Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16763

the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate

for the reviewed company will be zero;

(2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the 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, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate of

8.10 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

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 subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

Notification of Interested Parties

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 an APO is a

sanctionable violation. Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

This 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 353.22.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8953 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–820]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Ferrosilicon From Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Katt or Sal Tauhidi, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Office Four,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0498 or (202) 482–4851,

respectively.

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 to the

Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA).

Preliminary Results

We preliminarily determine that sales

of ferrosilicon from Brazil have been

made below normal value (NV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries.

Case History

On March 4, 1996 (61 FR 8238), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on

Ferrosilicon from Brazil covering the

period March 1, 1995, through February

29, 1996. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(2), in March 1996, Companhia

Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio (CBCC)

and Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais

(Minasligas) (collectively the

respondents) requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of their shipments of ferrosilicon

to the United States during this period.

On April 25, 1996, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review (61 FR 18379).

The Department is now conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

On May 8, 1996, the Department

issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to CBCC and Minasligas.

This questionnaire instructed the

respondents to respond to sections A

(corporate structure, accounting

practices, markets and merchandise), B

(home market sales), C (United States

sales) and D (cost of production/

constructed value) of the questionnaire.

CBCC and Minasligas submitted

questionnaire responses in July 1996.

The Department issued supplemental

questionnaires to CBCC and Minasligas

in September 1996, December 1996, and

January 1997. Responses to the

supplemental questionnaires were

received in October 1996, and January

1997.

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

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of a

preliminary determination if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the review within the

statutory time limit. On November 26,

1996, the Department extended the time

limit for the preliminary results in this

case. See Extension of Time Limits of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, (61 FR 64322) (December 4,

1996).

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we verified the sales and cost

questionnaire responses of CBCC and

Minasligas during February 1997. The

results of these verifications are

outlined in the public versions of the

verification reports dated March 19,

1997, on file in room B–099 of the main

Commerce building.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is ferrosilicon, a ferroalloy

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 ferroalloy 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
16764 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

commonly sold to the iron and steel

industries in standard grades of 75

percent and 50 percent ferrosilicon.

Calcium silicon, ferrocalcium silicon,

and magnesium ferrosilicon 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 ferroalloy

containing, by weight, not less than four

percent iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon,

and more than 10 percent calcium.

Magnesium ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy

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.

Period of Review

The period of review (POR) is March

1, 1995, through February 29, 1996.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by CBCC and Minasligas,

covered by the description in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section, above,

and sold in the home market during the

POR, to be foreign like products for

purposes of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Where there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the home market to

compare to U.S. sales, we compared

U.S. sales to the next most similar

foreign like product based on the

following criteria: (1) The grade of

ferrosilicon (i.e., standard, high purity

and low aluminum); (2) the percentage

range, by weight, of silicon content; and

(3) the sieve size.

Although we have used the sieve size

category as a matching criterion in past

reviews, we are reconsidering the

matching criteria for CBCC and

Minasligas in light of additional data on

the record in this review. Although cost

differences among sieve size categories

do not exist, we considered whether the

merchandise was a ‘‘lump’’ or a ‘‘fine’’

in making our product comparisons

because sales of ferrosilicon fines

command significantly lower market

prices than sales of ferrosilicon lumps.

In addition, it appears that the two

products have different end-uses. For

purposes of these preliminary results,

we considered ferrosilicon pieces with a

minimum dimension equal to or greater

than one millimeter to be lumps and

ferrosilicon pieces with a maximum

dimension less than one millimeter to

be fines. We did not consider any

difference in sieve size ranges within

the lump or fine categories in

determining the most appropriate

product comparison because significant

price differences within the lump or

fine sieve size category did not exist.

Interested parties are requested to

comment on these matching criteria in

the case briefs submitted in this review.

For those sales where CBCC did not

report the actual silicon weight content

because the chemical analysis

certification documentation had been

destroyed, we assumed that the silicon

content was 75 percent because it was

confirmed at verification that this

merchandise was marketed and sold to

the U.S. customer as ‘‘75 percent

ferrosilicon.’’

CBCC and Minasligas reported only

one cost of manufacturing (COM) for all

three grades of ferrosilicon produced

and sold during the POR. Both

companies stated that in the normal

course of business, their books and

records do not capture any cost

differences for producing different

grades of ferrosilicon. However, at

verification, Minasligas was able to

identify some cost differences

associated with the production of high

purity and low aluminum ferrosilicon.

Where Minasligas’ U.S. sales of high

purity or low aluminum ferrosilicon

were matched to home market sales of

standard grade ferrosilicon, we

calculated a difference in merchandise

(DIFMER) adjustment between the

products as follows: (1) We isolated the

additional material, labor and variable

overhead costs used in the production

of high purity and low aluminum

ferrosilicon; (2) we removed these costs

from the variable cost of manufacturing

(VCOM) reported for standard grade

ferrosilicon; and (3) we added these

costs to the VCOM reported for high

purity and low aluminum ferrosilicon.

The DIFMER was then calculated,

where appropriate, to be the difference

in the variable cost of manufacturing

between the product sold to the U.S.

and the product sold in the home

market. (For a further discussion of the

calculation of the DIFMER, see the

‘‘Concurrence Memorandum’’ dated

April 1, 1997, on file in room B–099 of

the main Commerce building.)

Level of Trade

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess at 870. (1994)

(SAA), at 829–831, to the extent

practicable, the Department will

calculate NV based on sales at the same

level of trade as the U.S. sale. When the

Department is unable to find sale(s) in

the comparison market at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sale, the Department

may compare sales in the U.S. to foreign

market sales at a different level of trade.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value; Certain Pasta from

Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996).

In order to determine whether there is

a difference in level of trade, the

Department must find that two sales

have been made at different stages of

marketing, or the equivalent. Different

stages of marketing necessarily involve

differences in selling functions, but

differences in selling functions (even

substantial ones) are not alone sufficient

to establish a difference in the level of

trade. Similarly, seller and customer

descriptions (such as ‘‘distributor’’ and

‘‘wholesaler’’) are useful in identifying

different levels of trade, but are

insufficient to establish that there is a

difference in the level of trade. See

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from

Mexico: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (61 FR 36551 (January 31,

1997)).

In implementing these principles in

this review, we examined information

regarding the selling activities of the

producers/exporters associated with

each stage of marketing, or the

equivalent. In reviewing the selling

functions reported by the respondents,

we considered all types of selling

activities, both claimed and unclaimed,

that had been performed. In analyzing

whether separate LOTs existed, we

found that no single selling activity was

sufficient to warrant a separate LOT (see

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments, 61 FR

7307, 7348 (February 27, 1996)).

Pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B)(i) of the

Act and the SAA at 827, in identifying

levels of trade for EP and home market

sales, we considered the selling

functions reflected in the starting price

of these transactions before any

adjustments.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16765

In addition, we examined any claimed

LOTs reported by each respondent in

response to our initial and supplemental

questionnaires. When examining

claimed LOTs, we analyzed the selling

activities associated with the classes of

customers and marketing stages the

respondents reported. In applying this

analysis, we expect that, if claimed

LOTs are the same, the functions and

activities of the seller should be similar.

Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs

are different for different groups of

sales, the functions and activities of the

seller should be dissimilar. The

Department not only examines the types

of selling activities, but weighs the

overall function performed for each

claimed level of trade.

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, in comparing

U.S. sales to NV sales, the Department

will adjust the NV to account for any

difference in level of trade if two

conditions are met. First, the sales must

in fact be made at different levels of

trade, which can exist only if there are

differences between the actual selling

functions performed by the seller at the

level of trade of the U.S. sale and the

level of trade of the NV sale. Second,

there must be a difference in price

comparability, as evidenced by a pattern

of consistent price differences between

sales at the different levels of trade in

the market in which NV is determined.

Based on our analysis of the selling

functions performed by each

respondent, we found that a single level

of trade exists in each market. We then

compared selling functions in the U.S.

market and in the home market and

found them to be similar. We find,

therefore, that sales in the home market

and in the U.S. market are at the same

level of trade.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

ferrosilicon by CBCC and Minasligas to

the United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the export price

(EP) to the normal value (NV), as

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)

of the Act, we compared the EP of

individual transactions to the weightedaverage NV of contemporaneous sales of

the foreign like product.

Export Price

For CBCC and Minasligas, we

calculated EP, in accordance with

subsections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act

because the subject merchandise was

sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and constructed export

price was not otherwise warranted

based on the facts of record.

For both respondents, we calculated

EP based on packed prices to the first

unaffiliated customers in the United

States. In accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

freight expenses between the plant and

the port, foreign brokerage and

handling, warehousing expenses, ocean

freight, and marine insurance expenses.

The questionnaire instructs

respondents to report all costs, charges

or expenses incurred in bringing the

subject merchandise from the original

place of shipment in the exporting

country to the unaffiliated customer’s

place of delivery. At verification we

discovered that Minasligas had not

reported marine insurance expenses

incurred on U.S. sales made on a CIFFO

basis, and that CBCC had not reported

the chemical analysis and weight

inspection fees incurred on U.S. sales.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that if an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested, significantly

impedes a determination under the

antidumping statute, or provides

information which cannot be verified,

the Department shall use facts available

in reaching the applicable

determination. Because CBCC and

Minasligas failed to provide the data

requested by the Department regarding

marine insurance expenses and

chemical analysis and weight inspection

fees prior to verification, the

Department is compelled to use facts

available with regard to these expenses.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that adverse inferences may be used if

the party has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with requests for information. See also

the Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) at 870. Because CBCC and

Minasligas failed to report marine

insurance expenses and chemical

analysis and weight inspection fees,

despite the Department’s request for

such data, and because the respondents

provided no explanation for the lack of

data, each company has failed, to date,

to cooperate to the best of its ability

with respect to these expenses. Thus,

the Department has determined that, in

selecting among the facts otherwise

available to apply to these unreported

U.S. expenses, an adverse inference is

warranted. Consequently, as facts

otherwise available, we have assigned

the highest marine insurance expense

incurred on a U.S. sale during the POR

to all of Minasligas’ U.S. sales made on

a CIFFO basis and the highest chemical

analysis and weight inspection fees

incurred on a U.S. sale to all of CBCC’s

U.S. sales.

We made additional company specific

adjustments as follows:

Minasligas

We calculated Minasligas’ EP based on

FOB Brazilian port and CIFFO prices. We

added the amount of marine insurance

revenue which was collected by Minasligas

with regard to one U.S. sale during the POR.

We disallowed Minasligas’ claim for duty

drawback for mineral coal because it was

determined at verification that import duties

on mineral coal were suspended upon

importation. Therefore, Minasligas does not

receive any duty drawback when ferrosilicon

is exported. Finally, we corrected the

reported date of sale for two transactions to

reflect the actual date of sale confirmed at

verification.

CBCC

We calculated CBCC’s EP based on FOB

Brazilian port prices. We disallowed CBCC’s

claim for interest revenue as an offset to the

reported credit expenses and instead used

the actual bank charges incurred on each U.S.

sale as the cost of extending credit to the U.S.

customer. (For a further discussion of this

issue, see the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this

notice, below.)

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared each

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since the

aggregate volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product was greater

than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, and there was no evidence

indicating that a particular market

situation in the exporting country did

not permit a proper comparison, we

determined that the home market was

viable for CBCC and Minasligas.

Therefore, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV

on the prices at which the foreign like

products were first sold for

consumption in the exporting country.

We calculated NV as noted in the ‘‘Price

to Price Comparisons’’ and ‘‘Price to

Constructed Value’’ sections of this

notice, below.

Cost of Production Analysis

Because we disregarded sales below

the cost of production (COP) in the last

completed segment of the proceeding

for CBCC and Minasligas (i.e., the LTFV

investigation) we had reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales
16766 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

of the foreign product under

consideration for the determination of

NV in this review may have been made

at prices below the COP, as provided by

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, we initiated COP

investigations of sales by CBCC and

Minasligas in the home market. (See the

Memorandum to the File from Laurel

LaCivita, dated May 3, 1996, on file in

room B–099 of the main Commerce

building.)

Before making any fair value

comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below for CBCC and

Minasligas.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the COP based

on the sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication employed in

producing the foreign like product, plus

amounts for selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

packing costs. We relied on the COP

amounts reported by CBCC and

Minasligas except in the following

specific instances where the reported

costs were determined to be improperly

valued:

CBCC

1. We reallocated the reported labor and

overhead expenses for July, 1995, through

February 1996, based on the actual

production capacity.

2. We recalculated the cost of charcoal for

all charcoal consumed in the production

process using the purchased unit cost

obtained at verification.

3. We recalculated the reported factory

overhead for January 1996, to include

depreciation expenses on idle assets.

Minasligas

1. We reallocated the reported variable

overhead cost based on the actual production

tonnage rather than the number of furnaces

used.

2. We recalculated the reported weightedaverage cost used to average monthly COP

costs to correct an error discovered at

verification.

3. We adjusted the reported G&A expense

to deduct reforestation maintenance costs

which had been reported twice in the COP/

CV response.

4. We disallowed Minasligas’ claim for

negative interest expenses and instead, set

the interest expense equal to zero.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP for each respondent to

home market sales of the foreign like

product as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below the COP within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities, and whether such prices

were sufficient to permit the recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time. On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the reported home

market prices less any applicable

movement charges, taxes, rebates,

commissions and other direct and

indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product were at prices less

than the COP, we disregarded the

below-cost sales because such sales

were found to be made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ in accordance with sections

773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and

based on comparisons of price to

weighted-average COPs for the POR we

determined that the below-cost sales of

the product were at prices which would

not permit recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act. Where all contemporaneous

sales of a specific product were at prices

below the COP, we calculated NV based

on CV, in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Act.

We found that, for certain ferrosilicon

products, CBCC and Minasligas made

home market sales at below COP prices

within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities. Further, we

found that these sales prices did not

permit for the recovery of costs within

a reasonable period of time. We

therefore excluded these sales from our

analysis in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

For those ferrosilicon products for

which we could not determine the NV

based on home market sales either

because (1) There were no

contemporaneous sales of a comparable

product or (2) all contemporaneous

sales of the comparison product failed

the COP test, we compared export prices

to CV. In accordance with section

773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of the COM of the

product sold in the United States, plus

amounts for home market selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A), home market profit and U.S.

packing costs. We calculated each

respondent’s CV based on the

methodology described in the

‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section of this

notice, above. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A), we used the actual

amounts incurred and realized by CBCC

and Minasligas in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product, in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country

to calculate home market SG&A and

profit. In accordance with section 773(e)

of the Act, we added to CV the amount

of ICMS/IPI taxes incurred on purchases

of raw material inputs for CBCC. For

Minasligas, we added to CV the greater

of either (1) the actual home market IPI/

ICMS taxes paid on raw material inputs

or (2) the amount of ICMS tax collected

by the Brazilian government on export

sales. (See Final Results of

Administrative Review: Silicon Metal

from Brazil, 62 FR 1970 1976 (January

14, 1997)).

Price to Price Comparisons

Where there were contemporaneous

sales of the comparison product that

passed the COP test, we based NV on

home market prices. For each of the

respondents, we made adjustments,

where appropriate, for physical

differences in the merchandise in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)

of the Act. (For a discussion of the

calculation of the DIFMER, see the

‘‘Product Comparisons’’ section of this

notice, above.) In addition, we deducted

home market packing costs and added

U.S. packing costs in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act.

CBCC and Minasligas reported

negative U.S. credit expenses (i.e., credit

revenue) based on their claims that

unique financing arrangements for

export sales, called advance exchange

contracts (ACCs)), allowed the

respondents to receive payment for their

U.S. sales prior to the date of shipment.

At verification we determined that

ACCs work as follows. A producer goes

to a Brazilian bank that it has a line of

credit with, and applies for an ACC. At

this time, the producer must specify the

product to be exported. The name of the

export country, customer and the value

of particular sales may be specified, but

these variables are not fixed. On the

date the ACC is signed by the bank, the

producer receives the value of the ACC

in Brazilian Reais. At a later date, the

producer must present documentation

to the bank proving that the money

obtained under the ACC was used to

produce merchandise for exportation

(e.g., the commercial invoice, bill of

lading, etc.). After receiving the

merchandise, the U.S. customer pays

the bank directly. Once the bank has

received payment, the Brazilian bank
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16767

charges the producer bank fees equal to

the interest charged for the number of

days the ACC was outstanding (i.e., the

number of days between the date the

producer received the money under the

ACC and the date the U.S. customer

paid the bank).

We have disallowed CBCC’s and

Minasligas’ claimed credit revenue/

negative U.S. credit expenses for

purposes of the preliminary results

because we do not consider the ACCs to

be directly related to the U.S. sales

made during the POR. Evidence on the

record indicating that the ACC was not

directly linked with the U.S. sales in

question is as follows: (1) The export

country, customer, and value of the sale

were not fixed on the date the ACC was

signed; (2) ACCs were obtained prior to

the U.S. date of sale for all of CBCC’s

U.S. sales and certain sales made by

Minasligas. Therefore, the ACC did not

pertain to a particular U.S. sale but

instead pertained to future unspecified

shipments; (3) the amount borrowed

under certain ACCs did not correspond

exactly with the value of the U.S. sale

which was later shipped; (4) in certain

instances, more than one ACC was used

to finance a single U.S. transaction; and

(5) certain ACCs were used to finance

more than one U.S. export. (For a

further discussion of ACCs, see the

‘‘Concurrence Memorandum’’ dated

April 1, 1997, on file in room B–099 of

the main Commerce building.)

In accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C) of the Act, the Department

makes circumstance of sale (COS)

adjustments to NV in order to account

for the difference in credit terms

between U.S. and home market sales.

Because CBCC and Minasligas receive

financing for their export sales prior to

the date of shipment and the U.S.

customer pays the Brazilian bank

directly, the respondents do not forego

payment from the U.S. customer but

instead pay bank charges on U.S. sales.

These bank charges represent the

interest expense incurred between the

date the respondent received an

advance under an ACC and the date the

U.S. customer paid the bank. For

purposes of calculating U.S. credit

expenses, we have used the actual bank

charges incurred on each U.S. sale as

the cost of extending credit to the

customer. (See the CBCC and Minasligas

‘‘Verification Reports’’ dated March 19,

1997, on file in room B–099 of the main

Commerce building.)

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6) of the

Act, we made deductions, where

appropriate, from the starting price for

rebates, inland freight and IPI taxes.

With respect to ICMS taxes for

Minasligas, we deducted the difference

between the ICMS tax incurred on the

home market sale and the claimed ICMS

tax on the U.S. sale. For CBCC, we

deducted the reported ICMS tax. We

made circumstance of sale adjustments

to NV for direct expenses, where

appropriate, in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. In doing so,

we deducted home market credit

expenses and, where appropriate, added

U.S. credit expenses, U.S. chemical

analysis and weight inspection fees, and

U.S. port charges. Neither CBCC nor

Minasligas had any short-term

borrowings during the POR. Therefore,

we calculated credit expenses for all

home market sales using the average

‘‘taxa referential’’ rate offered on shortterm transactions during the POR by the

Central Bank of Brazil. In addition, for

sales made on a consignment basis, we

recalculated the credit period to include

the number of days between the date the

consignee was invoiced for the

merchandise it consumed and the date

the respondent received payment from

the home market customer. In addition,

we considered the date of sale for

consignment sales to be the date that the

respondent invoiced the customer for

the merchandise the consignee notified

the respondent it had consumed.

We made company-specificadjustments for price-to-price

comparisons as follows:

CBCC

We calculated NV based on packed,

FOB plant and CIF prices to unaffiliated

customers. We added the amount of

interest revenue actually collected on

home market sales in instances where

the customer paid late. Section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act directs that we

calculate NV on the basis of the price at

which the ‘‘foreign like product is first

sold.’’ Foreign like product, in turn, is

defined by section 771(16) of the Act as

merchandise that is produced in the

same country and by the same person as

the merchandise which is the subject of

the investigation. Therefore, because

CBCC sold only self-produced

merchandise to the United States, the

statute prohibits using sales of

merchandise produced by persons other

than CBCC in the calculation of normal

value. Accordingly, we excluded from

the calculation of NV all re-sales of

merchandise which was not produced

by CBCC.

In addition, we excluded all sales

reported in the home market database

which were determined to be either

cancelled or reported twice in the sales

listing. We did not deduct reported IPI

taxes for four home market customers

because it was determined at

verification that the ferrosilicon these

customers purchased was used to

produce merchandise for exportation.

Therefore, these customers were exempt

from paying IPI taxes during the POR.

Finally, we calculated a packing cost for

one sale where no packing cost was

reported because the sale was actually

packed in bags.

We adjusted for commissions as

follows: Where commissions were paid

on some, but not all, home market sales

used to calculate NV, and no

commissions were paid on a U.S. sale

used to calculate export price, we

deducted the home market commission

from NV and added to NV the lesser of

either (1) The indirect selling expenses

incurred on the U.S. sale or (2) the

weighted-average amount of the

commissions paid on the home market

sales. We recalculated U.S. inventory

carrying costs as follows: (1) The credit

period was recalculated using the

number of days in inventory at the plant

confirmed at verification; and (2)

because CBCC had no short-term

borrowings during the POR, we

calculated U.S. inventory carrying costs

using the average ‘‘taxa referential’’ rate

offered on short-term transactions by the

Central Bank of Brazil. (See the

‘‘Concurrence Memorandum’’ dated

April 1, 1997, and the verification report

dated March 19, 1997 on file in room B–

099 of the main commerce building.)

Minasligas

We calculated NV based on packed,

FOB plant and CIF prices to unaffiliated

customers. For those home market

shipments which Minasligas claimed

were made pursuant to long-term

contracts, we based the date of sale on

the invoice date because, based on

information gathered at verification, we

did not find the essential terms of sale

(i.e., price and quantity) to be fixed on

the date of contract. Specifically, we

noted that the prices and quantities

were frequently modified after the date

of the contract, there were no penalties

imposed by Minasligas in instances

where the customer did not purchase

the quantity specified in the contract,

and the shipping schedules specified by

the customer were frequently changed

and/or not met. (For a further discussion

of Minasligas’ long-term contracts, see

the ‘‘Concurrence Memorandum’’ dated

April 1, 1997, on file in room B–099 of

the main Commerce building.) We

corrected the reported payment date for

one transaction to reflect the actual

payment date confirmed at verification.

Price to Constructed Value Comparisons

Where we compared export prices to

CV, we deducted from CV the weightedaverage home market direct selling
16768 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

expenses and added the product

specific U.S. direct selling expenses in

accordance with sections 773(a)(8) and

773(a)(6)(iii) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In

accordance with the Department’s

practice, we have determined that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is

defined as the rolling average of rates for

the past 40 business days. When we

determine that a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margins exist for the period March 1,

1995 through February 29, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

CBCC ............................................ 2.27

Minasligas ..................................... 7.98

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Interested parties

are invited to comment on the

preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue:

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. All case briefs must be

submitted within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, which are limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service. The final results of this review

shall be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties. For duty assessment

purposes, we calculated an importerspecific assessment rate by aggregating

the dumping margins calculated for all

U.S. sales to each importer and dividing

this amount by the total quantity of

subject merchandise sold to each of the

respective importers. This specific rate

calculated for each importer will be

used for the assessment of antidumping

duties on the relevant entries of subject

merchandise during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of ferrosilicon from Brazil entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

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

deposit rate for CBCC and Minasligas

will be the rates established in the final

results of administrative review, except

if the rate is less than 0.5 percent, ad

valorem and, therefore, de minimis

within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, the

cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less than fair

value (LTFV) investigation or a previous

review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published in the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a previous review, or the

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 or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 35.95

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the antidumping duty order

(59 FR 11769, March 14, 1994). These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

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 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: April 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8956 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–412–602]

Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From

the United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Revocation of

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Revocation of Antidumping

Duty Order.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

forged steel crankshafts from the United

Kingdom (61 FR 64055). This review

covers shipments of this merchandise to

the United States during the period

September 1, 1994 through August 31,

1995.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments and rebuttal

comments received, we have corrected

certain clerical errors in the margin

calculations. The final weighted-average

dumping margin for the reviewed firm

is listed below in the section entitled

‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Dirstine, Lyn Johnson, or Richard

Rimlinger, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,