A-351-850 Investigation PUBLIC DOCUMENT AD/CVD Ops VIII: RMJ DATE: October 4, 2017 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Taverman Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance FROM: James P. Maeder Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations SUBJECT: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil I. SUMMARY The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that silicon metal from Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of the accompanying Federal Register notice. II. BACKGROUND On March 8, 2017, the Department received an antidumping duty (AD) petition covering imports of silicon metal from Brazil,1 which was filed in proper form by Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (the petitioner). The Department initiated this investigation on March 28, 2017.2 1 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Norway: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition,” dated March 8, 2017 (the Petition). 2 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice). In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified the public that, where appropriate, it intended to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings listed in the scope of the investigation.3 Accordingly, on March 29, 2017, the Department released the CBP entry data to all interested parties under an administrative protective order, and requested comments regarding the data and respondent selection.4 On April 5 and 7, 2017, the petitioner and Rima Industrial S/A (Rima) submitted comments, respectively.5 On April 10, 2017, both the petitioner and Rima submitted rebuttal comments.6 Also in the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of an opportunity to comment on the scope of the investigation, as well as the appropriate physical characteristics of silicon metal to be reported in response to the Department’s AD questionnaire.7 In April 2017, Elkem AS (Elkem), a Norwegian producer of silicon metal, submitted comments on the scope of the investigation,8 and the petitioner and Rima submitted rebuttal scope comments.9 In the same month, these parties also submitted comments regarding the physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration to be used for reporting purposes,10 and the petitioner, Elkem, and Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd. (Simcoa), an Australian producer of silicon metal, filed rebuttal comments.11 On April 27, 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there was a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of silicon metal from Brazil.12 Also on April 27, 2017, the Department limited the number of respondents selected for individual examination to the three publicly identifiable companies that account for the largest 3 Id. at 16355. 4 See Memorandum to the File, “Customs Data for Respondent Selection,” dated March 29, 2017 (Customs Data). 5 See Letter from the petitioner to the Department, “Re: Silicon Metal from Brazil; Antidumping Investigation; Globe Specialty Metals Comments on Respondent Selection,” dated April 5, 2017; see also, Letter to the Department from Rima, “Re: Silicon Metal from Brazil – Comments on Respondent Selection and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,” dated April 7, 2017. 6 See Letter from the petitioner “Re: Silicon Metal from Brazil; Antidumping Investigation; Globe Specialty Metals Rebuttal Comments on Respondent Selection,” dated April 10, 2017; see also Letter to the Department from Rima, “Re: Silicon Metal from Brazil – Rebuttal Comments on Respondent Selection,” dated April 10, 2017. 7 See Initiation Notice at 16352. 8 See Elkem Letter re: Comments on Scope of the Investigation, dated April 17, 2017. 9 See the petitioner’s Letter re: Rebuttal to Elkem Comments on Scope, dated April 27, 2017 (Petitioner’s Rebuttal Comments), and Rima’s Letter re: Rebuttal Comments on Scope, dated April 27, 2017 (Rima’s Rebuttal Comments). 10 See the petitioner’s Letter re: Comments on Product Characteristics, dated April 17, 2017; Elkem’s Letter re: Comments on Product Characteristics, dated April 17, 2017; and Rima’s Letter re: Comments on Product Characteristics, dated April 17, 2017. 11 See the petitioner’s Letter re: Rebuttal Comments on Product Characteristics, dated April 27, 2017; Elkem’s Letter re: Rebuttal Comments on Product Characteristics, dated April 27, 2017; and Simcoa’s Letter re: Rebuttal Comments on Product Characteristics, dated April 27, 2017. 12 See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Norway; Determinations, 82 FR 19383 (April 27, 2017). 2 volume of the subject merchandise during the period of investigation (POI), Dow Corning Metais do Para IND, Dow Corning Silício do Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda., . (Dow Corning Silício)13, and Ligas de Aluminio S.A. (LIASA), based on the Department’s analysis of the CBP entry data.14 However, Dow Corning later informed the Department that there is no longer a legal entity in Brazil operating as Dow Corning Metais do Para IND.15 Dow Corning stated that “{Dow Corning Silício } is the only Dow Corning entity in Brazil that produces and exports silicon metal.”16 On May 8, 2017, Rima filed a request that the Department reconsider its decision not to select Rima as a mandatory respondent or, in the alternative, examine Rima as a voluntary respondent.17 Rima renewed this request on May 15, 2017.18 In May and June, Rima responded to the Department’s questionnaire.19 However, on August 3, 2017, the Department determined that it would not examine Rima as either a mandatory or a voluntary respondent.20 On May 22, 2017, LIASA withdrew from participation in this investigation.21 On May 31, 2017, Dow Corning submitted a timely response to section A of the Department’s AD questionnaire (i.e., the section relating to general information).22 On June 8, 2017, Dow Corning responded to sections B, C, and D of the Department’s AD questionnaire.23 Also, in June 2017, the Department preliminarily found that a product produced by Elkem known as “Silgrain®” is within the scope of the investigation. 24 In July 2017, Elkem filed 13 For purposes of this memorandum, “Dow Corning” refers collectively to Dow Corning Silício and Dow Corning Corporation. 14 See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil: Respondent Selection,” dated April 27, 2017. 15 See Letter from Dow Corning to the Department, “Silicon Metal from Brazil: Section A Questionnaire Response for Dow Corning Silício do Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda. and Dow Corning Metais do Para IND,” dated May 30, 2017 at 8. 16 Id. at 3. 17 See Letter from Rima, “Silicon Metal from Brazil – Request for Reconsideration of Respondent Selection and Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment,” dated May 8, 2017. 18 See Letter from Rima, “Silicon Metal from Brazil: Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment and Response to the Department’s Questionnaire Regarding U.S. Sales,” dated May 15, 2017. 19 See e.g., Letter from Rima, “Silicon Metal from Brazil: Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment and Section A Response” dated May 22, 2017. 20 See Memorandum to James Maeder, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil: Selection of an Additional Mandatory or Voluntary Respondent,” dated August 3, 2017. 21 See Letter from LIASA, “Silicon Metal from Brazil, C-351-851 and A-351-850,” dated May 22, 2017. 22 See Letter from Dow Corning; “Silicon Metal from Brazil: Section A Questionnaire Response for Dow Corning Silício do Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda. and Dow Corning Metais do Para IND,” dated May 31, 2017. 23 See Letter from Dow Corning; “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal From Brazil – Sections B, C, and D Questionnaire Response,” dated June 8, 2017. 24 See Memorandum, “Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated June 27, 2017, as corrected in Memorandum, “Clarifying the Comment Deadline and Correcting the Date for the Preliminary Scope Memorandum for the Anti-Dumping Investigations of Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway and the Countervailing Duty Investigations of Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan,” dated July 24, 2017 (Scope Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 2 comments on the Scope Preliminary Decision Memorandum, and in August 2017, the petitioner and Rima filed rebuttal comments.25 In July 2017, the petitioner requested that the date for the issuance of the preliminary determination in this investigation be extended until 190 days after the date of initiation. Based on the request, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary determination until no later than October 4, 2017.26 From July through September 2017, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Dow Corning covering all sections of its questionnaire