[Federal Register: January 15, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 10)]
[Notices]               
[Page 2362-2363]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ja98-26]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-820]

 
Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Amended Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On November 22, 1996, the Department of Commerce published the 
final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on ferrosilicon from Brazil. The review covered Companhia de 
Ferro Ligas da Bahia, a manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review is August 15, 
1993 through February 28, 1995. The respondent and the petitioners 
filed ministerial error comments with regard to these final results of 
review on November 25, and November 26, 1996, respectively. 
Subsequently, both parties filed suit with the Court of International 
Trade regarding these final results of review. On August 18, 1997, the 
Court on International Trade consolidated the court cases and gave 
leave to the Department of Commerce to consider certain alleged 
ministerial errors, and where appropriate, make corrections. Based on 
the correction of certain ministerial errors made in the final results 
of review, we are amending our final results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Werker or Wendy J. Frankel, 
AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
3874 or (202) 482-5849, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has now amended the 
final results of this administrative review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). Unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act are references to 
the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. 
In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department's regulations are to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR 
353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

    On November 22, 1996, the Department published the final results of 
the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
ferrosilicon from Brazil (61 FR 59407), covering the period August 15, 
1993 through February 28, 1995. The respondent is Companhia de Ferro 
Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa). The petitioners are Aimcor and SKW Metals & 
Alloys Inc.
    On November 25, and November 26, 1996, respectively, Ferbasa and 
the petitioners filed allegations that the Department made certain 
ministerial errors in the final results of administrative review. 
Subsequently, both parties filed suit with the Court of International 
Trade (CIT) regarding the final results of review. On August 18, 1997, 
the CIT consolidated the court cases and gave leave to the Department 
to consider certain alleged ministerial errors, and where appropriate, 
make corrections.
    As discussed below, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have 
determined that the issues raised in the order from the CIT are 
ministerial errors. On December 17, 1997, the Department released draft 
amended final results of review to Ferbasa and to petitioners. On 
January 7, 1998, Ferbasa submitted comments regarding the draft final 
results of review. The petitioners did not submit comments.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

    Issue 1: Ferbasa argues that the Department erroneously added to 
constructed value (CV) an amount calculated for ICMS and IPI taxes 
related to home market sales prices rather than materials costs.
    Department's Position: We agree with Ferbasa. In our calculation of 
CV for the final results of review, we inadvertently used the tax 
amounts reported for home market sales. For these amended final results 
we have used the amounts provided by Ferbasa in Exhibit D-16 of its 
March 27, 1996, supplemental submission, which reflect the amount of 
ICMS and IPI taxes incurred for material inputs used in the production 
of ferrosilicon.
    Issue 2: Ferbasa asserts that in calculating it's home market 
indirect selling expenses, the Department erroneously used the 
originally reported indirect selling expense figures rather than the 
corrected values reported in Exhibit D-20 of it's March 27, 1996, 
supplemental submission.
    Department's Position: We agree with Ferbasa that we inadvertently 
used the incorrect indirect selling expenses provided in Ferbasa's 
original submission. For these amended final results, we have used the 
corrected values reported by Ferbasa in Exhibit D-20 of its March 27, 
1996, supplemental submission.
    Issue 3: The petitioners argue that for the final results of 
review, the Department failed to express the final dumping margin as a 
percentage in the computer calculations, thereby understating the 
margin by a factor of 100.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. For these 
amended final results, we have formatted the calculation spreadsheet to 
express the margin as a percentage.
    Issue 4: The petitioners state that in calculating CV, the 
Department used only the cost of production (COP) values for December 
1994, and therefore, normal value, which was based on CV, was not based 
on a six-month weighted average CV as discussed in the Department's 
final results of review Federal Register notice.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that in our 
calculation of normal value, we inadvertently failed to weight average 
the six months of costs for the subject merchandise. We corrected this 
error for the amended final results of review.
    Issue 5: The petitioners allege that when converting normal value 
from

[[Page 2363]]

reais to U.S. dollars, the Department incorrectly divided the reais 
amount by the exchange rate.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The exchange 
rate that the Department used was 1.182033 U.S. dollars = 1 real. 
Therefore, when converting reais to U.S. dollars, we should have 
multiplied the reais amount by 1.182033. We have corrected this 
calculation for these amended final results of review.
    Issue 6: The petitioners allege that the Department made the same 
conversion error, noted in Issue 5 above, with regard to U.S. packing 
expenses.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have 
corrected this error for these amended final results of review.
    Issue 7: The petitioners contend that in calculating adjustments to 
CV the Department subtracted home market packing expenses from a CV 
that did not include those expenses.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners, and have 
eliminated this adjustment from the weighted-average margin calculation 
for these amended final results of review.
    Issue 8: The petitioners note that although the Department's final 
results of review analysis memorandum states that the Department 
calculated the ratio of net profit to cost of goods sold based on 
information from Ferbasa's financial statements, it appears that the 
Department actually calculated a ratio of net profit to net sales 
value, thereby understating the profit ratio.
    Ferbasa contends that in the draft amended final results of review, 
the Department calculated the profit ratio using profit and cost of 
manufacturing rather than profit and cost of goods sold. Ferbasa 
further contends that the Department should apply the profit rate to a 
pre-profit CV that does not include amounts for ICMS and IPI taxes 
since the profit ratio is calculated based on a cost of goods sold 
amount that is net of the ICMS and IPI taxes.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that in our 
final results of review we inadvertently calculated a ratio of profit 
to net sales value. We also agree with Ferbasa that for the draft 
amended final results of review, we inadvertently used the cost of 
manufacturing rather than the cost of goods sold in our profit rate 
calculation. For these amended final results, we have corrected the 
profit calculation to reflect a ratio of net profit to cost of goods 
sold. However, there is no information on the record to substantiate 
Ferbasa's claim that the cost of goods sold figure is calculated net of 
ICMS and IPI taxes. Therefore, we are not changing the pre-profit CV in 
our calculations to exclude these taxes.
    Issue 9: The petitioners argue that the Department's final results 
of review analysis memorandum states that the Department applied an 18 
percent facts available (FA) rate for ICMS taxes incurred by Ferbasa on 
electricity costs. Petitioners note, however, that in the calculations, 
the Department applied as FA for ICMS taxes on electricity an actual 
figure that was less than 18 percent of Ferbasa's electricity cost.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have 
corrected this error for these amended final results of review.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our correction of the ministerial errors, we have 
determined that the amended weighted-average margin for Ferbasa for the 
period August 15, 1993 through February 28, 1995 is 30.69 percent.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly 
to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of these final amended results of administrative review, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The amended cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed company named above will be the rate as 
stated above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 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, or the original less than fair 
value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit 
rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 35.95 percent, 
the All Others rate established in the amended final LTFV 
investigation. These amended deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Assessment Rates

    For assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-specific 
assessment rate. For the export price (EP) sale, we divided the total 
dumping margin (calculated as the difference between normal value and 
EP) by the total entered value of the merchandise. Upon completion of 
this review, we will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the 
resulting ad valorem rate against the entered value of each entry of 
the subject merchandise by the importer during the period of review.
    This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
    These amended final results of administrative review and notice are 
in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and (h) of the Tariff Act (19 
U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and (h) and 19 CFR 353.28.

    Dated: January 12, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-1158 Filed 1-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P