```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54094-54096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27633]

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

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 January 14, 1997, of the 
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil, to reflect the 
correction of ministerial errors in those final results. These amended 
final results are for the review covering the period July 1, 1993 
through June 30, 1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 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 third 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal 
from Brazil on January 14, 1997 (62 FR 1954) (Third Review Final 
Results), covering the period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994. The 
respondents are Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC), 
Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais--Minasligas (Minasligas), Eletrosilex 
Belo Horizonte (Eletrosilex), Rima Industrial S.A. (RIMA), and Camargo 
Correa Metais (CCM). The petitioners are American Alloys, Inc., Elken 
Metals, Co., Globe Metallurgical, Inc., SMI Group, and SKW Metals & 
Alloys.
    On February 12, 1997, the petitioners filed clerical error 
allegations with respect to CCM and Minasligas. The same day we 
received clerical error allegations from respondent CCM. On February 
18, 1997, we received rebuttal comments from the petitioners regarding 
CCM's clerical error allegations. Pursuant to the CIT's order, we are 
now addressing the ministerial allegations and amending our final 
results of the third review. See American Silicon Technologies et al., 
v. United States, Slip Op. 97-114, August 18, 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. Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive 
as to the scope of product coverage.

Clerical Error Allegations

Comment 1

    CCM argues that the Department erred in its calculation of its U.S. 
imputed credit expenses in three ways. First, it argues that the 
Department should have

[[Page 54095]]

used CCM's ``actual credit'' expense, rather than an imputed figure. 
(The ``actual credit expense'' figure reported by CCM reflects the 
actual interest charged on its export credit line for its U.S. 
shipment.) CCM argues that this ``actual credit expense'' amount is the 
most accurate, transaction-specific measure of CCM's interest expense 
in connection with its U.S. sale. Second, CCM argues that if the 
Department continues to believe that it should use an imputed credit 
figure, it should use CCM's bill of lading date as the start of the 
credit period, rather than the date of shipment from CCM's factory. It 
bases this argument on the fact that title transfers from CCM to the 
U.S. purchaser on the bill of lading date. Thus, CCM argues, the credit 
period should begin on the bill of lading date because a credit expense 
cannot be incurred until CCM is no longer in possession of the 
merchandise. Third, CCM argues that the Department erred in its 
calculation of credit by not removing from the U.S. price the value of 
the ICMS tax (a value-added tax (VAT)) that the Brazilian government 
assessed on the sale. Doing so was an error, CCM argues, because in its 
response to comment 10 of the final results the Department stated that 
its practice ``is to calculate imputed credit exclusive of VAT.'' See 
Third Review Final Results at 1961.
    Petitioners argue that the Department made no clerical error in 
calculating an imputed figure for CCM's credit expenses or in using the 
date of shipment from CCM's plant as the start of the credit period. 
They argue that the Department specifically addressed these issues in 
the final results of review when it stated:

    We disagree with CCM that we should use its reported ``actual 
expense'' for U.S. credit. The Department requires that the credit 
expenses reflect the opportunity cost of the entire period between 
shipment from the plant and payment by the customer. That is not the 
case for CCM's reported ``actual expense.'' The actual expense 
covers only a portion of the imputed credit expense period. 
Therefore, in these final results of review we have calculated 
imputed credit using the shipment date from CCM's plant as given in 
verification exhibit 11.

    See Third Review Final Results at 1962.
    Department's Position: We agree with both parties in part. We agree 
with petitioners that we did specifically address CCM's first two 
contentions in our final results of review. Thus, calculating an 
imputed credit figure and using the date of shipment from CCM's plant 
as the start of the credit period did not constitute clerical errors. 
However, we do agree with CCM that in the calculation of U.S. imputed 
credit we inadvertently included the ICMS tax assessed on the sale. We 
have corrected this error in these amended final results.

Comment 2

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a ministerial error in 
the cost test for CCM. It states that the Department made a number of 
changes to CCM's reported costs, and that when it made these changes it 
gave the revised costs the variable name COP. However, when the 
Department performed the cost test, petitioners argue, it used the 
variable TOTCOP, which represents CCM's reported costs without any of 
the intended changes.
    Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in 
these amended final results of review.

Comment 3

    Petitioners argue the Department made a clerical error in its 
calculation of Minasligas' G&A expenses. It argues that the Department 
incorrectly transcribed the G&A expenses for one month of the period of 
review (POR).
    Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in 
these amended final results of review.

Comment 4

    Petitioners argue that the Department made a clerical error in 
converting Minasligas' brokerage, foreign inland freight, and 
warehousing expenses from Brazilian cruzeiros reais into U.S. dollars. 
They argue that the Department should have used the exchange rates of 
the dates of shipment for these expenses, rather than the exchange 
rates of the dates of sale.
    Department's Position: We agree, and have corrected this error in 
these amended final results of review.
    In addition to the changes made in response to the above comments, 
we have corrected an error in our calculations for all respondents with 
calculated margins. In our final results, we calculated G&A and 
interest expenses for the computation of COP/CV using a COM figure 
inclusive of VAT. In these amended final results we have calculated G&A 
and interest expenses using a COM figure exclusive of VAT. See our 
amended final results analysis memoranda for our revised calculations.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margins exist for the period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin  
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC.......................................................        61.58
CCM........................................................        35.23
Eletrosilex................................................        38.39
Minasligas.................................................         0.00
RIMA.......................................................        91.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 amended final results of review for the antidumping 
duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 1994 
through June 30, 1995, published concurrently with this notice; (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) 
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 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 54096]]

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. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 
section 353.28(c) of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: October 10, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-27633 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```