[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55249-55251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26588]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-357-804]
Silicon Metal From Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the respondent, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Argentina. The review
covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the
United States and the period September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998.
We have preliminarily determined that respondent has not made sales
below normal value during the period of review. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct
the U.S. Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on entries
subject to this review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen M. Kramer or Linda Ludwig,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0405 or 482-3833,
respectively.
APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise indicated, all
citations to the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act of 1994 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all
references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351
(1998).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 26, 1991, the Department published an antidumping duty
order on silicon metal from Argentina (56 FR 48779), which was amended
on July 10, 1995, pursuant to court remand (60 FR 35551). The
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the 1997/1998
review period on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 49543). On September 30,
1998, the respondent, Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C. (``Andina'')
filed a request for review. We published a notice of initiation of this
review on October 29, 1998 (63 FR 58009).
Due to the complexity of issues involved in this case, the
Department extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary
results until September 30, 1999, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See 64 FR 23056 (April 29, 1999). The deadline
for the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after
the date of publication of this notice. The Department is conducting
this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this review is silicon metal. During the
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, silicon metal was described
as containing at least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99 percent,
silicon by weight. In response to a request by the petitioners for
clarification of the scope of the antidumping duty order on silicon
metal from the People's Republic of China, the Department determined
that material with a higher aluminum content containing between 89 and
96 percent silicon by weight is the same class or kind of merchandise
as silicon metal described in the LTFV investigation. See Final Scope
Rulings--Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon Metal From the People's
Republic of China, Brazil and Argentina (February 3, 1993). Therefore,
such material is within the scope of the orders on silicon metal from
the PRC, Brazil and Argentina. Silicon metal is currently provided for
under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) and is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor-
grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99
percent of silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the
HTS) is not subject to this review. These HTS subheadings are provided
for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. Our written description of
the scope of the proceeding is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified sales and
cost information provided by Andina at its headquarters in Buenos Aires
and at its plant in San Juan, Argentina from May 17 through 28, 1999,
using standard verification procedures, including inspection of the
manufacturing facilities, examination of relevant sales and financial
records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. As a result of our findings at verification, we adjusted
the costs of wood chips and electricity. See ``Verification of Cost at
Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C., San Juan and Buenos Aires,
Argentina, May 17-21, 1999,'' dated August 6, 1999, ``Verification of
Sales at Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C., San Juan and Buenos Aires,
Argentina, May 24-28, 1999,'' dated August 6, 1999, and ``Analysis of
Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C. for the Preliminary Results of the
Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from Argentina for the Period
September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998,'' dated September 10, 1999.
Cost of Production Analysis
Because all of Andina's sales in the home market during the last
completed segment of the proceeding failed the cost test and, as such,
were disregarded, we initiated a cost of production (``COP'') analysis
in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP
analysis as described below.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials,
processing, depreciation, interest expenses, general and administrative
expenses, and packing costs. We used the period January through
September 1998, as there was no production of silicon metal during the
POR until January, and in the normal course of business Andina accounts
for costs on a quarterly basis ending in September. We revised the
reported cost of the first stage of production by increasing the cost
of wood chips purchased from an affiliated supplier to reflect more
closely the affiliate's actual costs. We increased the cost of energy
purchased during the months of August and September to include a price
increase not reflected in respondent's accounts until the preparation
of the audited financial statements. We corrected the reported
financial expenses by deducting interest revenue received from
customers. Pursuant to section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the
[[Page 55250]]
Act and section 351.407(d) of the Department's regulations, we denied a
claimed adjustment for startup costs, as we determined Andina's
investment in the rebuilding of the furnace used for production of
silicon metal did not meet the Department's criteria for a ``new
production facility.'' Andina stated that the retooling of Furnace IV
``involved the replacement of the furnace lining, and the acquisition
and installation of a new production technology.'' See supplemental
response of March 2, 1999, page 7. Section 351.407(d)(1)(i) of the
Department's regulations provides that ``new production facilities''
includes the substantially complete retooling of an existing plant.
Substantially complete retooling involves the replacement of nearly all
production machinery or the equivalent rebuilding of existing
machinery. As verified by the Department during a plant visit, Andina
relined an existing furnace in an existing production facility and
installed new equipment to lower electrodes into the furnace. We regard
this investment as essentially maintenance of an existing facility.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
We compared the revised weighted-average COP to home market sales
of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the
Act. We regarded all sales of silicon metal as identical products. See
section 771(16)(A) of the Act. 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. See sections
773(b)(2)(B)-(D) of the Act. We compared the COP to the home market
prices, less any applicable movement charges and warehousing expenses.
We found all home market sales were made at prices above the COP.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise sold by
Andina and exported to the United States were made at less than normal
value (``NV''), we compared export price (``EP'') to the NV, as
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs
of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs of the
foreign like product. We considered the merchandise sold in the U.S.
and home markets to be identical products.
Export Price
We based United States price on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of
the Act, because Andina sold the merchandise to an unaffiliated company
prior to importation and constructed export price was not otherwise
indicated by the facts of record.
We calculated EP based on the packed, delivered, duty-unpaid price
to an unaffiliated trading company in the United States. We made
deductions pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the Act for foreign inland
freight, ocean freight, brokerage and handling, and increased the
United States price by the amount of duty drawback in accordance with
section 772(c)(1)(A) of the Act.
Normal Value (NV)
In order to determine whether sales of the foreign like product in
the home market are a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume
of subject merchandise sold in the United States, in accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Andina's aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent
of its respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales.
Andina made sales exclusively to unaffiliated customers in the home
market during the period of review. Therefore we did not perform the
arm's length test. All of the home market sales were made at prices
above the cost of production. Home market prices were based on the
packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to customers. We made deductions
to NV according to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, where appropriate,
for inland freight, warehousing expense, credit expenses, and packing.
We also made a deduction from NV for the gross revenue tax imposed on
home market sales revenue, but not on export sales pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act.
Level of Trade
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. In this
case, the record shows that sales in both markets were made at the same
LOT. Andina made sales directly to its customers in the United States
and Argentina. There were no differences in the selling functions
performed for distributors, end-users or trading companies in either
market. Andina provided only packing and shipping services. No
technical services or warranties were provided.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that no margin exists for Andina for the
period September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998. Pursuant to section
351.224 of the Department's regulations, we will disclose the
calculations performed to the parties to this proceeding within five
days of the date of publication of this notice. An interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the
first business day thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal
briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs
not later than 30 days and 37 days, respectively, after the date of
publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii) and (d)(1).
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this notice.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099,within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon
the completion of this review. The final results of this review shall
be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated
duties.
[[Page 55251]]
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of silicon metal from Argentina 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 rate for Andina will be the
rate established in the final results of administrative review, except
if the rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore, de minimis within
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, in which case the cash deposit rate will
be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not
covered in this review, but covered in the original less than fair
value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the rate published in the amended final determination; or (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the 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) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 17.87 percent, the ``All
Others'' rate made effective by the amended LTFV determination. These
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-26588 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P