[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14731-14732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6811]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-351-806]


Silicon Metal From Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners and four respondents, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal 
from Brazil. This review covers four manufacturers/exporters and the 
period July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference 
between United States price (USP) and the FMV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fred Baker or Zev Primor, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Background

    On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(56 FR 36135) the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. 
On July 7, 1993, the Department published (58 FR 36391) a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this antidumping 
duty order for the period July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. We 
received timely requests for review from Companhia Brasileira 
Carburetto de Calcio (CBCC), Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais 
Minasligas (Minasligas), Electroila, S.A. (currently known as 
Eletrosilex Belo Horizonte (Eletrosilex)), and Rima Eletrometalurgia 
S.A. (RIMA). We also received a request for review of the same four 
manufacturers/exporters of silicon metal from a group of five domestic 
producers of silicon metal (the petitioners). The five domestic 
producers are American Alloys, Inc., Elkem Metals Co., Globe 
Metallurgical, Inc., SMI Group, and SKW Metals and Alloys, Inc.
    On August 24, 1993, the Department published a notice of initiation 
(58 FR 44653) covering the four manufacturers/exporters named above. We 
verified the cost responses of Eletrosilex, RIMA, and CBCC in June and 
July 1994. The Department has now completed the preliminary results of 
this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of the 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 2804.69.50 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.
    The review period is July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. This 
review involves four manufactueres/exporters of Brazilian silicon 
metal.
United States Price

    In calculating USP, we used purchase price as defined in section 
772 of the Tariff Act. Purchase price was based on the packed, F.O.B., 
C.I.F., or C&F price to the first unrelated purchaser in the United 
States, or to unrelated trading companies who export to the United 
States.
    We made deductions from USP, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight, ocean freight, and brokerage and handling. We made an addition 
to USP, where appropriate, for duty drawback. These adjustments were in 
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act. We also adjusted 
USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in 
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (at 31205), June 17, 1994.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of 
silicon metal in the home market to serve as a viable basis for 
calculating FMV, we compared the volume of each respondent's home 
market sales to the volume of its third-country sales, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. In each case we found that 
the respondent's sales of silicon metal in [[Page 14732]] 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, valued-
added 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 below-cost sales and been made over 
an extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which 
below-cost 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (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