66 FR 11256, February 23, 2001
                                                         A-351-806
                                                         ARP: 7/1/98-
6/30/99
                                                         Public Document
                                                         Office IV, Group
II: 

MEMORANDUM TO: Bernard T. Carreau, fulfilling the duties of
               Assistant Secretary for Import Administration

FROM:          Holly A. Kuga
               Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
               for Import Administration

SUBJECT: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of
Silicon Metal from Brazil - 7/1/1998 through 6/30/1999; Final Results

Summary

We have analyzed the comments and rebuttal comments of interested parties
in the 1998/99 administrative review of the antidumping duty order
covering silicon metal from Brazil. As a result of our analysis, we have
made changes from our preliminary results. We recommend that you approve
the positions we have developed in the Discussion of the Issues section of
this memorandum. Below is the complete list of the issues in this
administrative review for which we received comments and rebuttal comments
from parties:


1. Requirements for Revocation with Respect to Ligas de Aluminio S.A.
   ("LIASA")

2. Calculation of Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses for RIMA Industrial
   S.A. ("RIMA")

3. Total Adverse Facts Available ("FA") for Eletrosilex S.A.
   ("Eletrosilex")

4. Calculation of Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses for Companhia
   Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio ("CBCC")

5. Circumstance of Sale ("COS")Adjustment for CBCC 

6. Calculation of Financial Expense Ratio for CBCC

7. CBCC's Consolidated Financial Statement

8. CBCC's Short-Term Income Offset

9. Allocation of CBCC's Indirect Labor Costs

10. Determination Not To Revoke with Respect to CBCC

Background

On August 4, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the "Department")
published the preliminary results of administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. See, Silicon Metal
From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Order in Part, 65 FR 47960 (August 4,
2000) ("Preliminary Results"). The review covers five manufacturers, CBCC,
LIASA, Eletrosilex , RIMA and Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas
("Minasligas"). The period of review ("POR") is July 1, 1998, through June
30, 1999. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of
review. On October 2, 2000, we received case briefs from American Silicon
Technologies, Elkem Metals Company, and Globe Metallurgical, Inc.,
(collectively "the petitioners"), and from CBCC, Eletrosilex, and LIASA.
On October 16, 2000, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and
RIMA. On August 3, 2000, CBCC, RIMA, LIASA, and Minasligas requested a
public hearing which was held on October 25, 2000. 


The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Act of 1930, as amended ("the Act").


Changes Since the Preliminary Results


Since the preliminary results, we have made the following changes in our
calculations.


1. We recalculated RIMA's imputed home market credit expense using the
Taxa Referential ("TR") rate instead of the interest rate provide by RIMA.


2. We recalculated the financial expense ratio in CBCC's cost of
production ("COP") and constructed value ("CV") using total financial
expenses without any reduction for "income from current assets."


Discussion of the Issues


Comment 1: Requirements for Revocation with Respect to LIASA


LIASA argues that it has met the requirements for revocation because it
has received zero or de minimis dumping margins for sales in commercial
quantities over the last two administrative reviews and expects to receive
a zero or de minimis margin in the final results of the current review.
Moreover, LIASA states that the Department erred in its Preliminary
Results, when it determined that LIASA has not sold silicon metal in the
U.S. market in commercial quantities during the last three consecutive
administrative reviews. 


According to LIASA, the fact that its sales volumes for the subject
periods of review are not as large as its period of investigation ("POI")
sales quantities is not dispositive of this issue. LIASA contends that
fluctuations in sales volume and drop-offs in sales do not automatically
disqualify LIASA from obtaining, or being eligible for, revocation of the
subject antidumping duty order. LIASA cites to Pure Magnesium from Canada;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination
Not to Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 50489, 50492 (September 17, 1999)
(citing Professional Electric Cutting Tools from Japan: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke in Part,
64 FR 43346, 43351 (August 10, 1999), which states that "the Department
will revoke antidumping duty orders as long as the sales used to
demonstrate a lack of price discrimination are reflective of the
companies' normal commercial experience." According to LIASA, it sells
small quantities of silicon metal to its customers in its normal business
operations. Specifically, LIASA notes that the vast majority of its home
market sales, and a significant amount of its export sales, in the two
most recently completed administrative reviews and the current review, are
for small quantities. Thus, LIASA argues that the quantities it sold in
the U.S. market during the subject PORs reflect its normal commercial
experience and behavior. For this reason, LIASA argues that the Department
should find that LIASA sold the subject merchandise in commercial
quantities and revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to LIASA.


LIASA also argues that there is no positive evidence to justify the
continued necessity of the antidumping order to offset dumping. First,
LIASA argues that the outlook for silicon metal demand and prices is on an
upward trend. LIASA cites to a market study that predicts that silicon
metal prices in the U.S. market has rebounded in 2000 and will increase
steadily through 2005. Second, LIASA notes that this market study reports
that the European Union was the largest market for silicon metal during
the last five years and is expected to grow during the next several years.
Thus, argues LIASA, there is no evidence that U.S. prices and demand will
attract greater imports of silicon metal from Brazil in the future. Third,
LIASA argues that during the relevant PORs, it was able to sell silicon
metal in the U.S. market at prices at or above normal value ("NV"), even
when the U.S. market experienced fluctuations in prices. LIASA notes that
it received zero or de minimis dumping margins during the 1996 through
1999 administrative reviews. Moreover, LIASA argues that, during these
reviews, it was able to increase its sales volume to the United States
without dumping. Fourth, LIASA asserts that recent economic forecasts show
that it is unlikely that Brazil will return to hyper-inflationary
conditions that were prevalent during the early 1990s. Accordingly, LIASA
claims that there is no indication that it will resume dumping due to
inflationary conditions in the home market.


In rebuttal, the petitioners argue that the Department correctly found in
its preliminary determination that LIASA did not sell silicon metal in the
United States in commercial quantities during the relevant PORs. According
to the petitioners, the Department correctly compared the total sales
volume from each of the relevant PORs to the total POI sales volume and
found that the sales volumes during the relevant PORs did not meet the
commercial quantities threshold.


Regarding LIASA's argument that its U.S. sales of silicon metal during
the applicable PORs were representative of its normal commercial
experience, the petitioners note that LIASA's argument is based on the
fact that most of LIASA's individual sales of silicon metal in its home
market were of small quantities. The petitioners argue that it is the
Department's practice to look to the aggregate volume of sales, rather
than the volume of individual sales when analyzing whether a respondent
sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities. Therefore, the
petitioners assert that LIASA's small individual sales in its home market
are irrelevant to this analysis. 


The petitioners also argue that the continued application of the
antidumping duty order is necessary to prevent future dumping by LIASA.
First, the petitioners state that the unfavorable economic conditions in
the U.S. silicon metal market support the need to maintain an antidumping
duty order on imports from LIASA. According to the petitioners, the U.S.
silicon metal market experienced only a "slight" increase in demand
between 1998 and 1999, and that this level of demand is still
significantly below the record high from 1997. The petitioners also claim
that the U.S. market prices declined during 1999 and, although the price
rebounded in April 2000, weakened again in September 2000. Second, the
petitioners contend that the United States is an attractive and natural
export market for LIASA. The petitioners state that the large size of the
U.S. market, its close geographic proximity to Brazil, and the
comparatively high silicon metal prices (as compared to European prices)
will encourage LIASA to increase exports to the United States should the
order be removed. Furthermore, the petitioners assert that the fact that
LIASA only produces silicon metal prevents it from responding to periods
of low silicon metal prices by shifting its furnaces to the production of
other products. Without the ability to convert its large capacity to other
products, the petitioners state that LIASA would be likely to respond to
falling silicon metal prices by dumping silicon metal in the U.S. market.
Third, the petitioners assert that LIASA cannot compete in the U.S. market
without dumping. According to the petitioners, LIASA received zero or de
minimis dumping margins during the relevant PORs because its U.S. sales
were in minuscule amounts and at artificially high prices.


Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that the
requirements for revocation have not been met. Since no new arguments have
been made concerning whether LIASA sold silicon metal in commercial
quantities in the U.S. market during the relevant PORs, we have not
changed our analysis from the Preliminary Results.


Pursuant to section 351.222(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, we
must determine whether the company requesting revocation sold the subject
merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming
the basis for the revocation request. In other words, the Department must
determine whether the quantities sold during these time periods are
reflective of the company's normal commercial activity. See, Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in
Part Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada, 64 FR 2175 (January 13,
1999) ("Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Canada"). Sales during a POR which, in the aggregate, are of an abnormally
small quantity, either in absolute terms or in comparison to an
appropriate benchmark period, do not generally provide a reasonable
demonstration that the respondent is capable of participating in the U.S.
market without dumping. However, the determination as to whether or not
sales volumes are made in commercial quantities is made on a case-by-case
basis, based on the unique facts on the record of each proceeding. See,
section 751(d) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.222; see, also Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to
Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the
Netherlands, 65 FR 750 (January 6, 2000) ("Brass from Netherlands").


In the present case, we compared LIASA's aggregate U.S. sales during each
of the PORs to the six-month POI. The POI was used as an appropriate
benchmark because it reflects sales activity without the discipline of an
antidumping order in place. The comparison indicates that LIASA's sales to
the U.S. market during the three above-mentioned PORs represent 0.69
percent, 12.77 percent, and 1.6 percent, of the U.S. sales during the POI,
respectively. When the POI sales are annualized, the sales for each of the
three consecutive PORs decline even further to approximately 0.35 percent,
6.38 percent, and 0.8 percent, respectively. In Brass from Netherlands,
the Department did not revoke the order with respect to the particular
respondent because the volume of merchandise sold to the United States was
approximately two percent of the volume of merchandise sold in the
benchmark investigative period. See, id. at 752. Similarly, in the most
recently completed segment of this proceeding, the Department denied
revocation for CBCC because it failed to meet the commercial quantities
threshold, i.e., CBCC's aggregate sales during one of the three-
consecutive years forming the basis for revocation, represented
approximately two percent of the sales volume sold during the POI. See,
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal
From Brazil, 65 FR 7497 (February 15, 2000) ("1997-1998 Silicon Metal").
In the instant review, we find that in the 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 PORs,
LIASA's sales to the United States were significantly lower, as a
percentage of its POI sales, than those discussed in the cases mentioned
above.


After review of the criteria outlined at sections 351.222(b) and
351.222(d) of the Department's regulations, the Department's practice, the
comments of the parties, and the evidence on the record, we have
determined that the requirements for revocation have not been met. Based
on the results of this review and the final results of the two preceding
reviews, LIASA has not demonstrated three consecutive years of sales in
commercial quantities. Therefore, because LIASA has not sold subject
merchandise in commercial quantities during each of the three consecutive
PORs, we are not revoking the antidumping duty order with respect to
LIASA. See, Memorandum Regarding "Eighth Administrative Review: Commercial
Quantities," dated July 30, 2000.


Because a threshold requirement to qualify for revocation has not been
met, the Department has not addressed the issue of whether the continued
application of the antidumping duty order is necessary to offset dumping
with regard to LIASA. 


Comment 2: Calculation of RIMA's Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses 


The petitioners, citing Import Administration Policy Bulletin 98.2
(February 23, 1998) ("Policy Bulletin 98.2"), argue that when a respondent
has no short-term borrowings in the currency of the transaction, the
Department should calculate home market credit expenses "using publicly
available information, with a preference for published average short-term
lending rates." According to the Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 62 FR 43504, 43509
(August 14, 1997) ("Ferrosilicon from Brazil"), the petitioners assert
that in Brazilian cases when short-term borrowings are unavailable, the
Department, which has found the TR to be "a benchmark comparable to a
prime rate published by the Bank of Brazil," opts to use the TR rate.


The petitioners state that for its home market imputed credit expenses,
RIMA used an interest rate derived from the short-term lending rates of
the Brazilian Bank, Bradesco. The petitioners argue that the Department's
use of this rate in the preliminary results was in error, because RIMA did
not demonstrate that it had short term borrowings from Bradesco at the
published rates. The petitioners assert that the use of the Bradesco rate
understates RIMA's margin because it is a higher rate than the TR.
Therefore, the petitioners assert that the Department should recalculate
RIMA's home market imputed credit expenses using the TR rate.


RIMA, citing Policy Bulletin 98.2, argues that publicly available
information should be used when determining a surrogate interest rate.
RIMA argues that the three criteria set forth in Policy Bulletin 98.2
should be used when evaluating a surrogate rate: 1) the surrogate rate
should be reasonable; 2) it should be readily obtainable and predictable;
and 3) it should be a short-term interest rate actually realized by
borrowers in the course of "usual commercial behavior." RIMA argues that
the interest rate it used to calculate its imputed credit costs fits this
criteria. 


RIMA states that the interest rate reported by its bank represents a
proper commercial lending rate. RIMA argues that its use of its bank's
published interest rates is further supported by LMI-La Metalli
Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 912 F.2d 455, 460-461 (Fed.
Cir.1990) ("LMI") where the court ruled that credit cost should conform
with commercial reality and be based on reasonable and commercial
behavior. In addition, RIMA notes that Policy Bulletin 98.2 does not
preclude the Department from using average rates that are supported by a
statement from a commercial bank. RIMA states that a comparison between
its bank's published rates and the International Monetary Fund's ("IMF's")
average commercial rates substantiates its bank's rates as being
consistent with market rates.


RIMA argues that if the Department were to use the TR rate to calculate
RIMA's credit costs, it would be contrary to the ruling in LMI because the
TR does not conform with commercial reality. RIMA acknowledges that the
Department has used the TR rate to calculate credit in past Brazilian
cases, but argues it was only because there was insufficient evidence to
support a better alternative. Therefore, pursuant to Policy Bulletin 98.2,
RIMA urges the Department to use its reported interest rate because it is
reflective of short term commercial lending practices in Brazil.


However, RIMA argues that in the alternative, if the Department chooses
to reject its reported interest rate, it should use the average rate
published by the IMF. RIMA states that in Primary Steel, Inc, et al. V.
United States, 834 F. Supp.1374,1382 (CIT 1993), the CIT upheld the
Department's use of the IMF's average rate to determine credit costs. In
addition, RIMA asserts that in other cases the Department has relied upon
the IMF as a source of published interest rates. Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils from South Africa, 64 FR 14459, 15468 (March 31, 1999). RIMA argues
that the IMF rate satisfies all three criteria of Policy Bulletin 98.2 and
represents commercial lending practices in Brazil. Therefore, RIMA argues
that the IMF rates are a more appropriate benchmark of lending practices
in Brazil than the TR rate.


Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. RIMA stated that it
had short-term borrowings during the POR and provided a letter from its
bank showing the bank's short-term lending rates. See, RIMA Sections A-D
Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Attachment 6 (March 27, 2000).
However, RIMA did not provide any documentation substantiating its
statement that it had actual short-term borrowings from its bank at the
rates reflected in the letter. Thus, we cannot conclude that the letter
from the bank represents RIMA's actual commercial borrowing experience.
Accordingly, we determine that RIMA failed to meet its burden to establish
that it incurred short-term debt at a particular rate. The letter from
RIMA's bank is insufficient record evidence to support RIMA's argument as
to the surrogate lending rate the Department should use to calculate
RIMA's imputed home market credit. The Department's Policy Bulletin 98.2
states "a letter from a bank purporting to establish the rate at which the
respondent would have borrowed is often difficult to substantiate."
Therefore, for these final results, consistent with Policy Bulletin 98.2
and our practice in the Brazil market, the Department will use the TR rate
to calculate RIMA's imputed home market credit costs. This finding is
consistent with Ferrosilicon from Brazil, where the Department stated that
"in the absence of actual home market short-term borrowings and the lack
of substantiated evidence that [the respondent] could have borrowed at the
interest rates provided [for the record], we have used the TR rate as the
interest rate in the calculation of imputed home market credit." In this
case, RIMA stated that it incurred short-term debt, but there is no record
evidence demonstrating the loan terms and the lending rate RIMA actually
received. Although RIMA provided a letter to show the rate it may have
received from its bank, we choose to use the TR rate, in accordance with
past practice. This determination is also consistent with the finding in
LMI that credit cost calculations should conform with commercial reality,
because we are imputing credit costs based on the commercial reality of
the TR rate and are applying that rate to a respondent that has not
demonstrated its actual borrowing experience. However, RIMA has not
demonstrated that use of the TR rate is not reasonable or is so
inappropriate as to justify a change from our standard practice. Further
in response to RIMA's argument that the Department should use the IMF
rates as opposed to the TR rates, we note that in Ferrosilicon from
Brazil, the Department agreed with the petitioners' argument that the "IMF
rate is not a published commercial interest rate for short-term business
loans, but rather a rate at which banks, not companies, can borrow." The
Department's use of the TR rates to calculate credit in Ferrosilicon from
Brazil and in these final results is further supported by Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil , 62 FR 18486, 18487 (April 15,
1997) ("Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil"), where the Department determined
that the TR rate was a benchmark comparable to a prime rate published by
the Bank of Brazil and used the rate to recalculate the respondent's
credit costs.


Comment 3: Total Adverse FA for Eletrosilex


Eletrosilex believes that the Department erred in assigning a total
adverse FA rate to Eletrosilex in the Preliminary Results. Eletrosilex
states that in recent judicial decisions interpreting section 776(b) of
the Act, the Court of International Trade ("CIT") has ruled that the
Department must make an affirmative finding that the party failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability before applying adverse FA. Citing
Borden Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (CIT 1998) ("Borden"),
Ferro Union, Inc., v. United States, 44 F Supp. 2d 1310 (CIT 1999) ("Ferro
Union") and F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United
States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("De Cecco"), Eletrosilex notes
that in these and in other cases, the CIT has repeatedly held that the
Department's mere recitation that the party failed to respond was not
sufficient grounds for applying total adverse FA. Eletrosilex maintains
that to use an adverse inference in applying FA, the Department must make
an additional finding that this failure to respond was due to "an
unwillingness to cooperate, rather than simply an inability, to
cooperate." See Borden, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 1247.


Eletrosilex states that the CIT recently overruled the Department's
application of total adverse FA to Eletrosilex in Silicon Metal from
Brazil: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
64 FR 6305 (February 9, 1999) ("1996-1997 Silicon Metal") which, according
to Eletrosilex, involved virtually identical facts to the current review.
See American Silicon Technologies et. al. v. United States, No 99-03-
00149, 2000 SL 1180274 (CIT July 17, 2000) ("American Silicon").
Eletrosilex points out that in American Silicon the CIT held insufficient
the Department's reasoning that adverse FA was warranted because
Eletrosilex failed to respond to two supplemental questionnaires.
Therefore, according to Eletrosilex, the CIT concluded that the Department
did not make the necessary finding that Eletrosilex failed to respond to
the best of its ability. Further, the CIT also noted that the Department
"did not give adequate consideration to Eletrosilex's claim that
management and staffing changes rendered it unable to respond." Id.


Similarly in this case, Eletrosilex contends, the Department failed to
meet the requirements of section 776(b) of the Act, because it did not
make the required additional finding that Eletrosilex did not act to the
best of its ability. As in 1996-1997 Silicon Metal, Eletrosilex argues,
the Department merely repeated that Eletrosilex failed to respond to the
supplemental questionnaire as its justification for applying an adverse
inference.


Eletrosilex notes that in its December 2, 1999, questionnaire response it
stated that the company was facing serious financial misfortunes, frequent
changes in personnel, loss of key personnel and lack of human resources.
See, Eletrosilex December 2, 1999, Questionnaire Response, p. A-8.
Eletrosilex maintains that despite these extraordinary circumstances, it
cooperated to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's
request for information and provided a full response to the initial
questionnaire in a timely manner. Eletrosilex argues that the fact that it
was not able to respond to a supplemental questionnaire should not eclipse
its cooperation in providing the earlier questionnaire response.


Eletrosilex contends that the information placed on the record is
sufficient for the calculation of a margin. Pursuant to section 782(e) of
the Act, Eletrosilex claims, the Department must consider the information
it submitted to determine the margin. Eletrosilex notes that although it
was unable to provide audited financial statements, it is the Department's
practice to use unaudited financial statements when respondents do not
prepare audited financial statements. Eletrosilex further states that
other deficiencies mentioned by the Department did not relate to any
failure by Eletrosilex to submit the information originally requested, but
pertain to additional Departmental requests for clarification and
reconciliation of information already provided. Eletrosilex believes that,
under the prevailing circumstances, the appropriate methodology for the
Department would be to apply partial facts available only for the
information the Department deems completely unusable. 


Eletrosilex alleges that, even if the Department continues to apply a
dumping margin based on total FA, the rate that was applied to Eletrosilex
in the Preliminary Results, 93.20 percent, should be revised because it is
not reasonable or relevant. According to Eletrosilex, section 776(c) of
the Act requires that the Department to corroborate, to the extent
practicable, secondary information used as FA. To "corroborate" means that
the secondary information has probative value. See, Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103rd
Cong., 2nd Sess. (1994) ("the SAA"). Eletrosilex states that the
Department must also ensure that the margin is relevant, not outdated, and
rationally related to the respondent. See, Ferro Union, 44 F. Supp. 2d at
1335. Eletrosilex states that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
("CAFC") interpreted this provision and stated that:


[i]t is clear from Congress's imposition of the corroboration requirement
in 

19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c) that it intended for an adverse facts available rate
to be

a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent's actual rate, albeit
with some 

built-in increase intended as a deterrent to non-compliance. Congress
could not 

have intended for Commerce's discretion to include the ability to select 

unreasonably high rates with no relationship to the respondent's actual
dumping

margin.


See De Cecco, 216 F.3d at 1032. Following these guidelines, Eletrosilex
notes, the Department did not make a supported finding that the rate
applied to Eletrosilex in the Preliminary Results is relevant or reliable.


Eletrosilex argues that the rate has no reasonable relationship to
Eletrosilex's actual dumping margin and is grossly inconsistent with the
Department's margin calculations for the other Brazilian silicon metal
producers in recent years. Further, Eletrosilex argues that the rate is
based on sales made in 1990, and, thus, is outdated and unreliable as a
measure of Eletrosilex's actual dumping margin in the current POR.


Furthermore, Eletrosilex states that the CAFC has stated that the purpose
of section 776(b) of the Act "is to provide respondents with an incentive
to cooperate, not to impose punitive, aberrational, or uncorroborated
margins." See, De Cecco, 216 F.3d at 1032. Thus, Eletrosilex maintains
that to continue to impose the punitive and aberrational Preliminary
Results margin to Eletrosilex which has exhibited a substantial level of
cooperation would be unduly harsh, in light of its effort to cooperate
with the Department.


In rebuttal, the petitioners contend that Eletrosilex did, in fact, fail
to act to the best of its ability. The petitioners argue that, in
conformity with the statute, the Department has consistently determined
that a respondent has failed to act to the best of its ability when the
respondent has failed to answer a questionnaire or has withdrawn from the
review. See, e.g., Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17,314 (April 9, 1999)
("CPLNs from Taiwan"); Brass Sheet and Strip from German: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 42,823 (August 11, 1998).
Further, the petitioners maintain that the Department has resorted to
total adverse FA in a number of cases where a respondent, like
Eletrosilex, responded to the Department's original questionnaire, but
failed to respond to supplemental requests for information. See,
Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium From the Russian Federation: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial Recissions of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 42,492 (August 7, 1997). The petitioners note
that where respondents fail to answer questionnaires, the Department's
normal practice is to apply adverse FA, as expressly authorized by the
statute. See CPLNs from Taiwan. According to the petitioners, the CIT has
upheld that practice. See, Helmerich & Payne, Inc. v. United States, __
CIT __, Slip. Op. 98-134; 24 F. Supp. 2d 304, 309 (CIT 1998) ("Helmerich &
Payne").


The petitioners dispute Eletrosilex's claim that "the Department failed
to meet the requirements of section 776(b) of the Act, because it did not
make the required additional finding that Eletrosilex did not act to the
best of its ability." See, Eletrosilex Case Brief at 4. According to the
petitioners, it is clear that Eletrosilex did not act to the best of its
ability because Eletrosilex willfully chose not to respond to the
Department's supplemental questionnaire and failed to offer any
explanation for its failure to respond. 


Also the petitioners take umbrage with Eletrosilex's argument that "the
CIT has repeatedly held that the Department's mere recitation that the
party failed to respond was not sufficient grounds for applying total
adverse facts available" and Eletrosilex's contention that in American
Silicon "the CIT concluded that the Department did not make the necessary
finding that Eletrosilex failed to respond to the best of its ability."
Id. at 4. The petitioners maintain that in all the cases cited by
Eletrosilex, the responding party provided the Department with a plausible
explanation for its failure to provide the requested information, and the
CIT found that the Department should have determined whether the stated
explanation was in fact the reason for the responding party's failure to
produce the requested information. However, in this case, the petitioners
argue that Eletrosilex has never offered any explanation for its failure
to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. 


Further, the petitioners point out that under its regulations, the
Department has the discretion to accept information from interested
parties at any point in the review. However, the petitioners state that
even though Eletrosilex has had sufficient resources to participate in
this case as evidenced by the filing of its Case Brief, Eletrosilex has
still made no effort to provide the Department with the information
requested in the supplemental questionnaire. 


The petitioners also dispute Eletrosilex's contention that the
information Eletrosilex submitted in its questionnaire response is
sufficient to calculate a margin. According to the petitioners,
Eletrosilex has failed to provide the Department with critical financial
information requested by the Department in the supplemental questionnaire.
Without that critical information, the petitioners contend, the Department
cannot calculate a reliable margin for Eletrosilex. The petitioners note
that the Department has recognized that where a respondent's failure to
provide requested information prevents the Department from fulfilling its
statutory obligation to calculate an accurate margin, it must resort to
total adverse FA. See, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Vector Supercomputers from Japan, 62 FR

45,623 (August 28, 1997).


Additionally, the petitioners maintain that in the Preliminary Results
the Department selected the proper adverse FA rate for Eletrosilex.
According to the petitioners, the statute expressly authorizes the
Department to use a prior segment margin as adverse FA. See, section
776(b) of the Act. Further, the petitioners state that consistent with the
statute, the Department has stated that it is its normal practice, in
situations involving non-cooperative respondents, to select as adverse FA
the highest margin from the current or any prior segment of the
proceeding. See, CPLNs from Taiwan at 17,317. 


By way of refuting Eletrosilex's arguments regarding corroboration, the
petitioners contend that both the SAA and House Report accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act state that the Department may use secondary
information, such as a previously established margin, as adverse
information even if the information's reliability cannot be corroborated
by independent evidence. In addition, the petitioners state that the CAFC
has recognized that high margins from prior segments of a proceeding are
probative of current margins, e.g., see, Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. United
States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("Rhone-Poulenc"). The
petitioners point out that in Rhone-Poulenc, the CAFC held that the use of
a high adverse margin "reflects a common sense inference that the highest
prior margin is the most probative of current margins because, if it were
not so, the respondent, knowing the rule, would have provided current
information showing the margin to be less." Thus, the petitioners claim,
consistent with Rhone-Poulenc, the Preliminary Results margin is the most
probative of current margins because, if it were not so, Eletrosilex would
have provided current information showing the margin to be less.


Furthermore, the petitioners dispute Eletrosilex's citing of De Cecco in
support of its argument that the 93.20 percent margin is not relevant.
According to the petitioners, in De Cecco, the court rejected the dumping
margin chosen by the Department as adverse FA because the rate was not a
dumping margin calculated by the Department from a previous segment of the
proceeding, but instead a rate proposed in the petition of the less-than-
fair-value ("LTFV") investigation, which the court found had been
discredited. In this case, however the rate chosen by the Department as
adverse FA is a rate calculated by the Department in the LTFV
investigation for a specific respondent. Accordingly, the petitioners
contend that the rate selected by the Department is consistent with De
Cecco.


Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The Department
finds that the use of FA is warranted under section 776(a) of the Act
because Eletrosilex failed to provide information that has been requested
by the Department. Moreover, we agree with the petitioners that the
Department in the Preliminary Results properly used an adverse inference
in applying FA, in accordance with 776(b) of the Act, because Eletrosilex
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability in this case.


Contrary to the arguments presented in its Case Brief, it is clear that
Eletrosilex did not act to the best of its ability. Eletrosilex chose not
to respond to the Department's March 2, 2000 supplemental questionnaire
("supplemental questionnaire"). In the Department's March 17, 2000 letter
granting Eletrosilex a 15-day extension of time to respond to the
supplemental questionnaire, we reminded Eletrosilex that "any information
submitted after the applicable deadline will be considered untimely and
may be returned to the submitter" and "[i]n such case, we may have to use
the facts available...for the preliminary results in this review." See,
Department's Extension Letter to Eletrosilex, dated March 17, 2000.
Despite our warning, Eletrosilex never responded to the supplemental
questionnaire. Further, Eletrosilex did not ask for additional time to
respond or offer any explanation for its failure to respond, as provided
by section 782(c) of the Act.


We note that Eletrosilex's reliance on Borden, De Cecco, Ferro Union, and
American Silicon is misplaced. In all those cases, the responding party
provided the Department with an explanation for its failure to provide the
requested information, and the CIT found that the Department should have
determined whether the stated explanation was in fact the reason for the
responding party's failure to produce the requested information. Further,
it was Eletrosilex's responsibility to provide a "full explanation and
suggested alternative forms" of responding to the supplemental
questionnaire under section 782(c) of the Act. However, in this case,
Eletrosilex has never offered any explanation for its failure to respond
to the supplemental questionnaire. In its March 14, 2000 letter requesting
an extension of time to file a response to the supplemental questionnaire,
Eletrosilex did not claim that it was unable to provide a response to the
supplemental questionnaire. Rather, it provided reasons in support of its
request for additional time to provide a response. See, Letter from
Counsel for Eletrosilex to the Department Requesting Extension for Filing
Response to the Department's March 2, 2000 Supplemental Questionnaire,
dated March 14, 2000. The Department granted the request for extension,
based on those reasons. In addition, after Eletrosilex received the
Department's April 12, 2000 letter, in which the Department informed
Eletrosilex that it would be forced to use FA, Eletrosilex did not
acknowledge the Department's letter or provide any explanation for its
failure to respond to the supplemental questionnaire. See, Letter from the
Department to Eletrosilex, dated April 12, 2000.


Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline
to consider submitted information if several requirements are met,
including the requirement that the party submitting the information "has
demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the
information." Eletrosilex has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating
that it acted to the best of its ability to provide the requested
information. After requesting an extension of time to respond to the
supplemental questionnaire, and receiving such an extension, Eletrosilex
made no further contact with the Department until filing its Case Brief.
Eletrosilex did not offer any reason for its failure to respond to the
supplemental questionnaire or ask the Department for additional time to
respond to the supplemental questionnaire.


Additionally, Eletrosilex has failed to demonstrate that there is
sufficient information on the record to calculate a margin. In the
Preliminary Results, the Department determined that as a result of
Eletrosilex's failure to respond to the supplemental questionnaire, "the
information Eletrosilex submitted is so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for making a preliminary determination." See, Preliminary
Results at 47,961 and Application of Facts Available for Eletrosilex S/A
("Eletrosilex"), dated July 27, 2000 ("Application of FA Memo")


In this proceeding, Eletrosilex has failed to provide the Department with
critical information requested by the Department in the supplemental
questionnaire, including: audited financial statements, explanations of
affiliation issues, product specifications (regarding silicon content),
values for billing adjustment, values for inland freight, reconciliations
of direct and indirect selling expense, reconciliation of packing
expenses, reconciliation of U.S. imputed credit, detail regarding the
costs associated with furnace shut downs, reconciliation of ICMS and IPI
taxes, and a reconciliation of total cost of manufacturing figures. See,
Application of FA Memo at 3.


Without this critical information, the Department cannot calculate an
accurate dumping margin. For example, because Eletrosilex did not provide
the Department with audited financial statements, as requested in the
original and supplemental questionnaires, the Department cannot
"substantiate Eletrosilex's information in its questionnaire response."
Id. In this regard, we note that Eletrosilex's assertion in its Case Brief
that "[i]t is the Department's practice to use unaudited financial
statements when respondents did not prepare audited financial statements"
is misleading. We note that Eletrosilex does not state that it did not
prepare audited financial statements. Rather, Eletrosilex states that it
"was not able to provide audited financial statements because they were
not available," without explaining why audited financial statements were
not available. See, Eletrosilex's Case Brief at 6. In fact, Eletrosilex
does prepare audited financial statements in the ordinary course of
business and has provided them to the Department in prior administrative
reviews. See e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Silicon Metal From Brazil, 63 FR 6899 (February 11, 1998) ("1995-
1996 Silicon Metal"). In addition, Eletrosilex has not submitted bank
statements or income statements or income tax returns, as requested in the
supplemental questionnaire, or any other financial records that the
Department can use to verify the financial information submitted by
Eletrosilex in this review. Further, because Eletrosilex failed to include
the silicon metal content of the product for multiple home market sales,
"the Department is unable to make the appropriate model matching
comparisons between HM sales, and U.S. sales in order to calculate a
dumping margin." See, Application of FA Memo at 3. 


Therefore, taken together, the omissions, discussed above, effectively
prevented the Department from determining an accurate dumping margin.
Thus, by not providing the requested information, Eletrosilex has failed
to meet the first, third, and fourth criteria enunciated under section
782(e) of the Act. Also, section 782(c)(1) of the Act is not applicable in
this case because Eletrosilex never notified the Department that it would
be unable to submit the information requested by the supplemental
questionnaire, supplied an explanation for its inability to provide the
information or suggested an alternate form of submission. As a result, the
Department has resorted to total FA for Eletrosilex in this review.
Further, for the reasons set out above, and as stated in the Preliminary
Results, 65 FR at 47961-62, and provided in the Application of FA Memo, we
determine that Eletrosilex failed to cooperate to the best of its ability
and that adverse inferences are warranted.


We disagree with Eletrosilex's allegation that the rate that was applied
to Eletrosilex in the Preliminary Results is not corroborated as
reasonable or relevant. In determining an adverse FA rate for Eletrosilex,
the Department notes that calculated margins for Eletrosilex have
historically fluctuated between the present rate of 18.87 percent and
51.84 percent. See, 1997-1998 Silicon Metal, and Silicon Metal From
Brazil: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in
Accordance With Court Decision, 65 FR 33297 (May 23, 2000) ("1992-1993
Amended Final"). Eletrosilex received a calculated rate of 18.87 percent
for the 1997-1998 POR, a calculated rate of 39.00 percent for the 1995-
1996 POR, a calculated rate of 6.33 percent for the 1994-1995 POR, a
calculated rate of 38.39 percent for the 1993-1994 POR, and a calculated
rate of 51.84 percent for the 1992-1993 POR. See, 1997-1998 Silicon Metal,
1996-1997 Silicon Metal, 1995-1996 Silicon Metal, Silicon Metal From
Brazil; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
62 FR 54087 (October 17, 1997) ("1994-1995 Amended Final Results"),
Silicon Metal From Brazil; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 54094 (October 17, 1997) and, 1992-1993
Amended Final respectively.


It is in the context of substantial fluctuations in its dumping margins
that we corroborate the margin assigned to Eletrosilex in light of its
failure to cooperate to the best of its ability in this proceeding. In
situations involving non-cooperative respondents, the Department has
stated in the past that it is its normal practice to select as adverse FA
the highest margin from the current or any previous segment of the same
proceeding. See, Elemental Sulphur from Canada: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 11,980 (March 7, 2000);
Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 63 FR 42,823 (Aug. 11, 1998). Therefore, it is not
unreasonable to assume that a respondent, knowing the Department's
practice in assigning adverse FA, would have provided current information
if its current margin was less. Moreover, we note that several respondents
in this proceeding similarly have received widely varying calculated
margins, ranging from zero to 61.58 percent for CBCC and up to 81.61
percent for RIMA in the 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 PORs, respectively, and,
in the original LTFV investigation, CCM and CBCC received calculated
margins of 93.20 and 87.79 percent, respectively. See, 1994-1995 Amended
Final Results, Silicon Metal from Brazil, Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand (September 23, 1999), and Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 55 FR 38716
(September 20, 1990). Notably, these widely varying margins generally have
not coincided among all companies. In the same periods that margins of
61.58 percent and 81.61 percent were calculated for individual companies,
other companies received zero or single digit rates.


Eletrosilex, an experienced participant in the antidumping proceedings
since the 1991-1992 POR, was on notice as provided by the Department's
past practice that if it failed to act to the best of its ability, and the
Department applied adverse FA, the rate selected could very well be the
highest calculated rate in the proceeding, i.e., the 93.20 percent rate
obtained in the LTFV investigation. In determining the FA rate here, the
Department considered the fact that, in the 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 PORs,
the Department calculated dumping margins of 61.58 percent for CBCC and
81.61 percent for RIMA, respectively, while at the same time, calculating
zero or single digit rates for other respondents, demonstrating that in
this particular market, some companies may continue to dump at substantial
margins while others have eliminated or substantially lowered their
margins. The fact that these disparate rates have continued throughout the
reviews since the original LTFV investigation, combined with the
Eletrosilex's failure to respond to the request for information, supports
our conclusion that the 93.20 percent rate from the investigation remains
reasonable and relevant. The Department's determination here is in
accordance with the Department's policy of selecting the highest
calculated rate in the entire proceeding in order to induce future
cooperation of a respondent. 


Comment 4: Calculation of CBCC's Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses


CBCC argues that despite having incurred borrowing costs during the POR,
the Department, in the preliminary results, declined to use its short-term
interest rate to calculate CBCC's imputed credit expense for the home
market sales. See, CBCC Brief: Eighth Administrative Review of Silicon
Metal from Brazil dated October 2, 2000 ("CBCC Brief"). Instead, the
Department used a rate which was provided by CBCC in the course of this
review in section B (Home Market Sales) of the questionnaire. That rate
was based on the Brazilian TR, a publically available rate which the
Department used in a number of prior reviews whenever CBCC had no short-
term borrowing in the home market. 


CBCC argues that despite the fact that (1) its actual short-term loan was
first provided to the Department at verification, (2) its duration was
limited to a few days, and (3) it was made at a very high interest rate
and on an "emergency" basis, the Department should have accepted that loan
as representative of the short-term lending activity during the POR in the
home market. To do otherwise, CBCC claims, would be contrary to the
Department's own methodology and practice.


As an example of the Department's determination of the short-term rate in
the calculation of the imputed home market credit expenses, CBCC refers to
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 64 FR
49,150, 49,155 (September 10, 1999), as well as the CAFC's decision in
Aimcor v. United States, 141 F.3d 1098, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Furthermore, CBCC cites to the Department's Antidumping Manual that,
according to CBCC, states that in determining the interest rate, the
Department is to use the short-term rate actually experienced by the
respondent in borrowing funds in local currency during the period under
investigation or review.


CBCC also cites Policy Bulletin 98.2 as indicating that, if the
respondent has short-term borrowing in the relevant market, the Department
must use that interest rate in calculating the cost of credit. Only in
cases where there is no short-term borrowing can the Department resort to
using another rate. Further, according to CBCC, Policy Bulletin 98.2 does
not state that the respondent must have a certain number of loans nor that
the respondent's actual borrowing experience must comply with additional
conditions for the Department to use the respondent's actual short-term
interest rate in determining the imputed credit expense.


According to CBCC, the duration of a short-term loan has never been a
consideration for the Department when calculating a short-term interest
rate, so long as the loan met the definition of short-term, which is less
than one year. CBCC refers to the Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate
Products from Japan, 64 FR 73215, 73230 (December 29, 1999), where the
Department included certain overnight loans (lasting 24 hours) in its
calculation of the respondent's short-term interest rate. Furthermore,
CBCC claims that the characterization as an "emergency" loan is irrelevant
because it is an accurate reflection of the company's financial situation
and of the market. CBCC claims that like many other Brazilian silicon
metal producers, it has refrained from obtaining short-term loans in the
home market precisely because the prevailing local market rates are
extremely high. The loan at issue, therefore, was considered an
"emergency" line of credit because it was not consistent with the
company's most effective cash-flow management. For this very reason, the
decision was internally criticized in a CBCC internal memorandum. This
document states that because of the "exorbitant" cost of the short-term
credit contracted by CBCC with its bank, such borrowing "should be used in
the future only in case of extreme necessity." See, CBCC Brief, at 7.
Despite this internal warning, CBCC maintains that the Department
incorrectly construed this document as suggesting that the interest rate
charged by CBCC's bank was not in the normal course of trade. Instead,
CBCC views this memorandum as management's warning to refrain from using
such short-term financing in the future because of its exorbitant cost for
the company. Id. 


CBCC also claims that the interest rate used in the contested loan was
not "unusually high" when compared to other published Brazilian short-term
commercial rates prevailing at the time. Rather, it is the TR rate, which
has been used as a surrogate benchmark for short-term commercial lending
in prior cases, that is not at par with other commercial short-term
lending rates. CBCC also suggest that the application of the TR rate in
the calculation of the imputed credit expenses would be tantamount to the
application of FA. Because the information pertaining to the loan is part
of the record, the Department cannot disregard it and use an alternative
methodology. Consequently, the application of FA is not warranted in this
case. Finally, CBCC suggests that should the Department use a different
lending rate in the calculation of the imputed credit expenses, the
Department should use interest rates published by the IMF which are more
comparable to prevailing commercial short-term rates in Brazil during the
POR. 


The petitioners disagree with CBCC. They state that when asked by the
Department about short-term borrowing, CBCC in both, the initial and the
supplemental questionnaires, clearly stated that it did not have any short-
term borrowing in the home market during the POR. See, Silicon Metal from
Brazil; 1998-1999 Administrative Review; Rebuttal Brief of the Petitioners
("Petitioners' Rebuttal"), at 2. Instead, the petitioners claim, CBCC
referred to the TR rates as the appropriate benchmark to be used in the
calculation of the home market imputed expenses. Only at the start of
verification, the petitioners state, did CBCC report for the first time,
and in direct contradiction to its previous statement, that it did have
short-term borrowings in Brazil during the POR in the form of an
"emergency" loan from a Brazilian bank with an "aberrational" interest
rate. Id. 


Additionally, the petitioners cite to Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Round Wire Rod from Korea,
64 FR 17,342, 17,345 (April 9, 1999) ("Round Wire from Korea") where the
Department citing Policy Bulletin 98.2, declined to use an overdraft rate
in the calculation of imputed credit expenses because the overdraft rate
was several times higher than the respondent's regular short-term
borrowing rate and thus did not bear any relation to normal commercial
borrowing. See, Petitioners' Rebuttal, at 4.


According to the petitioners, the Department's practice of excluding an
aberrational short-term borrowing rate from credit expense calculations is
consistent with its general policy of rejecting aberrational values. The
Department's practice is also consistent with its policy for selecting
surrogate short-term interest rates that are actually realized by
borrowers in the course of "usual commercial behavior," and with the
CAFC's determination that surrogate short-term credit costs are to be
computed "on the basis of usual and reasonable commercial behavior." See,
Petitioners' Rebuttal, at 5.


Moreover, the petitioners disagree with CBCC's interpretation of Policy
Bulletin 98.2 and the Department's Antidumping Manual. In both cases, the
choice of the interest rate is based, among others, on "reasonable
commercial behavior." Furthermore, the petitioners claim that since the
issuance of Policy Bulletin 98.2, the Department has examined and rejected
a borrower's aberrational short-term borrowing rate, for example, in Round
Wire from Korea. See, Petitioners' Rebuttal, at 6. Similarly, the
petitioners claim that in none of the determinations, cited by CBCC, was
the Department faced with deciding whether the proposed rate was
aberrational. Id. Furthermore, the petitioners also refer to the fact that
the interest rate used by CBCC is not only highly aberrational but also
does not reflect the borrowing rates of other Brazilian respondents in the
same POR. See, Petitioners' Rebuttal, at 8.


With regard to the CBCC's suggestion that the IMF rate is comparable and
could be used in lieu of the short-term CBCC rate, the petitioners retort
that the IMF rate is not a short-term commercial lending rate. Rather,
this rate represents "short-term lending between financial institutions."
See, Petitioners' Rebuttal, at 10. Furthermore, because CBCC's emergency
loan was first disclosed to the Department at verification, the
petitioners claim that they were denied any meaningful opportunity to
review and comment on this factual information prior to verification.
Therefore, the Department has an additional basis to reject the emergency
loan interest rate provided at the start of verification. See,
Petitioners' Rebuttal, at 12.


In addition, the petitioners claim that contrary to CBCC's assertions,
since Policy Bulletin 98.2 was published, the Department has used the TR
rate to calculate Brazilian home market credit expenses where a respondent
did not have short-term borrowings in the home market currency during the
POR. Accordingly, because CBCC twice stated in its questionnaire responses
that it has treated the TR rate as an appropriate surrogate lending rate,
because the Department has previously found that the TR rate is an
appropriate lending rate, and because the record contains no evidence to
contradict that finding, the Department properly used the TR rate as a
surrogate lending rate to calculate CBCC's imputed credit expenses. See,
Petitioners' Rebuttal, at 16.


Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. In the original
antidumping questionnaire, when asked about short-term borrowing costs,
CBCC stated that it "did not have any short-term borrowings." See, CBCC's
Questionnaire Response, at B-20, (Dec. 27, 1999). Instead, CBCC referred
the Department to its Exhibit 2, in the same questionnaire, where it
provided a set of monthly TR interest rates as well as a monthly average
interest rate for the POR of 0.64 percent. On March 27, 2000, when asked
to clarify the source for the TR rates, CBCC provided the source
documentation for the TR rates and reiterated that it used the TR rates
"in the home market credit expense calculation...." See, CBCC's
Supplemental Questionnaire, at B-5 and Exhibit 7 (March 27, 2000). 


As mentioned above, the first time CBCC presented the Department with an
example of an actual short-term borrowing was at verification. The
documentation of the loan was classified by CBCC as a "minor correction,"
and, according to the Department's practice, was included in the
Department's verification report. Subsequently, when the Department issued
its Preliminary Results it stated that:


The Department has reviewed the accompanying documentation related to
this particular loan. The loan in question lasted for only [several] days,
and according to the company's internal memorandum, was made at 'an
exorbitant' rate to be used only in 'emergency' situation. The interest
rate used in that loan is about [numerous] times higher than the
prevailing short-term interest rate being in effect during the POR in
Brazil. Consequently, given the fact that there was only one short-term
loan made during the course of the POR, a loan with an unusually high
interest rate, it is the Department's opinion that the loan does not
represent a short-term lending activity in the "normal course of trade." 


See, Calculation Memorandum of the Preliminary Results for the1998-1999
Administrative Review of CBCC, at 2; (July 31, 2000).


CBCC's main objection to the Department's preliminary position is that
the above-mentioned loan is not "aberrational" and, therefore, within the
normal course of trade. As such, CBCC claims, it should be used in all
home market transactions where imputed credit expense has occurred. The
Department disagrees with this position. According to CBCC's own
documents, presented at verification, the loan was characterized as an
"exceptional" loan. Furthermore, the company's internal memorandum,
accompanying the loan's documentation, called its interest "exorbitant"
and noted that the loan was to be used in "emergency" situations. See,
CBCC's Verification Report, Exhibit 14. 


Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word "exceptional"
as rare and the word "emergency" as an unforseen combination of
circumstances (emphasis added). The Policy Bulletin refers to the short-
term interest rate as "reasonable" and "representative of usual commercial
behavior." See, Policy Bulletin 98.2. Clearly, the loan in question, does
not meet any of the Departmental's policy criteria. Further, CBCC is
asking the Department to apply the interest rate from this single, several-
days long emergency loan, as a benchmark to be used in all home market
transactions throughout the 12-month long POR. Such application would
generate skewed and unreasonable results, results we believe to be
inconsistent with the CAFC opinion in LMI. Such application would not
impute credit on the basis of usual and reasonable commercial behavior.
See LMI, 912 F.2d at 460-61 (Fed. Cir. 1990). However, the record evidence
of CBCC's initial questionnaire (no short-term borrowing; use TR rate for
HM credit expense) is consistent with our practice pursuant to the Policy
Bulletin 98.2. Consequently, the Department determines that CBCC did not
experience borrowing that is "reasonable" and "representative of usual
commercial behavior" during the POR.


Moreover, according to the Policy Bulletin 98.2, in cases where a
respondent has no short-term borrowings in the currency of the
transaction, we will use publicly available information to establish a
short-term interest rate applicable to the currency of the transaction.
See, Policy Bulletin, at 3. Therefore, for these final results, the
Department will use the TR rate to calculate CBCC's imputed home market
credit costs. This finding is consistent with questionnaire evidence
placed on the record by CBCC and Ferrosilicon from Brazil, where the
Department stated that "in the absence of actual home short-term
borrowings and the lack of substantiated evidence that [the respondent]
could have borrowed at the interest rates provided at verification, we
have used the TR rate as the interest rate in the calculation of imputed
home market credit." Further, in response to CBCC's argument that the
Department should use the IMF rates as opposed to the TR rates, we note
that in Ferrosilicon from Brazil, the Department agreed with the
petitioners' argument that the "IMF rate is not a published commercial
interest rate for short-term business loans, but rather a rate at which
banks, not companies, can borrow." The Department's use of the TR rates to
calculate credit in Ferrosilicon from Brazil and in these final results is
further supported by Carbon Steel Plate From Brazil, where the Department
determined that the TR rate was a benchmark comparable to a prime rate
published by the Bank of Brazil and used the rate to recalculate the
respondent's credit costs.


Comment 5: COS for CBCC 


CBCC requests that the Department make a COS adjustment with regard to
indirect selling expenses represented by salesmen's salaries. CBCC equates
salaries with warranty expenses and claims that a fair comparison of
prices entails the recognition that "sellers incur different costs based
on differences in selling conditions in their respective markets." See,
CBCC's Brief, at 16. To account for these differences, CBCC argues, that
section 773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act provides that an adjustment be made
for any differences in the circumstances of sale between the export price
and the NV. CBCC further claims that, in general, the adjustment includes
direct selling expenses, such as commissions, credit expenses, and
warranties that result from, and bear a direct relationship to, the
particular sale, assumed expenses, and a reasonable allowance for other
selling expenses when commissions are paid in one market under
consideration but not the other market under consideration. CBCC also
argues that the Department's Antidumping Manual notes that "warranties are
included even though the expense can not be tied to a particular sale
because . . . it is inescapable that had there been no sales, there would
have been no warranty expense." Id. On the other hand, CBCC claims,
indirect selling expenses, defined as those expenses that do not result
from or bear a direct relationship to the sale, are not included as part
of the COS adjustment. The Department assumes that such expenses are
incurred regardless of whether the sale is made and that the same amounts
are generally allocated evenly over all sales regardless of the market. As
such, the presumption is that an adjustment is unnecessary because the
seller would not incur different costs based on differences in selling
conditions.


In the Preliminary Results, CBCC states that the Department applied its
normal methodology by making a COS adjustment for direct selling expenses,
which consisted of imputed credit expense and certain document and mail
charges, but did not include other selling expenses that were reported as
indirect selling expenses. According to CBCC, the information on the
record shows, however, that there are differences in other selling
expenses that result from the differences in selling conditions. For
example, in the sales office, there is a different number of sales
personnel between the export and home market. According to CBCC, had there
been no export sales, the company would not have incurred the salaries for
the salespersons who are devoted to export sales. Therefore, these
expenses should be treated like warranty expenses, which are included as
an adjustment even though the expense cannot be tied to a particular sale.
Without making an adjustment for this difference, CBCC states, the margin
calculation will not be based on ex-factory prices. Consequently, the
comparison results in a dumping margin that is largely caused by the
difference in selling expenses. Accordingly, the Department should account
for this disparity by including the indirect selling expenses as a COS
adjustment. See, CBCC Brief, at 18.


The petitioners claim that CBCC's argument is without merit. They state
that when a respondent waits until its case brief to make a claim for an
adjustment, as CBCC did here, the Department should not make the requested
adjustment. For example, the petitioners note that in an earlier review in
this proceeding, the Department determined that "{b}ecause CBCC did not
claim this offset until it submitted its case brief, and because it is a
respondent's responsibility to substantiate its claims for offsets, which
CBCC has not done, we have not made an offset." Thus, because CBCC waited
until its case brief to claim a COS adjustment for indirect selling
expenses, its claim should be denied. See, Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief, at
20.


The petitioners further argue that, under established Department
practice, "it is up to a respondent to substantiate and document any
adjustment or claim to the Department." If a respondent fails to provide
such substantiation, the Department disregards the claimed adjustment. The
Department's practice in this regard is consistent with the principle
affirmed by the CIT that the burden of establishing the right to an
adjustment lies with the respondent that seeks the adjustment and has
access to the necessary information. Here, CBCC has failed to substantiate
its requested adjustment for differences in indirect selling expenses. Id.


Furthermore, the petitioners argue, such an adjustment would be contrary
to law. When home market price is the basis for NV, section
773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act requires that price to be adjusted for
differences in the COS. The Department's regulations make clear that
"{w}ith the exception of . . . commissions paid in only one market, the
{Department} will make circumstances of sale adjustments under Section
773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act only for direct selling expenses and assumed
expenses." The regulations define direct selling expenses as "expenses,
such as commissions, credit expenses, guarantees, and warranties, that
result from and bear a direct relationship to, the particular sale in
question. Consistent with this provision, the Department does not grant
COS adjustments for differences in indirect selling expenses.
Notwithstanding the clarity of the Department's regulations and practice,
CBCC asks for a COS adjustment for indirect selling expenses.
Specifically, without citing any support in the record, CBCC claims that
there are differences in its home market and U.S. indirect selling
expenses resulting from differences in selling conditions, as illustrated
by different numbers of sales people for the export and home markets. CBCC
claims that its indirect selling expenses should be treated like warranty
expenses because "{h}ad there been no export sales, CBCC would not have
incurred the salaries for the salespersons who are devoted to export
sales."


The petitioners argue that the Department's definition of "direct selling
expenses" explicitly includes warranty expenses. By definition, it does
not include indirect selling expenses. Moreover, according to the
petitioners, indirect selling expenses, including salespeople's salaries,
are expenses that do not result from or bear a direct relationship to a
sale. Salaries and other indirect selling expenses are incurred regardless
of whether there is any sale. Indeed, CBCC's export salespeople
indiscriminately work on export sales for products other than silicon
metal and to countries other than the United States. Similarly, CBCC's
home market salespeople work on sales of products other than silicon
metal. They are salaried employees, and thus their salaries are expenses
that do not result from or bear a direct relationship to any home market
or U.S. sale of silicon metal. Accordingly, salaries and the other
indirect selling expenses are not at all like warranty expenses.
Consistent with these facts, the Department has consistently treated
expenses for a sales office and salesmen's salaries as indirect selling
expenses that do not qualify for a COS adjustment. For all of these
reasons, the petitioners ask the Department not make a COS adjustment for
differences in CBCC's indirect selling expenses in the final results.


Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The Department's
regulations state that the COS adjustment will be made only for "direct
selling expenses." Further, the regulations define direct selling expenses
as "commissions, credit expenses, guarantees, and warranties that result
from, and bear a direct relationship to, the particular sales in
question." See, 19 CFR 351.410(b) and (c). 


CBCC's claim that its sales staff salaries are comparable to warranty
expenses does not have any basis in evidence on the record and is
presented, for the first time, in its case brief. We note that it is a
respondent's responsibility to substantiate its claims in a timely
fashion, which CBCC has not done here. See, Silicon Metal From Brazil;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination
Not To Revoke in Part, 62 FR 1988 (January 14, 1997) ("1994-1995 Silicon
Metal"). Not only did CBCC present its claim for the first time in its
case brief, it has also not provided any documentation to support the
merit of its claim. In the instant case, salaries of the sales staff are
incurred regardless of whether there is any sale. In fact, salespeople can
and do work on subject and non-subject merchandise as well as exports to
markets other than the United States. Therefore, salaries do not bear a
direct relationship to any home or U.S. sale of silicon metal and, as
such, cannot be classified as direct selling expenses and do not warrant
the same treatment as warranty expenses. See, Color Picture Tubes From
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR, 34201
(June 25, 1997); Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta From Italy, 65 FR 7352 (February 14,
2000); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Residential Door Locks and Parts Thereof From Taiwan, 54 FR 53,153, 53,160
(December 27, 1989); Certain Tapered Journal Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof From Italy; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
49 FR 2,278, 2,279 (January 19, 1984). For reasons stated above, the
Department did not make the COS adjustment in these final results.


Comment 6: CBCC's Financial Expense Ratio 


The petitioners claim that in the Preliminary Results, the Department
erred when it utilized the financial statements of CBCC's Belgian parent
company in order to calculate CBCC's financial expense ratio, even though
CBCC was the company that produced, sold and exported silicon metal.
Because the Belgian parent company consists of many subsidiaries and
affiliated companies, the petitioners argued, the extent to which the
actual costs incurred by CBCC to produce and sell silicon metal are
reflected on the parent company's financial statements are small and,
thus, not represented by the parent company's financial statements. See,
Petitioners' Case Brief, at 18. 


The petitioners believe that CBCC's financial statements show a higher
actual ratio of financial expenses than the one utilized by the Department
from the consolidated financial statements of CBCC's Belgian parent. In
addition, the petitioners cite to a recent CIT decision where the Court
ruled that the Department's use of consolidated financial statements was
not supported by substantial evidence. See, Petitioners' Case Brief, at
19. Should the Department reject the petitioners' request, and base the
ratio of the financial expenses on the consolidated financial statements,
then it should disallow any offsets to CBCC's financial expenses as these
offsets were not substantiated in CBCC's record. See, Petitioners' Case
Brief, at 24.


CBCC argues that the petitioners' claim is without merit and should be
rejected. According to CBCC, the petitioners' reliance on AIMCOR v. United
States, 69 F. Supp. 1345, 1353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999) ("AIMCOR") and
American Silicon Technologies v. United States, Ct. No. 97-02-00267, 1999
WL 354415 (Ct. Int'l Trade April 9, 1999), is mistaken because these cases
dealt with another POR where the Court found that there was not enough
evidence on the record to establish that Solvay & Cie exercised direct
control over CBCC. See, CBCC's Rebuttal Brief, at 14. CBCC claims that the
instant review provides ample evidence that the parent company was
involved in CBCC's financial activity, such as inter-company transactions
and borrowing, thus exercising sufficient control over CBCC in order to
rely on the consolidated financial statements when calculating financial
expense.


Department's Position: We agree with CBCC. Our established policy is to
calculate financial expenses for COP and CV purposes based on the
borrowing costs incurred at the consolidated group level, regardless of
whether the respondent's financial expense is greater than the
consolidated financial expense. This practice recognizes two facts: (1)
The fungible nature of money within a consolidated group of companies; and
(2) that the controlling entity within a consolidated group has the power
to determine the capital structure (i.e., the debt and equity) of each
member company within its group. See, 1995-1996 Silicon Metal; Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rod from
Canada, 63 FR 182 (February 24, 1998). Contrary to the petitioner's
arguments, the situation in this case differs from that in AIMCOR. In
AIMCOR, the CIT stated that "Commerce is justified in utilizing
consolidated financial statements when corporate control, whether direct
or indirect, exists. . ." See, AIMCOR, 69 F. Supp. 2d at 1354. However, in
that case the CIT found that "there was no evidence of inter-company
borrowing or other indicia" that the respondent's parent company
determined the respondent's cost of money. Id. Based on that fact, the CIT
instructed the Department to recalculate the respondent's financial
expenses using the financial statements of the respondent. Id.


In the instant proceeding, Solvay & Cie of Belgium was the majority owner
of CBCC during the POR. At verification, the Department reviewed CBCC's
corporate structure and determined that CBCC is under direct control of
Solvay & Cie. See, Verification of Sales and Cost Responses of Companhia
Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC) for the 1998-1999 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from Brazil ("CBCC's Verification
Report"), July 24, 2000; at 3. The report further states that "the
[parent] company participated in the inter-company loans to minimize the
risk to the parent company" and, additionally, it provided CBCC with
auditing services. See, CBCC's Verification Report, at 3, 20, and Exhibit
42. Thus, in the instant review, contrary to the circumstances in the
AIMCOR case, there is record evidence of corporate control by Solvay & Cie
and its influence on CBCC's cost of money. Additionally, the Department
faced the same factual situation with regard to CBCC in the prior 1995-
1996 administrative review wherein it also based the financial expense
calculation on the consolidated financial statement of the parent company.
See, 1995-1996 Silicon Metal. Moreover, in the preceding segment of the
review, where inter-company loans took place between a respondent and its
parent company, the financial expense calculation was also based on the
consolidated financial statements of both companies. See, 1997-1998
Silicon Metal. Consequently, for these final results, we continued to base
CBCC's financial expense on the consolidated financial statements.


Comment 7: CBCC's Consolidated Financial Statement


The petitioners argue that because the POR straddles two accounting
period, i.e., 1998 and 1999, the Department should have calculated the
financial expense ratio based on both periods. For the preliminary
results, the Department based its financial expense ratio on the 1998
consolidated financial statements. The petitioners claim that using only
one accounting period distorts the resulting financial expense ratio. See,
Petitioners' Brief, at 20. In response, CBCC claims that the Department
was correct in applying a single whole year rather than trying to combine
two different accounting periods when calculating a financial expense
ratio. According to CBCC, such combination of two periods would be
distortive because "the costs from a six-month period cannot be properly
compared to a full year's data." See, CBCC's Rebuttal Brief, at 17.
Moreover, CBCC claims that the Department used the same methodology with
regard to CBCC in the prior segment of the proceeding. Id. CBCC asks the
Department to continue to use the same methodology of a single accounting
year for these final results of the review. 


Department's Position: We agree with CBCC. The Department normally bases
the financial expense ratio on the respondent's audited financial
statements for the full-year period that most closely corresponds to the
POR (see the Department's questionnaire at D-17). See, Final Results of
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 65 FR 48965 (August
10, 2000), Decision Memorandum, Comment 9. As stated above, the Department
based CBCC's financial expenses on the audited and consolidated 1998
financial statement of its parent company. Additionally, the Department
notes that 1998 was the only year for which the consolidated statements
were available. The approach is consistent with 1997-1998 Silicon Metal,
where the Department, facing a similar situation, based its financial
expense calculation on the 1997 consolidated financial statement.
Furthermore, the Department verified CBCC's financial expenses and is
satisfied as to the veracity of the financial information submitted by the
respondent. Accordingly, following our practice, in the instant review, we
have used financial expenses based on the CBCC's 1998 consolidated and
audited financial statement.


Comment 8: CBCC's Short-Term Income Offset


The petitioners contend that the Department should not allow CBCC to
reduce total financial expenses by "income from current assets" because
CBCC failed to substantiate and document that this category of income
qualifies as an offset to financial expenses under the Department's
established practice. The petitioners maintain that the Department only
allows respondents to reduce financial expense by interest income derived
from short-term investments of working capital. According to the
petitioners, CBCC has the burden of establishing its right to reduce
financial expense by such interest income. However, in the instant review,
the petitioners claim that CBCC never demonstrated that "income from
current assets" constituted interest income, nor did it demonstrate that
the interest income was derived from short-term investments of working
capital. CBCC claims that it correctly reduced total financial expenses by
income from current assets because by definition current assets are short-
term in nature and, thus, the income generated from these assets is short-
term in nature.


Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. In calculating COP
and CV, it is the Department's practice to allow a respondent to offset
(i.e., reduce) financial expenses with short-term interest income earned
from the general operations of the company. See, Timken v. United States,
852 F. Supp. 1040, 1048 (CIT 1994) ("Timken"). In calculating a company's
cost of financing, we recognize that, in order to maintain its operations
and business activities, a company must maintain a working capital reserve
to meet its daily cash requirements (e.g., payroll, suppliers, etc.). The
Department further recognizes that companies normally maintain this
working capital reserve in interest-bearing accounts. The Department,
therefore, allows a company to offset its financial expense with the short-
term interest income earned on these working capital accounts. The
Department does not, however, allow a company to offset its financial
expense with income earned from investing activities (e.g., long-term
interest income, capital gains, dividend income) because such activities
are not related to the current operations of the company. See,
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof From The Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 31734 (July 11, 1991). We note that the
CIT has upheld the Department's approach to calculating the financial
expense offset with only short-term interest income. See, Gulf States Tube
Division of Quanex Corp. v. United States, 981 F. Supp. 630 (CIT 1997) and
NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 905 F. Supp.1083, 1097 (CIT 1995)
(citing Timken at 1048), in which the CIT held that, to qualify for an
offset, interest income must be related to the "ordinary operations of the
company". Furthermore, we note that the burden of proof to substantiate
and document this adjustment is on the respondent making a claim for an
offset. See, Timken Company v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 495, 513 (CIT
1987); and Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 60 FR 43761, 43767 (August 23,
1995).


In the instant review, the Department requested that CBCC list "all
interest income and expense items and other financing amounts used to
compute net interest expense." See, the Department's Antidumping
Questionnaire dated October 19, 1999, at page D-12. In response to the
Department's request, CBCC provided a worksheet wherein it calculated net
interest expense by reducing total consolidated financial expenses by
total consolidated financial income from current assets. However, CBCC
never listed all of the income items that were included in the total
consolidated financial income from current assets and, thus, we are unable
to determine whether the total claimed income offset includes only
interest income that is short-term in nature. Moreover, the types of
current assets held by the consolidated entity do not clearly demonstrate
that the assets generated only interest income (e.g., the consolidated
entity listed among its current assets, "Short-term cash investments--
Other investments"). On March 27, 2000, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire wherein it again requested from CBCC supporting
documentation regarding the nature of the financial income offset. CBCC
responded by stating that it does not have access to such information.
See, the Department's Antidumping Supplemental Questionnaire Response
dated March 27, 2000, at page D-6. Therefore, by simply offsetting
financial expense by the total financial income from current assets, CBCC
failed to demonstrate that the "income from current assets" constituted
short-term interest income. See, 1996-1997 Silicon Metal. Additionally, at
verification, CBCC was not able to substantiate that financial income was
derived from short-term investments. See, Verification Report, at 21.
Accordingly, for the final results we disallowed the claimed offset to
financial expense. 


Comment 9: Allocation of CBCC's Indirect Labor Costs


The petitioners allege that CBCC's COP is understated because of CBCC's
allocation of total indirect labor costs to all of its furnaces, including
idle furnaces. According to the petitioners, the Department has already
rejected, in a preceding segment of this proceeding, CBCC's allocation of
labor costs to idle furnaces. Consistent with that determination, in this
review, CBCC allocated its monthly total direct labor costs to silicon
metal based on the ratio of silicon metal production to total production.
For the final results, the Department should use the same monthly
allocation ratios used by CBCC to allocate total direct labor costs to
allocate monthly total indirect labor costs to silicon metal. 


CBCC states that indirect labor costs were allocated to administrative
expenses because these expenses are incurred even when the furnaces are
idle. CBCC objects to the allocation of the indirect labor expenses
according to silicon metal production ratios because, it believes, such
expenses are not directly related to the production of the subject
merchandise. 


Department's Position: We agree with CBCC. In the instant review, CBCC
allocated indirect labor expenses related to active furnaces as part of
the fixed overhead. Indirect labor allocated to the idle furnaces is
captured in CBCC's G&A expenses. This practice reflects our position in a
prior segment of this proceeding where we stated that "it is more
appropriate to allocate these costs [labor costs] to all products produced
by CBCC since, during idle time, the labor costs incurred are not directly
related to any specific product." See, 1994-1995 Silicon Metal from Brazil
(emphasis added). By allocating part of the indirect labor expenses,
related to idled furnaces, to G&A expenses, CBCC conformed to our practice
of treating such expenses as not directly related to the production of
subject merchandise. Consequently, for these final results, we have not
changed the allocation of the indirect labor expenses.

Determination Not To Revoke CBCC

After review of the record, the Department determines that although CBCC
has had zero or de minimis dumping margins for the previous two review
periods, during the current review CBCC's weight- averaged dumping margin
is determined to be 0.63 percent, above the de minimis rate. A rate must
be below 0.50 percent to be de minimis. See, 19 CFR 351.106(c).
Consequently, CBCC has not made sales of subject merchandise "at not less
than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years" as required by
the Department's regulations. Because one of the requirements to qualify
for revocation has not been met, the Department has not addressed the
issues of commercial quantities and whether the continued application of
the antidumping duty order is necessary to offset dumping with regard to
CBCC.  As a result of our analysis of factual information submitted to us
during the course of this review, we determine not to revoke this order
with respect to CBCC.


Determination Not To Revoke LIASA


After review of the criteria outlined at sections 351.222(b) and
351.222(d) of the Department's regulations, the Department's practice, the
comments of the parties, and the evidence on the record, we have
determined that the requirements for revocation have not been met. As
discussed above, we have determined with respect to subject merchandise
produced and also exported by LIASA that its sales were not made in
commercial quantities in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e). Because one of
the requirements to qualify for revocation has not been met, the
Department has not addressed whether the continued application of the
antidumping duty order is necessary to offset dumping with regard to
LIASA. As a result of our analysis of factual information submitted to us
during the course of this review, we determine not to revoke this order
with respect to LIASA.

Recommendation

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we recommend adopting all
of the above positions and adjusting all related margin calculations
accordingly. If these recommendations are accepted, we will publish the
final results of review and the final weighted-average dumping margins for
all reviewed firms in the Federal Register.


AGREE__________ DISAGREE__________




____________________________

Bernard T. Carreau, fulfilling the duties of
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration

____________________________

(Date)