Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Notices 14731

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38,

case briefs or other written comments in

at least ten copies must be submitted to

the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than May 4,

1995, and rebuttal briefs, no later than

May 11, 1995. In accordance with 19

CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public

hearing if requested, to afford interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal

briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be

held at 1:00 p.m. on May 16, 1995, at

the U.S. Department of Commerce,

Room 4803, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230. Parties should confirm by

telephone the time, date, and place of

the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room B–099, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Request should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants: and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. In this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination within 75 days after

the preliminary determination.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act and

19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

Dated: March 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6810 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[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 thirdcountry 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
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