[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54085-54087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-820]


Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Amended Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 14, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the 
final results of the second administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order or ferrosilicon from Brazil. The review covered Companhia 
Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas and Companhia Brasileria Carbureto 
de Calcio manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. The period of review is March 1, 1995 through February 
29, 1996. Interested parties submitted ministerial error allegations 
with respect to the final results of administrative review for 
Minasligas on August 20, 1997. Based on the correction of certain 
ministerial errors made in the final results of review, we are amending 
our final results of review with respect to Minasligas and the All 
Others rate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sal Tauhidi or Irene Darzenta, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group II, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14<SUP>th</SUP> Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
4851 or (202) 482-6320, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has now amended the 
final results of this administrative review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to 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. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations set forth at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1996).

Background

    On August 14, 1997, the Department published the final results of 
the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order or 
ferrosilcon from Brazil (62 FR 43504), covering the period March 1, 
1995 through February 29, 1996. The respondents are Companhia 
Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas (Minasligas) and Companhia 
Brasileria Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC). The petitioners are Aimcor and 
SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc.
    On August 20, 1997, the petitioners and Minasligas filed 
allegations that the Department had made certain ministerial errors in 
this administrative review with respect to Minasligas. Specifically, 
the petitioners alleged three ministerial errors with respect to the 
following issues: (1) the use of Brazilian reais-denominated gross unit 
prices instead of U.S. dollar-denominated gross unit prices for U.S. 
sales; (2) the treatment of marine insurance expenses for certain U.S. 
sales; and (3) the date of sale for one U.S. sale. Minasligas alleged 
two ministerial errors with respect to the following issues: (1) the 
adjustment to U.S. price for insurance revenue applicable to one U.S. 
sale; and (2) the treatment of value-added taxes (VAT) on U.S. sales. 
On August 27, 1997, both parties submitted comments on these 
allegations. For a complete discussion of the allegations, see the 
Department's October 6, 1997, Decision Memorandum Re: Alleged 
Ministerial Errors in the Calculation of the Final Antidumping Duty 
Margin for Companhia Ferroligas Minas-Gerais-Minasligas.
    As discussed below, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have 
determined that certain ministerial errors were made in our margin 
calculations for Minasligas. In addition, the Department also 
determined that a clerical error was made regarding the

[[Page 54086]]

``All Others'' rate as stated in the notice of the final results.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise subject to this review is ferrosilicon, a ferro 
alloy generally containing, by weight, not less than four percent iron, 
more than eight percent but not more than 96 percent silicon, not more 
than 10 percent chromium, not more than 30 percent manganese, not more 
than three percent phosphorous, less than 2.75 percent magnesium, and 
not more than 10 percent calcium or any other element. Ferrosilicon is 
a ferro alloy produced by combining silicon and iron through smelting 
in a submerged-arc furnace. Ferrosilicon is used primarily as an 
alloying agent in the production of steel and cast iron. It is also 
used in the steel industry as a deoxidizer and a reducing agent, and by 
cast iron producers as an inoculant. Ferrosilicon is differentiated by 
size and by grade. The sizes express the maximum and minimum dimensions 
of the lumps of ferrosilicon found in a given shipment. Ferrosilicon 
grades are defined by the percentages by weight of contained silicon 
and other minor elements. Ferrosilicon is most commonly sold to the 
iron and steel industries in standard grades of 75 percent and 50 
percent ferrosilicon. Calcium silicon, ferrocalcium silicon, and 
magnesium ferrosilcon are specifically excluded from the scope of this 
review. Calcium silicon is an alloy containing, by weight, not more 
than five percent iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon, and 28 to 32 percent 
calcium. Ferrocalcium silicon is a ferro alloy containing, by weight, 
not less than four percent iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon, and more 
than 10 percent calcium. Magnesium ferrosilicon is a ferro alloy 
containing, by weight, not less than four percent iron, not more than 
55 percent silicon, and not less than 2.75 percent magnesium.
    Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable under the following 
subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS): 7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000, 7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000, 
7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of this review is dispositive. Ferrosilicon in the form of 
slag is included within the scope of this order if it meets, in 
general, the chemical content definition stated above and is capable of 
being used as ferrosilicon. Parties that believe their importations of 
ferrosilicon slag do not meet these definitions should contact the 
Department and request a scope determination.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

Issue 1: The Use of Brazilian Reais-denominated Gross Unit Prices 
Instead of U.S. Dollar-denominated Gross Unit Prices for U.S. Sales

    The petitioners contend that because the Department believed that 
Minasligas' U.S. dollar prices were not on the record, it used 
Brazilian reais-denominated gross unit prices instead of U.S. dollar-
denominated gross unit prices for U.S. sales in its margin analysis. 
The Department thus mistakenly converted the U.S. sales prices reported 
in Brazilian currency to U.S. dollars on the date of sale. However, the 
petitioners assert that in Exhibit 6 of Minasligas' October 11, 1996 
supplemental response, Minasligas reported the gross unit prices for 
its U.S. sales in U.S. dollars. The petitioners argue that the 
Department should have used the U.S. dollar-denominated gross unit 
prices for Minasligas' U.S. sales, as reported in Exhibit 6 of 
Minasligas' October 11, 1996 supplemental response, instead of the 
Brazilian reais-denominated gross unit prices in its margin analysis.
    Minasligas contends that because the Department was able to verify 
the accuracy of the Brazilian reais-denominated prices by examining 
relevant commercial invoices for selected U.S. sales at verification, 
it should reject petitioners' request to use the U.S. dollar-
denominated gross unit prices reported in Exhibit 6. In this respect, 
Minasligas argues that the Department did not make a clerical error but 
applied an appropriate methodology.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners. In the final results of review, the 
Department mistakenly concluded that Minasligas' U.S. dollar-
denominated gross unit prices for U.S. sales were not on the record 
and, therefore, used the Brazilian reais-denominated U.S. prices in its 
final margin analysis. Upon further review of the record, we find that 
Minasligas reported U.S. dollar-denominated prices in Exhibit 6 of its 
October 11, 1996 supplemental response and that these prices were 
consistent with sales documentation obtained at verification. Thus, we 
inadvertently omitted the U.S. dollar-denominated price data contained 
in Exhibit 6 from our original final margin analysis. For complete 
discussion and analysis see the Department's October 6, 1997, Decision 
Memorandum Re: Alleged Ministerial Errors in the Calculation of the 
Final Antidumping Duty Margin for Companhia Ferroligas Minas-Gerais-
Minasligas. Therefore, for these amended final results, we have used 
the U.S. dollar-denominated gross unit prices for U.S. sales as 
reported in Exhibit 6 of Minasligas' October 11, 1996 supplemental 
response.

Issue 2: Clerical Error Allegations Regarding the Treatment of Marine 
Insurance Expenses for Certain U.S. Sales, the Date of Sale for One 
U.S. Sale, and the Adjustment to U.S. Price for Insurance Revenue 
Applicable to One U.S. Sale

    The petitioners and Minasligas contend that the Department failed 
to correctly input certain data for certain U.S. sales in its final 
margin calculations. Specifically, the petitioners contend that the 
Department made input errors with respect to marine insurance expenses 
for certain U.S. sales and the date of sale for one U.S. sale. 
Minasligas contends that the Department made an input error with 
respect to the adjustment to U.S. price for insurance revenue 
applicable to one U.S. sale.

DOC Position

    We agree with both the petitioners and Minasligas' allegations and 
have corrected these clerical errors. For complete discussion and 
analysis, see the Department's October 6, 1997, Decision Memorandum Re: 
Alleged Ministerial Errors in the Calculation of the Final Antidumping 
Duty Margin for Companhia Ferroligas Minas-Gerais-Minasligas.

Issue 3: Value-added Taxes Collected on U.S. Sales

    Minasligas asserts that the Department stated in its final results 
that Minasligas was unable to substantiate its claim that VAT charges 
are passed along to U.S. customers and are included in the reported 
U.S. prices. Minasligas maintains that for purposes of making price-to-
price comparisons, however, the Department treated VAT on U.S. export 
sales as if it had been passed along to U.S. customers and included it 
in the U.S. price. According to Minasligas, there is a contradiction 
between the Department's finding of fact (i.e., that Minasligas was 
unable to substantiate its claim that VAT charges are passed along to 
U.S. customers and are included in the reported prices) and the 
Department's calculation methodology. Minasligas maintains that if the 
Department's finding of fact is correct, it was a mistake to deduct VAT 
from the U.S. price or to account for it

[[Page 54087]]

in price-to-price comparisons. However, if the Department's finding of 
fact is not correct, Minasligas maintains that it is the Department's 
practice to calculate U.S. imputed credit expenses based on a U.S. 
price exclusive of VAT.
    The petitioners contend that the Department did not subtract VAT 
taxes on U.S. sales from the U.S. price. Instead, petitioners argue 
that the Department determined the difference between the weighted-
average per unit VAT taxes collected on home market sales and the per-
unit VAT taxes owed by Minasligas on each U.S. sale, and then 
subtracted this difference from normal value (NV) which included VAT 
taxes collected on home market sales, in accordance with its normal 
practice.

Department's Position

    We agree with Minasligas that this adjustment was inappropriate. 
For complete discussion and analysis, see the Department's October 6, 
1997, Decision Memorandum Re: Alleged Ministerial Errors in the 
Calculation of the Final Antidumping Duty Margin for Companhia 
Ferroligas Minas-Gerais-Minasligas. Therefore, for these amended final 
results, we have not made an adjustment to NV for VAT on U.S. sales.

Issue 4: All Others Rate

    The Department erroneously reported an ``All Others Rate'' of 91.06 
percent in the notice of final results. The correct ``All Others Rate'' 
is 35.95 percent. (See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value (LTFV): Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 59 FR 8599, February 
23, 1995.) Thus, we are amending the final results to replace the 
incorrect rate of 91.06 percent with the correct rate of 35.95 percent.

Amended Final Results

    As a result of our correction of the ministerial errors for 
Minasligas, we have determined the following amended margin exists for 
Minasligas for the period covering March 1, 1995 through February 29, 
1996:

                                                                        
                                                               Amended  
                                                              Weighted- 
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                       Average  
                                                                Margin  
                                                              (percent) 
                                                                        
Minasligas.................................................         2.54
                                                                        

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly 
to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of these amended final results of administrative review, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate 
for the reviewed company named above will be the rate as stated above; 
(2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
review, the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters 
will be 35.95 percent, the All Others rate established in the amended 
final LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.
    This notice services 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 
regulations and the terms of the APO is an sanctionable violation.
    These amended final results of administrative review and notice are 
in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR 353.28(c)).

    Dated: October 10, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-27631 Filed 10-14-97; 3:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M