Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 45665-45668 [E5-4255]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
Assessment Rates
Currency Conversion
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP within 15
days of publication of the final results
Preliminary Results of the Review
of this administrative review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
We preliminarily find that the
final results of review, the Department
following weighted-average dumping
shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
margins exist for the period December
antidumping duties on all appropriate
27, 2002, through June 30, 2004:
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an
SACCHARIN FROM THE PRC
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rate or value for
WeightedProducer/manufacturer/exmerchandise subject to this review.
average margin
porter
(percent)
Because Shanghai Fortune reported
entered values, for these preliminary
Shanghai Fortune Chemresults we divided the total dumping
ical Co., Ltd ...................
137.79
9 ..............
PRC-wide entity
329.33 margins for the reviewed sales by the
total entered value of those reviewed
9 The PRC-wide entity includes: Suzhou
sales for each applicable importer. For
Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chem- duty-assessment rates calculated on this
ical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog.
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
resulting percentage margin against the
The Department will disclose
entered customs values for the subject
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within merchandise on each of the applicable
importer’s/customer’s entries during the
five days of the date of publication of
review period.
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Cash-Deposit Requirements
Interested parties may submit case
The following cash-deposit
briefs and/or written comments no later
requirements will be effective upon
than 30 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this
publication of these preliminary results
administrative review for all shipments
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
of the subject merchandise entered, or
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
withdrawn from warehouse, for
comments, limited to issues raised in
consumption on or after the publication
such briefs or comments, may be filed
date, as provided for by section
no later than 35 days after the date of
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash
publication of these preliminary results
deposit rate for Shanghai Fortune will
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
be the rate listed in the final results of
Any interested party may request a
review (except where the rate is de
hearing within 30 days of publication of minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
cash deposit will be required); (2) for
351.310(c). Requests should contain the previously investigated companies not
following information: (1) The party’s
listed above that have separate rates, the
name, address, and telephone number;
cash-deposit rate will continue to be the
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
company-specific rate published in the
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral
LTFV Investigation; (3) the cash-deposit
presentations will be limited to issues
rate for all other PRC exporters will be
raised in the briefs. If we receive a
329.33 percent, the current PRC-wide
request for a hearing, we plan to hold
rate; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for all
the hearing three days after the deadline other non-PRC exporters will be the rate
for submission of the rebuttal briefs at
applicable to the PRC supplier of that
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th exporter. These deposit requirements,
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
Washington, DC 20230.
until publication of the final results of
The Department will issue the final
the next administrative review.
results of this administrative review,
Notification to Importers
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such
This notice also serves as a
comments, within 120 days of
preliminary reminder to importers of
publication of these preliminary results, their responsibility under 19 CFR
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
Act.
the reimbursement of antidumping
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sale(s) as certified by the U.S.
Federal Reserve Bank.
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45665
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.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results of review in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.221(b).
Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–4252 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–351–806]
Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
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:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 31, 1991, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45666
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
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
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.
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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45667
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
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45668
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Notices
(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.
Manufacturer/exporter
Weighted–average
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:13 Aug 05, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–427–814]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
France
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
Ugine and ALZ France S.A. (U&A
France) (the Respondent), and
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK
Steel, Inc., North American Stainless,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL–
CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent
Union, and Zanesville Armco
Independent Organization (collectively,
the Petitioners), the U.S. Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSS) from
France for the period July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004 (POR). The
Department preliminarily finds that
U&A France’s sales of SSSS in the
United States were made at less than
normal value (NV). If these preliminary
results are adopted in the final results
of this administrative review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on entries of U&A France’s
merchandise during the period of
review. The preliminary results are
listed in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary
Results of Review,’’ below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office
6, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45665-45668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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