Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/07/28/03-19139/silicon-metal-from-brazil-preliminary-results-of-antidumping-duty-administrative-review-partial
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 11:14:14
Document Index: 339638960

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 67', 'art, 67', 'art, 68', 'art, 64', 'art, 64', 'art, 67']

Federal Register :: Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke Order in Part
Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke Order in Part
A Notice by the International Trade Administration on 07/28/2003
44285-44290 (6 pages)
2. COP Analysis
B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices for CBCC
C. Results of COP Test for CBCC
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/03-19139 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/03-19139
Preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review, partial rescission of review and notice of intent to revoke order in part.
In response to requests by Elkem Metals Company and Globe Metallurgical (collectively petitioners), and requests by Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC) and Rima Industrial S/A (Rima), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002.
We preliminarily determine that CBCC did not sell subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. We also intend, preliminarily, to revoke the order, in part, with respect to CBCC, because we find that CBCC has met all of the requirements for revocation, as set forth in 19 CFR 351.222(b). We are rescinding the review with respect to Rima because, since the initiation of this current review, Rima has been revoked from the order in a prior administrative review of this proceeding. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP) and NV. We invite interested parties to comment on the preliminary results.
Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 or Ronald Trentham at (202) 482-6320, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office IV, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from Brazil 56 FR 36135 (July 31, 1991). On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 67 FR 44172 (July 1, 2002). On July 15, 2002, CBCC and Rima requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales, and partially revoke the order pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222. On July 31, 2002, petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales made by CBCC and Rima. On August 16, 2002, in anticipation of the current administrative review, the Department issued questionnaires to CBCC and Rima.[1] On August 27, 2002, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002).
On October 15, 2002, the Department received responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire from CBCC and Rima. On December 17, 2002, the order was revoked, in part, with respect to Rima. See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of Order in Part, 67 FR 77225, 77226 (December 17, 2002) (2000-2001 Silicon Metal). On February 10, 2003, the Department informed CBCC that it was required to respond to section D of the Department's questionnaire. On February 24, 2003, the Department received a response to section D of the questionnaire from CBCC.Start Printed Page 44286
On March 11, 2003, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results until July 22, 2003. See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 11519 (March 11, 2003).
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CBCC on April 16, 2003, and May 8, 2003, and received responses on May 9, 2003 and May 15, 2003, respectively.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
The merchandise covered by this administrative 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 administrative review is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum 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 of the United States (HTSUS) 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 HTSUS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
During the POR, CBCC reported that it made both EP and CEP sales to the United States. However, in CBCC's October 15, 2002, and May 9, 2003, questionnaire responses, CBCC stated that its U.S. sales to an unaffiliated trading company were ultimately purchased by Dow Corning Corporation, Inc. (Dow), its U.S. affiliate. Nevertheless, we have determined that the record evidence in this POR does not establish that at the time of the sales by CBCC to the unaffiliated trading company, CBCC had or should have had knowledge that this merchandise would ultimately be purchased by Dow. Therefore, for the purposes of these preliminary results, we have continued to treat CBCC's sales to the unaffiliated trading company as EP sales. See Section 772(e) Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, to Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, dated July 22, 2003, which is on file in the CRU. To determine whether EP sales of silicon metal by CBCC to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. To determine whether CEP sales of silicon metal by CBCC to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared CEP to the NV, as described in the Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP or CEP transactions, as appropriate.
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by CBCC, covered by the description in the Scope of Review section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Further, as in a prior segment of this proceeding, we have continued to treat all silicon metal meeting the description of the merchandise under the Scope of Review section above (with the exception of slag and contaminated products), as identical products for purposes of model-matching. See Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results, Intent To Revoke in Part, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Extension of Time Limits, 64 FR 43161 (August 9, 1999); aff'd Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 65 FR 7497 (February 15, 2000). Therefore, where applicable, if there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of the product sold in the U.S. market during the comparison period, consistent with section 351.405 of the Department's regulations.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications of the information provided by CBCC. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of relevant source documentation as exhibits. Our verification findings are detailed and on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B099 of the Main Commerce building (CRU—Public File).
On December 17, 2002, the order was revoked, in part, with respect to Rima. See 2000-2001 Silicon Metal, 67 FR at 77226. Consequently, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to sales made by Rima. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Singapore: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 68 FR 35623, 35625 (June 16, 2003).
The Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the revocation request; and (3) an agreement to reinstatement in the order or suspended investigation, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order (or suspended investigation), if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will consider the following in determining whether to revoke the order in part: (1) Whether the producer or exporter requesting revocation has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping; and (3) whether the producer or exporter requesting revocation in part has agreed in writing to the immediate reinstatement of the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to revocation, sold the Start Printed Page 44287subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2); see also Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy, 66 FR 34414, 34420 (June 28, 2001).
On July 15, 2002, CBCC submitted a request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222, that the Department partially revoke the order covering silicon metal from Brazil with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), the request was accompanied by certifications from CBCC that, for a consecutive three-year period, including this review period, it sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV, and would continue to do so in the future. CBCC also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in this antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to revocation, CBCC sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. We received no comments from petitioners regarding CBCC's request for revocation.
Based on the preliminary results in this review and the final results of the two preceding reviews, CBCC has preliminarily demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. See 2000-2001 Silicon Metal, 67 FR 77225, 77226 (December 17, 2002); Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 6488, 6489 (February 12, 2002). Further, in determining whether three years of no dumping establish a sufficient basis to make a revocation determination, the Department must be able to determine that the company continued to participate meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at issue. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in Part, 64 FR 2173, 2175 (January 13, 1999); see also Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 16, 1999); and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 742 (January 6, 2000). This practice has been codified in 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1), which states that, “before revoking an order or terminating a suspended investigation, the Secretary must be satisfied that, during each of the three (or five) years, there were exports to the United States in commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to which a revocation or termination will apply.” See 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1); see also 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). For purposes of revocation, the Department must be able to determine that past margins are reflective of a company's normal commercial activity. Sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are of an abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to offset dumping.
With respect to the threshold matter of whether CBCC made sales of subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities, we find that CBCC's sales to the United States were made in commercial quantities during each of the past three consecutive years. The quantity of CBCC's shipments of subject merchandise to the United States has remained at a sufficiently high level to be considered as having been made in commercial quantities. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the zero and de minimis margins calculated for CBCC in each of the last three administrative reviews are reflective of the company's normal commercial experience. See Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Analyst, to File, “Shipments of Silicon Metal to the United States by CBCC,” dated July 22, 2003.
CBCC also agreed in writing that it will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future and to the immediate reinstatement of the antidumping order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the partial revocation, CBCC has sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. Thus, in light of the above and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222, we preliminarily find, for CBCC, that the subject merchandise was sold at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years and that dumping is not likely to resume in the future. Consequently, the continuing imposition of an antidumping duty order is not necessary to offset dumping.
Therefore, if these preliminary results are affirmed in our final results, we intend to revoke the order in part with respect to merchandise produced and exported by CBCC. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 1, 2001, and will instruct the BCBP to refund any cash deposits.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction, as appropriate. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated or affiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and the comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home and U.S. markets for CBCC, we examined whether CBCC's sales involved different marketing stages (or their equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories, and selling functions (or services offered) to each customer or customer category, in both markets.
CBCC reported home market sales through one channel of distribution to three unaffiliated customer categories (direct sales to distributors, original equipment manufacturers and silicon metal producers). CBCC reported both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, CBCC reported one customer category and one channel of distribution (direct sales to unaffiliated trading companies). For CEP sales, CBCC Start Printed Page 44288reported one customer category and one channel of distribution (direct sales to original equipment manufacturers). In its response, CBCC stated that it performs the same type of services for home market customers as it does for its foreign market customers. For this reason, CBCC has not requested a LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP and CEP sales.
Because of the similarity of the selling functions involved in the EP and CEP sales, we found there is only one LOT in the U.S. market. Moreover, in analyzing CBCC's selling activities in both the home and U.S. markets, we determined that essentially the same services were provided for both markets. The selling functions in both markets were minimal in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that for CBCC, the LOT for all U.S. sales is the same as that in the home market. Consequently, because we find the U.S. and home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7) of the Act is warranted for CBCC.
For CBCC (where appropriate) we used the Department's EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because CBCC sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation and because the Department's CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Movement expenses included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, insurance and U.S. warehousing.
In its October 15, 2002, response, CBCC reported sales to its U.S. affiliate, Dow, as CEP sales. CBCC also reported that Dow further manufactured the purchased silicon metal into a multitude of other products, mostly chemicals, and sold these products in the United States. Therefore, CBCC requested that the Department apply section 772(e) of the Act to the further manufactured sales.
Where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, the Department deducts from CEP the cost of any further manufacture or assembly in the United States, except where the special rule, provided in section 772(e) of the Act, is applied. Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the Department has the discretion to determine the CEP using alternative methods.
The alternative methods for establishing CEP are: (1) The price of identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) notes the following with respect to these alternatives:
There is no hierarchy between these alternative methods of establishing the export price. If there is not a sufficient quantity of sales under either of these alternatives to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, or if the Department determines that neither of these alternatives is appropriate, it may use any other reasonable method to determine CEP, provided that it supplies the interested parties with a description of the method chosen and an explanation of the basis for its selection. Such a method may be based upon the price paid to the exporter or producer by the affiliated person for the subject merchandise, if the Department determines that such price is appropriate.
To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for one form of the merchandise sold in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated person. See 19 CFR 351.402(2). Based on this analysis, and the information on the record, we determined that the estimated value added in the United States by Dow accounted for at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States. Therefore, we determined that the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. As a consequence, the Department has relied upon an alternative methodology to calculate CBCC's margin for these sales. However, we found that there is not a sufficient quantity of sales to unaffiliated parties to use such sales as an alternative method of establishing export price. Therefore, as the alternative methodology, the Department used the price paid to CBCC by Dow. See Section 772(e) Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, to Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, dated July 22, 2003, which is on file in the CRU.
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 (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared CBCC's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since CBCC's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on home market sales.
On November 4, 2002, petitioners filed a timely sales-below-cost allegation with respect to CBCC. In the case of CBCC, petitioners' allegation was based on CBCC's antidumping duty questionnaire responses. Upon review of the allegation, we found that petitioners' methodology provided the Department with a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market had been made at prices below the COP by CBCC. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether CBCC's sales of silicon metal were made at prices below the COP during the POR. See Memorandum Regarding the Analysis of Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the COP for CBCC, dated February 10, 2003.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated company- and product-specific COPs based on the sum of CBCC's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market SG&A expenses, including interest expenses, and packing costs.
We relied on the COP information submitted by CBCC in its questionnaire responses and verified by the Department.
For CBCC, we compared the per-unit adjusted weighted-average COP figures Start Printed Page 44289for the POR to home market sale prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and discounts. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below 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 the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
We found that CBCC did not make comparison-market sales at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. Therefore, we did not exclude any sales from our analysis in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based CBCC's NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold to unaffiliated parties for consumption in Brazil, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We based NV on sales at the same LOT as the U.S. transactions. For LOT analysis, please see the Level of Trade section above. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we made adjustments to home market price, where appropriate, for inland freight. Where home market prices were reported inclusive of VAT, we deducted the VAT from the gross home market price, consistent with past practice. See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 67 FR 51539, 51543 (August 8, 2002); aff'd 2000-2001 Silicon Metal 67 at 77225.
To account for differences in circumstances of sale between the home market and the United States, where appropriate, we adjusted home market prices by deducting home market direct selling expenses (including credit) and adding an amount for late payment fees earned on home market sales, where appropriate. In order to adjust for differences in packing between the two markets, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, where appropriate, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002.
CBCC 0.00
Therefore, we preliminarily revoke the order covering silicon metal from Brazil with respect to sales of subject by CBCC. We are also rescinding the review of Rima as a result of our revocation of the order with respect to Rima in 2000-2001 Silicon Metal.
The Department shall determine, and BCBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to BCBP. 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 will calculate a per-unit customer or importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each customer/importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct BCBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.
Furthermore, if these preliminary results are affirmed in the final results of this administrative review, we will not set a cash deposit requirement for CBCC since it has been revoked from the order. However, 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 Act: (1) 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; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value 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 (3) for all other manufacturers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 91.06 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until Start Printed Page 44290publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
1. Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing.
[FR Doc. 03-19139 Filed 7-25-03; 8:45 am]