14732 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices

the home market constituted at least five

percent of its sales to all other markets.

Thus, other than where we relied upon

constructed value (CV) (as described

below), we based FMV on sales in the

home market. See 19 C.F.R. 353.46(a).

Based on findings in the previous

review and the less-than fair-value

(LTFV) investigation that the

respondents sold subject merchandise

in the home market below the cost of

production (COP), we conducted a cost

investigation in this review in

accordance with section 732(a) of the

Tariff Act. We calculated each

respondent’s COP as the sum of all

reported material costs, labor expenses,

factory overhead, selling, general, and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, and

packing expenses. Because the Brazilian

economy was hyperinflationary during

the period of review (POR), we

instructed respondents to follow our

long-standing methodology for

hyperinflationary economies, including

the use of replacement costs. (See

Silicon Metal from Brazil, Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 59 FR 42806 (August 19, 1994.)

We compared individual home

market prices, net of the imposto de

circulacao de mercadorias e servicos

(ICMS) tax (a home market, valuedadded tax), to monthly COPs. For CBCC,

Eletrosilex, and RIMA, we found that,

for each model sold in the home market,

more than 90 percent of sales were

made at below-COP prices, and were

made over an extended period of time.

Since CBCC, Eletrosilex, and RIMA

provided no indication that these sales

were at prices that would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time and in the normal course

of trade, we disregarded all of their

home market sales, and based FMV on

CV in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.50.

For Minasligas, we found that between

10 and 90 percent of home market sales

were made at below-COP prices.

However, since we determined that

such sales were not made over an

extended period of time, we did not

disregard them in our calculation of

FMV.

In order to determine whether belowcost sales and been made over an

extended period of time, we compared

the number of months in which belowcost sales occurred for each model to the

number of months during the POR in

which each model was sold. If a model

was sold in fewer than three months

during the review period, we did not

exclude the below-cost sales unless

there were below-cost sales in each

month of sale. If a model was sold in

three or more months, we did not

exclude the below cost sales unless

there were below-cost sales in at least

three months during the POR.

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Tariff Act, where we based FMV on

CV, it consisted of the sum of the cost

of manufacture (COM) of silicon metal,

home market SG&A expenses, home

market profit, and the cost of export

packing. The COM of silicon metal is

the sum of direct material, direct labor,

and variable and fixed overhead

expenses. For home market SG&A

expenses, we used the larger of the

actual SG&A expenses reported by the

respondents or 10 percent of the COM,

the statutory minimum for foreign

SG&A expenses. For home market

profit, we used the larger of the actual

profit reported by the respondents, or

the statutory minimum of eight percent

of the sum of COM and SG&A expenses.

See section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Tariff

Act. We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for differences between

home market and U.S. market expenses

for credit and warehousing.

We based FMV for Minasligas on

prices to unrelated purchasers in the

home market. We calculated a monthly,

weighted-average price. Where

applicable, we made adjustments for

post-sale inland freight. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for

differences between home market and

U.S. market expenses for packing,

credit, and warehousing.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

CBCC ........................................ 21.39

Minasligas ................................. 0.00

Eletrosilex ................................. 11.28

RIMA ......................................... 20.83

Interested parties may request a

disclosure within 5 days of publication

of this notice and may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, 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 case briefs.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of silicon metal 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 Tariff Act: (1)

the cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those rates

established in the final results of this

review; (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated 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, a prior 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 or any previous review

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 91.06 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 C.F.R.

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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 C.F.R. 353.22.

Dated: March 9, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6811 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M