The US Department of Commerce issued preliminary determinations Tuesday in the countervailing duty investigations for silicon metal imports from Kazakhstan, Australia and Brazil, finding countervailable subsidies in all cases.
Commerce said it found countervailable subsidy rates of 120% for Kazak producer Tau-Ken Temir and all other Kazak producers; 16.23% for Australia's Simcoa and all other producers; and 3.69% for Brazil's Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Industria e Comercio and all other Brazilian producers except Ligas de Aluminio SA (Liasa), for which it found 52.07%.
These duty rates will become the cash deposit rates required for any future imports of silicon metal from these countries effective with the date the decisions are published in the Federal Register, which can take five business days or longer. Commerce did not find critical circumstances, or a surge in imports, which would have resulted in the duties being retroactive.
The countervailing duty investigations began on March 28 at the request of US producer Globe Specialty Metals, and the period of investigation is January 1 through December 31, 2016.
Commerce also said Tuesday that it is aligning the final CVD determination in these investigations with the final determinations in the companion antidumping duty investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil and Norway, which are currently scheduled for December 18, unless postponed.
The preliminary antidumping determinations are due October 4.
The US DOC assigned the highest rate to Tau-Ken Temir and all other Kazak producers because Tau-Ken Temir "refused to provide the department with requested information or analyze whether its cross-owned companies received countervailable subsidies," Commerce said in the prepared Federal Register notice. "Furthermore, the government of Kazakhstan's (GOK)'s initial questionnaire response was wholly deficient with respect to an allegation that electricity was sold to Tau-Ken Temir for less than adequate remuneration, and its supplemental response regarding this allegation was untimely filed."
Commerce said that because the company and the government of Kazakhstan did not act to the best of their abilities in responding for information, and "impeded this investigation" the investigators drew "an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available." The DOC said it had no other information on the record from which to determine an all-others rate for Kazakhstan.
Commerce also used "facts otherwise available" in assigning the 52.07% rate for Liasa, which it said "did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the department's requests for information."
The Brazilian "all others" rate was based on the Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil rate because it was the only other rate that was not zero or de minimis or based on facts otherwise available.
The same was true in the case of Australian imports, where Commerce said the all others rate was based on the rate for Simcoa because the rate was not zero, or de minimis, and not based on facts otherwise available.
Commerce did not detail specifics on the subsidies it found for Dow Corning or Simcoa but said it would disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis within five days of its public announcement.
