[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 143 (Monday, July 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40097-40099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20013]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-820]


Amended Order and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Ferrosilicon From Brazil

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

ACTION: Amendment to Final Determination of Antidumping Duty

[[Page 40098]]

Investigation in Accordance with Decision upon Remand.

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

SUMMARY: On July 20, 1995, the United States Court of International 
Trade (the CIT) remanded to the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
the final determination and the amended final determination in the 
antidumping duty investigation of ferrosilicon from Brazil. See Aimcor 
et al. v. United States et al., Slip Op. 95-130 (CIT July 20, 1995). On 
January 17, 1996, the Department filed its results of redetermination 
pursuant to the CIT's order, and on May 21, 1996, the CIT affirmed the 
Final Remand Determination. That decision was appealed. The petitioner 
cross-appealed. On April 9, 1998, the CAFC affirmed the decision of the 
CIT. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this 
action, we will instruct the Customs Service to collect a cash deposit 
of 42.17 percent for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice, from ``all other'' manufacturers, producers or exporters. The 
cash deposit rates calculated for CBCC and Minasligas as a result of 
the remand have been superseded by subsequent administrative reviews 
for these companies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or David J. Goldberger, 
Office 5, 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) 482-4929 or (202) 482-4136, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions in effect 
as of December 31, 1994. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations 
codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (1994).

Background

    On January 6, 1994, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value: 
Ferrosilicon from Brazil (59 FR 732) (Final Determination). On February 
23, 1994, the Department published the Amended Final Determination of 
Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value: Ferrosilicon from Brazil (59 FR 8598) 
(Amended Final Determination). Subsequently, AIMCOR and Minasligas 
filed lawsuits with the CIT, challenging the Department's final 
determination and amended final determination.
    On July 20, 1995, the CIT remanded to the Department the Final 
Determination and Amended Final Determination. See Aimcor, Alabama 
Silicon, Inc., American Alloys, Inc., Globe Metallurgical, Inc., and 
American Silicon Technologies v. United States and Companhia Ferroligas 
Minas Gerais-Minasligas, Slip Op. 95-130 (CIT July 20, 1995). In its 
remand instructions, the CIT upheld the Department's reduction of home 
market price by the inflation premium (we determined that the home 
market price erroneously included an adjustment for anticipated 
inflation that did not permit a contemporaneous comparison of the home 
market price at the time of shipment to the replacement cost in the 
month of shipment) but directed the Department to determine if the 
amount of the ``spread'' (the difference between the interest rate and 
the inflation rate) was sufficiently quantified and, if so, to account 
for this amount in the home market price. If this data was not found to 
be sufficiently quantified, the Department was to grant Minasligas an 
opportunity to provide such data. We determined that the spread 
reported by Minasligas was not the most appropriate measure of 
inflation in this case. We used the monthly Wholesale Price Index 
because it more closely reflected the price increases experienced by 
the producer due to inflation. Second, the CIT stated that the 
Department must reconsider its profit calculation in CV because in this 
hyperinflationary situation, the Department calculated profit based 
upon an imputed home market credit expense that may be totally 
unrelated to an appropriate CV. The Court further stated that the 
Department must explain the rationale for whatever methodology it chose 
to apply. We recalculated profit after using the weighted average of 
home market spreads as imputed credit for CV because the spreads most 
accurately reflect the real interest rate charged to customers during 
the payment period. Third, the CIT instructed the Department to apply a 
U.S. dollar-denominated interest rate in calculating Minasligas' 
imputed U.S. credit expenses. We determined that the company's only 
evidence of U.S. borrowing is an aircraft lease and, therefore, the 
only evidence of what credit terms this company would encounter when 
borrowing in U.S. dollars. Accordingly, for purposes of imputed credit 
expenses, we used the interest rate on the aircraft lease. Fourth, the 
CIT directed the Department to request from Minasligas data on the 
appropriate monetary correction for loans, and if that data was 
inadequate or not provided, to reconsider our selection of best 
information available. Also, we were to reconsider whether the 
Department's interest expense adjustment and the selection, if any, of 
an adjustment for monetary correction for loans understated Minasligas' 
interest expenses included in COP and CV. We recalculated the net 
interest expense ratio for the combined companies (Delp and Minasligas) 
based on the actual interest expense incurred consistent with our 
normal methodology. We restated the cost of sales used in the 
denominator of the net interest expense ratio by using the wholesale 
price inflation index. We applied the actual interest expense ratio to 
the replacement cost of manufacturing for each month of the period of 
investigation. Fifth, the CIT directed the Department to determine 
whether Minasligas' value-added taxes on the inputs at issue were fully 
recovered prior to exportation of the subject merchandise. On September 
13, 1995, the CIT determined that the fifth issue also pertained to 
CBCC. The parties were unable to submit data to enable us to determine 
whether the taxes paid on inputs for any specific sale were recovered. 
Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the taxes 
were fully recovered and we considered them a cost and included them in 
the cost of production.
    On January 17, 1996, the Department filed its results of 
redetermination pursuant to the CIT's remand. As a result of the 
redetermination upon remand, the dumping margin for Minasligas changed 
from 3.46 percent to 19.73 percent, the dumping margin for CBCC changed 
from 15.53 to 17.93 percent, and the All Others rate changed from 35.95 
to 42.17 percent. On May 21, 1996, the CIT affirmed the Department's 
results of the remand redetermination. See AIMCOR v. United States, 
Slip Op. 96-79 (CIT May 21, 1996). That decision was appealed by both 
AIMCOR and Minasligas. Specifically, Minasligas challenged the 
inclusion of Brazilian value-added taxes as part of the cost of 
materials in determining CV. AIMCOR cross-appealed, challenging the 
interest rate used by the Department to calculate Minasligas' U.S. 
credit expenses. On April 9, 1998, the CAFC affirmed the decision of 
the CIT. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this 
action, we are amending our

[[Page 40099]]

amended final determination in this matter.

Amended Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 19 U.S.C. 1516A(e) of the Act, we are now 
amending the amended final determination on the antidumping duty order 
on ferrosilicon from Brazil. As a result of the remand redetermination, 
the recalculated final weighted-average margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
  Manufacturer/producer/exporter        Customers ID No.      percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBCC.............................  A-351-820-001                  17.93 
Minasligas.......................  A-351-820-003                  19.73 
All Others.......................  A-351-820-000                  42.17 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Instructions

    On January 19, 1996, the Court granted an injunction preventing 
liquidation of entries made on or after August 16, 1993, at the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) or amended LTFV cash deposit rates for CBCC, 
Minasligas, as well as ``all others'' (except Italmagnesio S.A. 
Industria e Comercia, which was not covered by the injunction), and 
required that any unreviewed entries be liquidated at the rates 
determined in the litigation. We will, therefore, instruct Customs to 
liquidate unreviewed entries of Minasligas, CBCC and ``all others,'' 
which were entered at the LTFV cash deposit rates, at the rates listed 
above.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
section 736(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4)(1994).

    Dated: July 17, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-20013 Filed 7-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P