Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Notices 54085

Torrington states that antidumping and

countervailing duties are imposed in

addition to regular duties. Torrington

also notes that, pursuant to Section 1335

of the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988, the

Department may exclude certain sales of

bearings that have no substantial nonmilitary use and are made pursuant to

an existing Memorandum of

Understanding, citing 61 FR 66471,

66508 (December 17, 1996). Torrington

argues that AAC makes no such claim.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with AAC. The elimination of duties

discussed in article 2 of the Agreement

on Trade in Civil Aircraft refers to the

elimination of ordinary customs duties,

not antidumping duties imposed to

offset unfair foreign trade practices.

Indeed, U.S. law makes even U.S.

government agencies acting as importers

subject to antidumping or

countervailing duties applicable to the

merchandise imported unless it is

merchandise ‘‘acquired by, or for the

use of,’’ the Department of Defense from

a country with which Defense had a

Memorandum of Understanding in

effect on January 1, 1988, or

merchandise imported by Defense

which ‘‘has no substantial nonmilitary

use.’’ See section 771(20) of the Tariff

Act; AFBs V, 61 FR 66,472, 66,508 (Dec.

17, 1996). See also Federal-Mogul Corp.

v. United States, 813 F. Supp. 856, 865

n.6 (CIT 1993) (stating that in case of a

conflict between GATT and U.S. law,

U.S. law applies). Therefore, the

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft

does not exempt AAC from the

requirement to pay antidumping duties

on the merchandise at issue.

We also reject AAC’s request that it be

exempted from the order because it

imported and sold only a small amount

of subject merchandise from SNFA

during the POR and because it imported

and installed the bearings in response to

a ‘‘mandate’’ from its parent company.

Neither the statute nor our regulations

provides exemptions from the dumping

law for such reasons. Thus, importing

subject merchandise subject to a

‘‘mandate’’ is not ‘‘functionally

equivalent’’ to installing merchandise

on the aircraft at manufacture.

Moreover, the fact that AAC’s bearings

comprise under one percent of the total

price of the finished product when sold

to unrelated customers does not exempt

it from paying antidumping duties.

Finally, we have not used the

information provided by AAC regarding

its imports of SNFA bearings to

calculate an antidumping duty rate for

SNFA or AAC. In market-economy

cases, the Department’s practice is to

calculate a single rate for each

respondent investigated or reviewed. As

AAC notes, however, SNFA did not

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire. While we recognize the

difficulty that AAC may have

encountered in trying to obtain

information from SNFA, the information

provided by AAC was based on its own

imports of subject merchandise and,

absent SNFA’s data, was insufficient to

allow for the calculation of an

antidumping duty rate. As stated in the

SAA at page 826, imported components

which are further manufactured are not

exempt from antidumping duties.

[FR Doc. 97–27473 Filed 10–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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 GeraisMinasligas 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, 14th 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 GeraisMinasligas (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. dollardenominated 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
54086 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Notices

‘‘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 Reaisdenominated 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 reaisdenominated 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 reaisdenominated gross unit prices in its

margin analysis.

Minasligas contends that because the

Department was able to verify the

accuracy of the Brazilian reaisdenominated 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. dollardenominated 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-GeraisMinasligas. 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-GeraisMinasligas.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Notices 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-GeraisMinasligas. 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:

Manufacturer/Exporter

Amended

WeightedAverage

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

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. The period covered

by these amended final results is the

period July 1, 1994 through June 30,

1995.

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 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).

Background

The Department published the final

results of the fourth administrative

review, covering the period July 1, 1994

through June 30, 1995, of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Brazil on January 14, 1997

(62 FR 1970) (Fourth Review Final

Results). The respondents are

Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de

Ca ́lcio (CBCC), Companhia Ferroligas

Minas Gerais-Minasligas (Minasligas),