[Federal Register: March 13, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 12037-12039]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13mr03-47]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-821-817]
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of amended final determination in the less-than-fair-
value investigation of silicon metal from the Russian Federation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Werner, AD/CVD Enforcement
Group III, Office IX, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2667.
Scope of Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is silicon
metal, which generally contains at least 96.00 percent but less than
99.99 percent silicon by weight. The merchandise covered by this
investigation also includes silicon metal from Russia containing
between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight, but containing more
aluminum than the silicon metal which contains at least 96.00 percent
but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal currently
is classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). This
investigation covers all silicon metal meeting the above specification,
regardless of tariff classification.
Amendment of Final Results
On February 11, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published a notice of final determination of sales at
less than fair value in the investigation of silicon metal from the
Russian Federation (``Russia''). Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68
FR 6885 (February 11, 2003) (``Final Determination'').
Also on February 11, 2003, petitioners timely filed an allegation
that the Department made ministerial errors in the Final Determination,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c). Bratsk Aluminum Smelter (``BAS'') and
(``RTL'') submitted timely rebuttal comments on February 19, 2003, in
reply to the petitioners' ministerial error allegations. BAS and RTL
did not submit any ministerial error allegations. ZAO Kremny
(``Kremny'')/Sual-Kremny-Ural Ltd. (``SKU'') and Pultwen, the other
respondent covered by the investigation, did not submit any ministerial
error allegations or rebuttal comments in reply to petitioners'
ministerial error allegations.
Silicon Metal Fines
Petitioners contend that in its Final Determination, the Department
used overstated production quantities of silicon metal in calculating
factor usage rates. Petitioners argue that while the Department
included fines in the total production quantities of silicon metal on
the basis that silicon metal fines produced by BAS and Kremny/SKU
(collectively ``respondents'') were similar in size, chemical
composition, and price to commercial grade silicon metal, and the
Department also concluded that the quantities of fines used in the
calculation represented only sales of fines. Petitioners contend that
the production quantities of fines reported by respondents and used by
the Department included fines that were recycled and consumed in the
production of silicon metal in addition of the fines that were sold.
Petitioners claim this overstated the total production quantities used
to calculate respondents' factor usage rates, and therefore, resulted
in understated factor usage rates.
Petitioners contend that the record shows that both respondents
consumed recycled silicon metal fines in the production of silicon
metal during the POI. Petitioners explain that the production
quantities of fines reported by respondents are larger than the total
quantities of fines sold by respondents during the POI. According to
petitioners, Kremny/SKU and Pultwen's August 13, 2002, response shows
that they reported a quantity of fines recycled during the POI, which
were then included in their production quantity. See Kremny/SKU and
Pultwen's August 13, 2002, response, at 13. Petitioners also contend
that the Department verified that only a portion of BAS's total fine
production quantity was sold. See BAS Verification Report, at Exhibit
5.
Thus, petitioners argue the Department intended to include only the
quantity of silicon metal fines sold by respondents in the total
production quantity but erroneously included recycled fines as well.
Petitioners explain that to correct this error, the Department should
(1) subtract the
[[Page 12038]]
quantities of fines that were recycled and consumed in the production
from the total quantities of fines included in the total production
quantities and (2) recalculate respondents' factor usage rates using
the reduced production quantities. Petitioners explain that the volume
of fines recycled by BAS during the POI is not in the record of this
investigation, and therefore, as facts available, the Department should
subtract the volume of fines sold that was verified from the total
quantity of fines produced during the POI. Alternatively, petitioners
also suggest that the Department could estimate the volume of fines
recycled by BAS using the percentage amount of fines recycled by Kremny
in relation to its total output.
BAS and RTL contend that the Department determined in its Final
Determination that 0-5 mm silicon metal, or fines, should be included
in the production quantity because ``excluding fines from the
production quantity used to calculate the reported factors would
overstate the factors of production.'' See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 11. BAS and RTL argue that the Department noted:
That fines were within the scope of this investigation; that it
verified that BAS made sales of fines; and that these sales were not
made at a very substantial discount compared to normal-sized silicon
metal. See id. Thus, BAS and RTL argue that the Department determined
that fines produced by BAS were commercial-grade silicon metal.
Accordingly, BAS and RTL explain that pursuant to Silicon Metal from
Brazil, the Department properly determined that production costs should
be allocated to fines produced by BAS.
BAS and RTL also contend that recycled fines were not included in
the reported production quantities for BAS, which is demonstrated by
the record. BAS and RTL explain that production documents show a small
amount of material added to prevent the molten metal from sticking to
the slab, but this amount was not included in BAS's reported total
production quantity.
Department's Position
We disagree with petitioners.
Petitioners' request that the Department exclude recycled fines
from the production quantity is not ministerial in nature, but rather
involves a methodological change. This is because if the Department
were to remove recycled fines from the total production quantity of
silicon metal, we would not be allocating any costs to their
production. Therefore, we would, in effect, be treating recycled fines
as byproducts because the Department does not allocate costs to
byproducts. This would be contrary to the Department's decision in the
Final Determination. See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 11.
A ministerial error is defined under 19 CFR 351.224(f) as ``an error in
addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error
resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any
other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers
ministerial.'' Petitioners' request, however, would require the
Department to revisit its entire methodology for recognizing fines.
Accordingly, we have not made the requested change, because it is not
``ministerial'' in nature.
Indirect Labor
Petitioners contend that the Department did not include indirect
labor in the calculation of normal value for BAS in its Final
Determination. Petitioners argue that the Department indicated that it
intended to include both direct labor and indirect labor in the
calculation of normal value for BAS, according to the BAS and RTL Final
Analysis Memorandum. See Analysis Memorandum of Bratsk Aluminum Smelter
and Rual Trade Limited: Final Determination in the Less Than Fair Value
Investigation of Silicon Metal from the Russian Federation, at page 5
(February 3, 2003) (``BAS and RTL Final Analysis Memo'') (under the
Normal Value calculation heading: ``TOT--LABOR = DIRLAB--F + INDLAB--
F''). Petitioners explain that it is necessary to include indirect
labor in the calculation of normal value because the surrogate-valued
amount for factory overhead used by the Department does not include any
amount for indirect labor. Petitioners explain that the computer
program used by the Department to calculate the final margin for BAS
does not include indirect labor in the calculation of normal value.
Petitioners contend that the Department should include indirect labor
in the calculation of normal value for BAS.
BAS and RTL contend that petitioners have identified a
methodological issue regarding how to account for labor costs not
directly related to production of subject merchandise under a non-
market economy methodology, rather than an arithmetic or duplication
error that is appropriate to address as a ministerial error. BAS and
RTL explain that BAS reported, as indirect labor, the per-unit hours of
personnel involved in the maintenance and servicing (e.g., cleaning,
catering) of the production facilities, and involved in the handling of
transportation of raw materials and finished goods. BAS and RTL note
that BAS included an allocated amount for the hours of executives,
managers, and specialists who are involved indirectly in the production
of silicon metal, in its reported direct labor. BAS and RTL contend
that the labor cost of such personnel is normally classified as factory
overhead or selling, general and administrative expenses under standard
accounting principles. Accordingly, because the Department values
factory overhead and general and administrative expenses using the
financial statements of a surrogate company, under the non-market
economy methodology, it is not necessary to include an amount for
indirect labor in the Department's margin calculation, because this
would double-count these labor expenses. Therefore, because BAS's
reported direct labor already includes allocated amounts for indirect
labor, and because indirect labor is also included in the surrogate
financial information used in the margin calculation, the Department
should not include additional labor hours in its margin calculation.
Department's Position
We agree with petitioners. We inadvertently excluded indirect labor
in the calculation of normal value for BAS in the Final Determination.
As BAS explained above, its reported indirect labor consists of the
per-unit hours of personnel involved in the maintenance and servicing
(e.g., cleaning, catering) of the production facilities, and involved
in the handling of transportation of raw materials and finished goods,
and is properly classified as indirect labor. Therefore, we revised our
Final Determination, to include BAS's reported indirect labor in BAS's
margin program calculation.
Wood Charcoal Freight Cost
Petitioners argue that the Department incorrectly calculated the
wood charcoal freight cost for BAS in its Final Determination.
Petitioners argue that the Department calculated the wrong weighted-
average distance between BAS and wood charcoal suppliers. Petitioners
contend that the Department should correct its wood charcoal freight
cost calculation.
BAS and RTL agree with petitioners that the Department
miscalculated the weighted-average distance of BAS's wood charcoal
suppliers. However, BAS and RTL disagree with petitioners' calculation
of the per-unit freight cost for wood charcoal, and propose their own
calculation of the per-unit freight cost for wood charcoal.
[[Page 12039]]
Department's Position
We agree with petitioners and BAS and RTL, that we incorrectly
calculated the weighted-average distance between BAS and wood charcoal
suppliers. In the Final Determination, we inadvertently excluded
certain suppliers of wood charcoal for BAS. We revised our Final
Determination, to include the correct per-unit freight cost for wood
charcoal in BAS's margin program calculation.
Therefore, we are amending the Final Determination to reflect the
correction of the above-cited ministerial errors. All changes made to
the margin program can be found in the analysis memorandum. See
Memorandum to the File from Cheryl Werner, Case Analyst to James C.
Doyle, Program Manager, Final Analysis for BAS for the Amended Final
Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal
from the Russian Federation, dated March 6, 2003.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final weighted- Amended final
Producer/manufacturer exporter average margin weighted average
(percent) margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bratsk Aluminum Smelter........... 77.51 79.42
ZAO Kremny/Sual-Kremny-Ural Ltd... 54.79 56.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, we are issuing and publishing this amended final
determination and notice in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: March 6, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-6089 Filed 3-12-03; 8:45 am]