labor,

electricity, and direct materials

calculated by comparing the usage of

each item for silicon metal production

to the usage for overall production. In

calculating the ratio for direct materials,

the Department, petitioners allege, used

the unadjusted direct materials costs for

silicon metal production that RIMA

reported in verification exhibit 15,

rather than the adjusted material costs

that the Department calculated

following the verification.

Department’s Position

We disagree with petitioners that it

was a ministerial error not to adjust

RIMA’s primary direct material costs

used in allocating the company’s

overhead. For the final results, we

allocated RIMA’s overhead costs based

on the relation between RIMA’s primary

direct material consumed in the silicon

production (numerator) and its total

primary direct material consumed in the

furnaces (denominator). These figures

are unadjusted for RIMA’s

understatement of its direct material

costs. Therefore, if we adjust the

numerator as suggested by the

petitioner, we must also adjust the

denominator, which (like the

numerator) was unadjusted in the final

results calculations. If, however, we

adjust both the numerator and the

denominator, the allocation factor does

not change. Therefore, the Department

did not err in concluding that it was

unnecessary to adjust these figures.

Comment 9

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a clerical error in its calculation

of the direct selling expenses to include

in Eletrosilex’s CV. Eletrosilex reported

its direct selling expenses inclusive of

inland freight. However, because inland

freight is a movement expense, and not

a selling expense, the Department

subtracted inland freight from

Eletrosilex’s total direct selling expenses

in its calculation of the direct selling

expenses to be included in CV.

Petitioners argue that the value for

inland freight that the Department used

in performing this subtraction was an

aggregate amount, and not a per-unit

amount. Using this aggregate amount

was an error, petitioners argue, because

all the other elements of Eletrosilex’s

reported direct selling expenses were

per-unit amounts.

Eletrosilex argues that if the

Department determines that it

subtracted aggregate inland freight costs

from the reported direct selling

expenses, rather than per-unit inland

freight costs, and therefore makes the

correction requested by petitioners, it

should also ascertain that it correctly

applies the inflation rate for 30 days

after the invoice, as discussed on page

4 of its March 21, 1994 submission.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners that we

inadvertently used aggregate inland

freight costs rather than per-unit inland

freight costs. We have corrected this

error in these amended final results of

review. With regard to Eletrosilex’s

argument that we apply the correct

inflation rate, we have determined that

because the reported inland freight costs

already include an inflation adjustment,

no further inflation adjustment is

necessary. Moreover, Eletrosilex’s

citation to the discussion on page 4 of

its March 21, 1994 submission is

inapposite because that discussion

concerns the conversion from Brazilian

currency into U.S. dollars, and the

calculations at issue here do not include

a currency conversion. Therefore,

because no further inflation adjustment

is required, we used the invoiced inland

freight costs as Eletrosilex reported

them.

Comment 10

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a clerical error by failing to

include duty drawback in Eletrosilex’s

CV. In the Second Review Final Results

the Department stated, ‘‘n order to make

an ‘apples-to-apples‘ comparison

between USP [United States Price] and

CV, we need to add to CV the full

amount of the duty drawback that we

added to USP in accordance with

section 772(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act.

We have done so in these final results

of review.’’ See Second Review Final

Results at 46770. Petitioners argue that

in fact the Department added duty

drawback to CV for some of Eletrosilex’s

U.S. sales, but not for all of them.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners that we

failed to add duty drawback to CV for

some of Eletrosilex’s sales, but we

believe that the petitioners incorrectly

identified the set of sales for which we

made this error. In these amended final

results of review we have corrected the

final results programs to ensure that

duty drawback was added to CV.

Comment 11

Petitioners argue that the Department

erred with respect to Eletrosilex by

failing to deduct home-market

commissions from the gross homemarket price in computing the net

home-market price (variable name

NPRICOP) to be compared to COP in the

sales-below-cost test. They argue, based

on Policy Bulletin 94.6, that this failure

was a violation of the Department’s

established practice.

Eletrosilex argues that this was not a

clerical error because Eletrosilex pays

no commissions on its home-market

sales.

Department’s Position

We disagree with Eletrosilex and

agree with petitioners in part.

Eletrosilex’s home-market sales listing

indicates that it did pay a commission
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47445

on some of its home-market sales. See

page 14 of Eletrosilex’s November 12,

1992 submission, and the home-market

sales listing contained therein. We agree

with petitioners that we made no

adjustment for these commissions in the

calculation of NPRICOP, but we

disagree with petitioners’ argument that

our failure to do so was an error. In this

review we included in COP the direct

and indirect selling expenses Eletrosilex

reported in section D of its

questionnaire response, as intended,

and made no adjustment for selling

expenses in the calculation of NPRICOP,

also as intended. Thus, because both

COP and NPRICOP contained selling

expenses, the cost test was proper and

not distorted. Furthermore, this

treatment of Eletrosilex’s selling

expenses in the cost test is identical to

our treatment of selling expenses in the

cost test for all other respondents in this

review.

Comment 12

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a clerical error in its calculation

of Eletrosilex’s CV by subtracting homemarket packing expenses from CV

before adding U.S. packing expenses to

CV. This was an error, petitioners argue,

because the calculated CV did not

include home-market packing.

Eletrosilex argues that the inclusion

or exclusion of variables in an analysis

is not a ministerial act, but an act of

judgment. Thus, Eletrosilex argues, the

Department should reject petitioners’

argument at this stage of the proceeding.

Department’s Position

The inclusion or exclusion of

variables in an analysis can be

intentional or unintentional. Here, the

Department inadvertently omitted

home-market packing from CV in the

computer program used to calculate the

margin for some of Eletrosilex’s U.S.

sales. Therefore, because the omission

was unintentional, it is properly

considered a ministerial error. In these

amended final results of review we have

corrected this error.

Comment 13

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a clerical error in its margin

calculation for Minasligas by converting

the cruzeiro value of its U.S. sales into

dollars, rather than using the actual U.S.

dollar value of the sales. Petitioners

argue that this was an error because the

selling price of the U.S. sales was

denominated in U.S. dollars. Petitioners

argue that the Department should have

used the dollar-denominated price,

rather than the cruzeiro-denominated

price, for Minasligas’ U.S. sales.

Minasligas argues that it reported its

U.S. sales in cruzeiros (as recorded in its

books), and that the Department

correctly converted them into dollars

using the average exchange rate of the

month of shipment. This methodology,

Minasligas argues, is in accordance with

the Department’s practice of comparing

the U.S. price to the CV or FMV of the

month of shipment. Minasligas also

argues that the dollar value that the

petitioners urge the Department to use

is from the section of its questionnaire

response where it reported its total

home-market, third-country, and U.S.

sales volumes and values for the

purpose of the viability test. This

information, Minasligas states, did not

relate to the information Minasligas

provided in its U.S. sales listing.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners. Our

practice is to use the actual U.S. price

in the currency in which it was

originally denominated. We also seek to

avoid any unnecessary currency

conversions. In this case, we did not

intend to convert currencies twice.

Therefore, in these amended final

results of review we have used the

actual sales prices in the currency in

which they were originally

denominated. This is the same

methodology we employed in the final

results of the third review of this order.

See Third Review Final Results at 1961.

Comment 14

Petitioners argue that the Department

made a clerical error in its computation

of Minasligas’ imputed U.S. credit by

using the date of shipment from the U.S.

port as the start of the credit period,

rather than the date of shipment from

Minasligas’ plant.

Minasligas argues the Department did

in fact use the date of shipment from

Minasligas’ plant as the start of the

credit period in the computation of U.S.

imputed credit.

Department’s Position

We agree with Minasligas. The

variable SHIPDTPM used in the

imputed credit calculation (line 730 of

the final results margin calculation) is

the date of shipment from Minasligas’

plant. See exhibit VII–1 of Minasligas’

November 1, 1993 submission.

Comment 15

Petitioners argue that the Department

used an incorrect exchange rate in the

currency conversion for Minasligas’

warehousing expenses. In its final

results margin calculation, the

Department, petitioners allege, used the

exchange rate of the date of shipment

from the Brazilian port. Petitioners

argue that the Department’s practice in

hyperinflationary economies is to

convert U.S. movement expenses using

the exchange rate on the date such

expenses were incurred, or, in the

absence of such information, on the date

on which the respondent shipped the

merchandise from its plant. Here,

petitioners argue, the record contains no

information on when Minasligas

incurred the warehousing expenses.

Thus, petitioners argue, the Department

should have used the exchange rate on

the date of shipment from Minasligas’

plant in converting warehousing

expenses, rather than the exchange rate

of the date of shipment from the

Brazilian port.

Minasligas argues that the

Department’s use of the exchange rate

for the date of shipment from the port

is not a clerical error, and is supported

by substantial evidence on the record. It

argues that although the record does not

indicate when Minasligas paid the

warehousing expenses, it does indicate

that the expenses were incurred at the

port prior to loading on the ship.

Accordingly, it was proper, Minasligas

argues, for the Department to use the

exchange rate for the month of shipment

from the port as being the closest in

time to the date on which Minasligas

incurred the warehousing expenses.

Department’s Position

We agree with Minasligas. For the

final results we intended to use the

exchange rate of the date of shipment

from the port. Where the record does

not contain the actual dates of payment

for export sale movement expenses, and

where the Department did not

specifically solicit the information, it is

reasonable to use the date of shipment

from the port in making the currency

conversion because it is the closest date

on record to the date on which the

expenses were incurred. Therefore, in

these amended final results of review,

we have continued to use the exchange

rate of the date of shipment in making

currency conversions. This is the same

methodology we applied in a similar

situation in the final results of the third

administrative review of this order. See

Third Review Final Results at 1962.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we have

determined that the following margins

exist for the period July 1, 1992 through

June 30, 1993:
47446 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin (percent)

CBCC ........................................ 18.71

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

Eletrosilex ................................. 25.46

RIMA ......................................... 31.60

The Department shall determine, and

the U. S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department shall issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements shall be effective upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of review for all shipments

of silicon metal from Brazil entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies named

above will be the rates published in the

final results of review for the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Brazil for the period July 1,

1994 through June 30, 1995 (see Silicon

Metal from Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination Not to

Revoke in Part 62 FR 1970 (January 14,

1997) (Fourth Review Final Results); (2)

for previously investigated or reviewed

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in these reviews, or

the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigations, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in these reviews, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be 91.06

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 56

FR 26977 (June 12, 1991).

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR § 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 section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

These amended final results of review

and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.28(c) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23853 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–820]

Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line

and Pressure Pipe From Germany:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the respondent, MannesmannroehrenWerke AG (‘‘MRW’’) and Mannesmann

Pipe & Steel Corporation (‘‘MPS’’)

(collectively, ‘‘Mannesmann’’), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on small

diameter circular seamless carbon and

alloy steel standard, line and pressure

pipe from Germany. This review covers

the above manufacturer/exporter of the

subject merchandise to the United

States. The period of review (POR) is

January 27, 1995, through July 31, 1996.

We preliminarily determine the

dumping margin for Mannesmann to be

28.69 percent during the POR.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding should also submit with

their arguments (1) a statement of the

issues, and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Decker or Linda Ludwig,

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1324 or (202) 482–

3833, respectively.

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

references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 353, as

amended by the Department’s interim

regulations (April 1, 1997). Where

appropriate, we have cited the

Department’s new regulations, codified

at 19 CFR part 351 (May 19, 1997—62

FR 27296). While not binding on this

review, the new regulations serve as a

restatement of the Department’s

policies.

Background

On June 19, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

Fed. Reg. 31974) the final affirmative

antidumping duty determination on

small diameter circular seamless carbon

and alloy steel standard, line and

pressure pipe from Germany. We

published an antidumping duty order

and amended final determination on

August 3, 1995 (60 FR 39704). On

August 12, 1996, the Department

published the Opportunity to Request

an Administrative Review of this order

for the period January 27, 1995 through

July 31, 1996 (61 FR 41768). The

Department received a request for an

administrative review of Mannesmann’s

exports from Mannesmann itself, a

producer/exporter of the subject

merchandise. We published a notice of

initiation of the review on September

17, 1996 (61 FR 48882).

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. On March 5, 1997, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case. See