[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45665-45668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4255]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-806]
Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by Globe Metallurgical (petitioner)
and Camargo Correa Metais S.A. (CCM) 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, 2003, through June 30, 2004.
We preliminarily determine that CCM did not sell subject
merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference
between the export price (EP) and NV. We invite interested parties to
comment on the preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 or Mark
Manning at (202) 482-5253, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register
the
[[Page 45666]]
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, 2004, 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, 2003,
through June 30, 2004. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 16, 2004,
CCM requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of
its sales. On July 30, 2004, the petitioner requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of sales made by CCM, Ligas
de Aluminio S.A (LIASA), and Companhia Ferroligas de Minas Gerais -
Minasligas (Minasligas). On August 30, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations, 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, 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). On September 14,
2004, the Department issued questionnaires to CCM, LIASA and
Minasligas.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under review 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 review. Section E requests information on further
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 24, 2004, LIASA and Minasligas both submitted letters
to the Department stating that they made no sales or shipments of
silicon metal to the United States during the POR. We confirmed with
CBP that neither LIASA nor Minasligas had entries of subject
merchandise during the POR and rescinded the review with respect to
both companies. See Silicon Metal from Brazil; Notice of Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 67702
(November 19, 2004). The Department received a response to section A of
the questionnaire from CCM on October 7, 2004, and received responses
to sections B through D of the questionnaire on November 1, 2004.
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CCM in
December 2004, February 2005, March 2005, June 2005 and July 2005 and
received responses in January 2005, February 2005, March 2005, June
2005, and July 2005, respectively.
On March 7, 2005, 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 August 1, 2005. See Silicon
Metal from Brazil: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12185 (March
11, 2005).
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751 of the Act.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order 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.
Fair Value Comparisons
During the POR, CCM reported that it made EP sales to the United
States. To determine whether sales of subject merchandise made by CCM
were made at less than fair value, we compared EP to the NV, as
described in the 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
transactions, as appropriate.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
silicon metal covered by the Scope of the Order section of this notice,
supra, which was produced and sold by CCM in the home market to be
foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate
product comparisons to U.S. sales of silicon metal. 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 the Order 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),
unchanged in 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.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the U.S. sales. The NV LOT is that
of the starting-price sale in the comparison market or, when the NV is
based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive 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, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the
importer.
To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different LOT
than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales
are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability
with U.S. sales, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT
adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales,
if the LOT of the home market sale is more remote from the factory than
the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the
[[Page 45667]]
difference between the LOT of the home market sale and the CEP
transaction affects price comparability, we adjust NV pursuant to
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 12648 (March 15,
2005).
To determine whether a LOT adjustment is warranted, we obtained
information from CCM about the marketing stages at which its reported
U.S. and comparison-market sales were made, including a description of
the selling activities performed by CCM for each of its channels of
distribution. In identifying LOTs for CCM's EP and comparison market
sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting
price before any adjustments.
In conducting our LOT analysis for CCM, we took into account the
specific customer types, channels of distribution, and selling
functions. For CCM we found that there was a single LOT in the United
States and a single, identical, LOT in the comparison market.
Therefore, it was not necessary to make a LOT adjustment. For a further
discussion of our LOT analysis for CCM, see Memorandum from Maisha
Cryor, Analyst, to Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office Director, ``Level of
Trade Analysis: Camargo Correa Metais S.A.,'' dated August 1, 2005.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used EP as defined in
section 772(a) of the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by the exporter or producer
outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States for exportation to the United States. We based EP on packed and
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we reduced the starting
price by movement expenses and export taxes and duties, if appropriate.
These deductions included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight,
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance
and U.S. customs duties.
Normal Value
I. Selection of Comparison Market
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market,
provided that, among other things, the merchandise is sold in
sufficient quantities in the home market (or has sufficient aggregate
value, if quantity is inappropriate). The statute provides that the
total quantity of home market sales of foreign like product (or value)
will normally be considered sufficient if it is five percent or more of
the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise
to the United States. See section 773(a)(i)(B)(ii) of the Act. Based on
a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market sales of foreign
like product and U.S. sales of subject merchandise by CCM, we
determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in Brazil is
more than five percent of the quantity of U.S. sales of subject
merchandise. Accordingly, we based NV on home market sales.
In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation
of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices section below.
II. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed administrative review of CCM, we
disregarded home market sales found to be below COP. See Silicon Metal
from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Intent to Revoke in Part, and Intent Not to Revoke in Part, 61
FR 46776, 46778 (September 15 1996); unchanged in Silicon Metal from
Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 62 FR 1954 (January 14, 1997).
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
Department had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of
the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of
NV in this review may have been made by CCM at prices below the COP.
We, therefore, initiated a cost investigation with regard to CCM in
order to determine whether this respondent made home market sales
during the POR at prices below the COP within the meaning of section
773(b) of the Act.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP for CCM based on the sum of the cost of materials
and fabrication of the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home
market general and administrative (G&A) expenses, interest expenses and
packing costs. We relied on the submitted COP data.
B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices for CCM
For CCM, we compared the per-unit adjusted weighted-average COP
figures for 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.
C. Results of COP Test for CCM
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 were 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.
Our cost test revealed that more than twenty percent of CCM's home
market sales of certain products were made at below-cost prices during
the reporting period. Therefore, we disregarded those below-cost sales,
while retaining the above-cost sales for our analysis.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices
We determined price-based NVs for CCM as follows. For those
comparison products for which there were sales at prices above the COP,
we based CCM'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. We adjusted the starting
price for any differences in packing costs, in accordance with section
773(a)(6) of the Act, and we deducted from the starting price movement
expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition,
where applicable, we adjusted the starting price to account for
differences in circumstances of sale
[[Page 45668]]
(COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.410. We also adjusted the starting price, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market
or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but
not in the other market, where applicable.
Specifically, we reduced the starting price for inland freight
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(c), we increased the starting price for interest revenue. We
also made COS adjustments to the starting price for imputed credit
expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.410. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs from, and
added U.S. packing costs to the starting price in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Currency Conversions
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the
Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S.
sales as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1,
2003, through June 30, 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Manufacturer/exporter margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCM................................................. 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of
this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments
in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a
table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments
should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public
version of any such comments on diskette. All case briefs must be
submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in the case briefs,
may be filed not later than five days after the case briefs are filed.
A hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date the
rebuttal briefs are filed or the first business day thereafter.
The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within
120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. The
final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review 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 CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject
merchandise by that importer.
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) the cash-deposit rates for the reviewed
company will be the rate established in the final results of 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 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 (4) the cash-deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters 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 publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations
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 issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221.
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4255 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S