Slip Op. 99-85
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
____________________________________
American Silicon Technologies, Elkem :
Metals Co., and Globe Metallurgical, Inc.,
:
Plaintiffs, Court No. 98-03-00567
:
v. Before: Barzilay, Judge
: Public Version
United States of America,
:
Defendant,
:
and
:
RIMA Industrial S.A. and General
Electric Co., :
Defendant-Intervenors. :
____________________________________
[Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment Upon the Agency Record granted in part, and denied in part;
remanded to Commerce.]
Decided: August 19, 1999.
Baker & Botts, L.L.P. (William D. Kramer, Clifford E. Stevens, Jr.), for Plaintiffs.
David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice (Randi Rimerman Serota); David
Mason, Jr., Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Commerce, of
counsel, for Defendant.
Dewey Ballantine, LLP. (Michael H. Stein, Bradford L. Ward, Jennifer Danner Riccardi, and
Andrew J. Conrad), for Defendant-Intervenor, General Electric Co..
Dorsey & Whitney, L.L.P., (Munford Page Hall, II, Philippe M. Bruno), for Defendant-
Intervenor, Rima Industrial S/A.
OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
BARZILAY, JUDGE:
This case is before the Court pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) on
Plaintiffs’ USCIT R. 56.2 Motion for Judgment Upon the Agency Record. Plaintiffs challenge
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 2
certain aspects of the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s
(“Commerce”) final determination in Silicon Metal from Brazil; Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 Fed. Reg. 6,899 (Feb. 11, 1998). Defendant
partially opposes Plaintiffs’ motion, but agrees that a remand is required to enable Commerce to
reconsider a number of issues listed in the opinion below. For the reasons set out in the opinion
which follows, the Court grants in part, and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment Upon
the Agency Record and remands to Commerce.
II. BACKGROUND
On July 31, 1991, Commerce published an antidumping duty order on silicon metal from
Brazil. Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 56 Fed. Reg. 36,135 (July 31,
1991). On July 8, 1996, Commerce published a Notice of Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review. 61 Fed. Reg. 35,712 (July 8, 1991). In response, RIMA Industrial S/A
(“RIMA”) and several other Brazilian producers of silicon metal requested that Commerce
initiate an administrative review covering entries of the subject merchandise for the period of
July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 61 Fed. Reg. 42,416 (Aug. 15, 1996).
In May 1997, Commerce concluded a verification of RIMA’s records in Brazil. In its
verification report Commerce noted that RIMA did not depreciate its assets in its accounting
ledgers from 1987 to 1995. U.S. Dept. of Commerce Internal Memo from A. Braier to J. Doyle,
Case No. A-351-806 at 28-9 (May 8, 1997). During this period, RIMA would not have
benefitted from deducting depreciation expense for tax purposes because it was not profitable
and was in bankruptcy. RIMA’s Sales Verification Exhibit S-23.
In 1996, RIMA resumed recording its depreciation expenses. Accordingly, RIMA’s
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 3
independent auditors calculated the company’s 1996 depreciation expenses by preparing detailed
depreciation worksheets back to 1987 (the year RIMA stopped deducting depreciation expenses).
Id. In calculating depreciation, RIMA utilized a five year straight line method of depreciation for
its furnaces and other machinery and equipment starting in 1996.
On August 8, 1997, Commerce issued preliminary results in this administrative review,
finding that silicon metal from Brazil produced by RIMA and other producers was being sold at
less than fair value (“LTFV”), and assessing preliminary margins of 31.6% as to RIMA based
upon the previous review assuming that no shipments had been made during the present period
of review (“POR”). Silicon Metal from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 Fed. Reg. 42,759 (Aug. 8, 1997).
On February 11, 1998, Commerce published the Final Results of the administrative
review, finding that silicon metal from Brazil produced by RIMA and other producers was being
sold at LTFV. Silicon Metal from Brazil; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 63 Fed. Reg. 6,899 (Feb. 11, 1998) (“Final Results”). Commerce, based
upon additional information provided by RIMA showing that shipments had been made during
the POR, determined that the percentage margin for RIMA was 3.08% from the period March 1,
1995 to February 29, 1997.
On March 13 and April 13, 1998, respectively, Plaintiff American Silicon Technologies
(“American Silicon”) filed a summons and complaint challenging certain parts of the final results
of the administrative review. Specifically, American Silicon contests: 1) Commerce’s use of
RIMA’s reported depreciation expenses; 2) the offset to RIMA’s financial expenses for financial
revenue; 3) Commerce’s failure to include RIMA’s foreign exchange losses; and 4) Commerce’s
failure to deduct Brazilian port warehousing expenses incurred by RIMA from export price. On
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 4
November 18, 1998, American Silicon filed its Motion for Judgment Upon the Agency Record.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In this review of Commerce’s final determination, the Court is charged to hold unlawful
any determination, finding, or conclusion that is unsupported by “substantial evidence on the
record, or is otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B). “Substantial
evidence is something more than a ‘mere scintilla,’ and must be enough reasonably to support a
conclusion.” Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 405, 636 F. Supp. 961,
966 (1986) (citations omitted), aff’d, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
To determine whether Commerce has acted in accordance with law, the Court must
undertake the two step analysis prescribed by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). First, the Court must determine whether the statute speaks to the
precise question at issue. Id. at 842. If the statute is clear or the legislative history
unambiguously expresses Congress’ intent, then the matter is at an end for the agency cannot
contravene the will of Congress. Id. at 842-43. Second, if the Court determines that the statute is
silent or ambiguous, the question then becomes whether the agency’s construction of the statute
is permissible. Id. at 843. Essentially, this is an inquiry into the reasonableness of Commerce’s
interpretation. See Fujitsu General Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Thus, Commerce’s conclusion must be a “rational decision.” Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Provided Commerce has acted
rationally, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. See IPSCO, Inc. v.
United States, 965 F.2d 1056, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The “court will sustain the determination if
it is reasonable and supported by the record as a whole, including whatever
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 5
fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.” Negev Phosphates, Ltd. v. United States,
12 CIT 1074, 1077, 699 F. Supp. 938, 942 (1988).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Issues for which Commerce agrees to remand
American Silicon and Commerce request, and the Court grants, that the following issues
be remanded for the appropriate calculations and disposition:
1. Commerce agrees with American Silicon that it did not consider all of the evidence
pertaining to the issue of the use of RIMA’s short term interest income on working capital
as an offset to interest expense. Thus, Commerce requests a remand to determine
whether to offset RIMA’s interest expense.
2. Commerce concedes that it erred by including no foreign exchange losses for 1996 in the
calculation of RIMA’s financial expenses. Thus, Commerce requests a remand to
appropriately recalculate financial expenses.
3. Commerce concurs that it erred by not deducting the warehouse expenses from export
price in its calculation of RIMA’s antidumping margin. Thus, Commerce requests a
remand to deduct warehouse expenses in recalculating RIMA’s antidumping margin.
B. The Contested Depreciation Issue
The issue brought to the Court by American Silicon is whether Commerce properly relied
upon the depreciation expenses reported by RIMA in calculating cost of production (“COP”) and
constructed value (“CV”).1
1
This calculation is undertaken by Commerce when it determines that normal value
cannot be ascertained by comparing sales in the exporting country to sales in the United States.
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 6
American Silicon argues that Commerce’s calculations in this review do not comport
with the statutory requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1677b(1)(A) which provides that for purposes of
COP and CV calculations:
Costs shall normally be calculated based on the records of the exporter or
producer of the merchandise, if such records are kept in accordance with the
generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country . . . and
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the
merchandise. The administering authority shall consider all available evidence on
the proper allocation of costs, including that which is made available by the
exporter or producer on a timely basis, if such allocations have been historically
used by the exporter or producer, in particular for establishing appropriate
amortization and depreciation periods, and allowances for capital expenditures
and other development costs.
Specifically, American Silicon claims that Commerce understated RIMA’s dumping margin
because it used RIMA’s reported depreciation. Pl.’s Br. in Support of Mot. for J. Upon the Ag.
Record (“Pl.’s Br.”) at 6. RIMA’s depreciation is understated, Plaintiff claims, because for the
period of 1987-1995, RIMA used a 20% rate (a five year depreciation period) for machinery and
equipment and a 10% (ten year depreciation period) for installations. Id. at 7. Thus, American
Silicon contends that these were accelerated deductions which rendered a significant portion of
RIMA’s fixed assets fully depreciated prior to July 1995, the first month of the period of review,
and that the actual costs of producing silicon metal are distorted. Id. at 8-10.
American Silicon further contends that this accelerated depreciation does not comport
with United States or Brazilian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Id. at 18.
American Silicon argues that Commerce may not use foreign company accounting records or
practices if they do not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of
merchandise. Id. at 10. American Silicon also contends that a five year depreciation period
See 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(1) and (4).
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 7
does not adequately allocate the cost of RIMA’s assets over their economic useful life, Plaintiff’s
preferred method of depreciation. Id. at 11-13. According to American Silicon, and based upon
another company’s records, the economic useful life of a silicon metal furnace is 20 years. Id. at
8. Thus, Plaintiff argues, RIMA’s use of a five year depreciation period grossly distorts costs
because it shifts acquisition costs of all equipment to the period of 1987-1991, years before the
period of review. Id. at 12-13.
Moreover, American Silicon asserts that RIMA prepared depreciation worksheets solely
for the review in question and that they are not part of its accounting system and that RIMA did
not actually record depreciation in its internal accounting statements. Id. at 17-18. American
Silicon also argues that RIMA’s reported depreciation expenses did not reconcile with the fixed
asset values stated in the company’s financial statements, and therefore, the depreciation that
appeared on the financial statements was unreliable. Id.
Commerce contends that the depreciation methodology used by RIMA is consistent with
Brazilian GAAP, and that its reliance upon RIMA’s records was reasonable. Def.’s Br. in Partial
Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. Upon Agency Record (“Def.’s Br.”) at 5.
Commerce argues that rejection of a company’s records is appropriate only when there is
an extreme allocation of depreciation to the first year; a depreciation of idle assets; a change in
depreciation methodology; or the shifting of costs away from the subject merchandise. Id. at 6-7.
Commerce did not find that any of these factors existed. Id. at 7-8. Commerce did find that
RIMA had historically used this depreciation method; that the methodology was consistent with
Brazilian GAAP and accepted by Commerce in prior segments of proceedings; and that alteration
of the methodology in the review would lead to inequitable double counting of
depreciation costs. Id. at 8-9.
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 8
Commerce asserts that its acceptance of RIMA’s reported depreciation was consistent
with its administrative practice because the expenses were reflected in financial statements, were
independently audited, and were in accordance with Brazil’s GAAP. Id. at 11. Commerce also
asserts that, under Brazilian GAAP, it is not unusual for companies to use accelerated tax-based
depreciable lives for machinery and equipment. Id. at 16-17. In fact, claims Commerce,
RIMA’s cost verification report states that when machinery and equipment are used continuously
(24 hours a day; seven days a week) Brazilian law allows depreciation of machinery and
equipment over a five year period. Def.-Intervenor Response to Pl.’s Mot. for J. upon Agency
Record (“Def.-I.’s Resp.”) at 17. RIMA’s machinery was used continuously for five years. Id.
Independent auditors attested to the fact that under Brazil’s GAAP, companies are permitted to
use whatever rate of depreciation they choose, as long as the companies are able to prove that the
term is adequate and suitable for the asset category. Def.’s Br. at 18. RIMA’s auditors stated
that the company’s depreciation was sound and fully consistent with Brazilian GAAP and that it
accurately reflected actual depreciation costs. Id.
Commerce proffers the cost verification report which states that the independent auditors
found that:
the calculation and methodology which was used for depreciation for both the
financial statements and for reporting depreciation expenses to the Department . . .
is sound, fully consistent with Brazilian GAAP and accurately reflects actual
depreciation costs . . . .
Def.-I.’s Resp. at 12.
The independent auditors state that:
Our examination was carried out according to auditing norms and include: (a) the
planning of the work considering the relevance of the balances, the volume of
transactions and the accounting systems and internal controls of the company; (b)
the verification, based on tests, of evidence and registers which support the figures
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 9
and accounting information published, and (c) the evaluation of the most
significant accounting practices and estimates adopted by the Administration, as
well as the financial statements taken as a whole . . . . The statements presented
were drawn up according to principles applicable to companies in the normal
course of activities.
Id. at 12-13.
With regard to the unreliability of RIMA’s financial statements, Commerce argues that
RIMA provided it with worksheets which demonstrate that the company’s depreciation
reconciled with the amount recorded in the financial statements audited by the independent
auditors. Def.’s Br. at 23.
In fact, Commerce states that during the preliminary determination, it had rejected
RIMA’s reported depreciation because it did not reconcile with its financial records. Id.
However, when the company provided Commerce with worksheets which did reconcile with the
audited financial statements, Commerce reversed its position. Id. at 24. After Commerce’s
initial rejection, RIMA consulted independent auditors who identified amounts of depreciation
which RIMA should have included in its financial statements. Id. at 22-23. Commerce then
adjusted COP and CV based upon the auditor’s opinion and upon the worksheets which did
reconcile with the financial statements. Id. at 24-26.
Finally, Commerce argues that rejecting RIMA’s reported depreciation would lead to
double counting. Id. at 27. Commerce asserts that this depreciation method has been used to
calculate COP in prior reviews. Id. Commerce accepted RIMA’s depreciation method during
the 1992-93 and 1994-95 reviews. Id. Thus, rejecting it at this point would double count
depreciation already accounted for in previous reviews. Id.
The Court finds that American Silicon has failed to demonstrate that Commerce’s
decision to use RIMA’s depreciation expenses is distortive and, therefore, contrary to the statute.
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 10
In examining this issue, the Court relies upon 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A) and the Statement of
Administrative Action (“SAA”). 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A) provides that, for purposes of COP
and CV calculations:
Costs shall normally be calculated based on the records of the exporter or
producer of the merchandise, if such records are kept in accordance with the
generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country . . . and
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the
merchandise. The administering authority shall consider all available evidence on
the proper allocation of costs, including that which is made available by the
exporter or producer on a timely basis, if such allocations have been historically
used by the exporter or producer, in particular for establishing appropriate
amortization and depreciation periods, and allowances for capital expenditures
and other development costs.
The relevant portion of the SAA provides:
In determining whether a company’s records reasonably reflect costs, Commerce
will consider U.S. generally accepted accounting principles employed by the
industry in question. For example, a company’s records might not fairly allocate
the cost of an asset if a firm’s financial statements reflect an extremely large
amount of depreciation for the first year of an asset’s life, or if there is no
depreciation expense reflected for assets that have been idle. In such a situation, it
would be appropriate for Commerce to adjust depreciation expenses. Costs shall
be allocated using a method that reasonably reflects and accurately captures all of
the actual costs incurred in producing and selling the product under investigation
or review . . . . Commerce also will consider whether the producer historically
used its submitted cost allocation methods to compute the cost of the subject
merchandise prior to the investigation or review and in the normal course of its
business operations. Also, if Commerce determines that costs, including
financing costs, have been shifted away from production of the subject
merchandise, or the foreign like product, it will adjust cost appropriately, to
ensure they are not artificially reduced.
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT, Statement of Administrative Action
807, 834-35, reprinted in, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4172.
Applying step one of the Chevron analysis to this precise issue, the Court notes that the
statute is silent with regard to the method Commerce must use to establish depreciation expenses
in COP calculations. Therefore, the Court must determine whether Commerce’s construction of
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 11
the statute is reasonable and, pursuant to the statutorily mandated review standard, 19 U.S.C.
1516a(1)(B), whether it is supported by substantial evidence.
The record shows that although RIMA did not record depreciation in its accounting
ledgers for the period of 1987 to 1995 [because the company was undergoing bankruptcy], the
worksheets provided to Commerce and based on RIMA’s financial records did reconcile with its
verified and audited financial statements. See RIMA’s Feb. 26, 1997 Supplemental Response to
Commerce’s Feb. 14, 1997 Supplemental Questionnaire. The worksheets and audited financial
statements showed that had RIMA properly reported its depreciation expense in the financial
statements, those values would have been the same values obtained through the calculations
contained in the submitted worksheets which use a straight line method over the company’s
estimated useful life of the assets. Id. at 26. RIMA fully demonstrated and Commerce properly
determined that the costs of its assets contained in the depreciation worksheets reconciled to its
financial statements; the worksheets calculated depreciation on the monetarily corrected costs
using a straight line method over RIMA’s estimated useful life of the assets; and the depreciation
expense shown on the worksheets reconciled to the depreciation expense reported in the audit
opinion of its financial statements. Id. at 27. Moreover, RIMA depreciated its machinery and
equipment 20% over five years; thus, the company did not take an extremely large amount of
depreciation during the assets’ first year. Therefore, its method is not suspect under the SAA.
In addition, the Court finds it unnecessary to sort out which governing Brazilian body
determines Brazilian GAAP and defers to Commerce for that determination. Nevertheless, there
is no evidence on the record that RIMA’s financial records are not kept in accordance with
Brazilian GAAP. The records were audited by independent Brazilian auditors who confirmed
adherence to a permissible depreciation methodology. Id. at 18-19.
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 12
Where “the reviewing court is faced with two opposing views of the record, that of
Commerce and that of the petitioner, it is the function of the Court to uphold the determination of
the agency if it is substantiated by evidence on the record and is otherwise in accordance with
law.” Hercules Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 710, 739-40, 673 F. Supp. 454 (1987). In that case,
defendant-intervenor, SNPE, challenged the injury determination related to its depreciation costs
calculations. Id. at 746. SNPE argued that Commerce erred in using an accelerated depreciation
tax method rather than a straight line method. Id. at 755. Commerce defended its position by
stating that SNPE deviated from its own normal accounting practice by utilizing the straight line
method. Id. Commerce also argued that it was SNPE’s duty to provide verifiable substantiating
evidence to support its claim that depreciation costs would be more accurately reflected by
straight line methodology. Id. Commerce provided its own verification reports to substantially
support its findings. Id. The court held that Commerce’s determination was supported by
substantial evidence because Commerce had chosen the verified financial statements as the best
information available. Id. at 756. Thus, Commerce was not required to accept SNPE’s
unverified allegation that the straight line methodology would more accurately reflect costs. Id.
Similarly, in the case at hand, Commerce used RIMA’s verified financial statements
which were independently audited by Brazilian auditors. These records provided Commerce
with the means to make a rational decision supported by substantial evidence. American Silicon
does not provide verifiable records to prove otherwise. Thus, the Court will not substitute its
judgment for that of Commerce that RIMA’s depreciation method is consistent with generally
accepted accounting principles. As the Federal Circuit court stated in Daewoo Electronics v.
United States, 6 F.3d 1511, 1517-18 (1993) (citations omitted):
The specific determination we make is whether the evidence and reasonable
Court No. 98-03-00567 Page 13
inferences from the record support [Commerce’s findings]. The question is
whether the record adequately supports the decision of [Commerce], not whether
some other inference could reasonably have been drawn. As frequently stated, ‘the
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.
In this case, the record amply supports Commerce’s decision to use the depreciation
method set forth in RIMA’s audited and verified financial records.2
Moreover, the Court rejects American Silicon’s argument that a five year estimated useful
life is inappropriate. United States GAAP does not set forth specifics regarding an asset’s
estimated useful life. Entities have much leeway in estimating useful life, as long as the entity
meets the goal of depreciation, i.e.: “to provide for a reasonable, consistent matching of revenue
and expense by allocating the cost of the depreciable asset systematically over its estimated
useful life.” MILLER GAAP GUIDE 1999, at Ch. 11, Depreciable assets and depreciation --
Depreciation , available in LEXIS, ACCTG Library, GAAP File. In addition to the commonly
used methods of depreciation, such as straight-line, units of production, sum-of-the-years’-digits,
and declining balance, entities may choose other methods which meet the criteria of systematic
and rational. Id.
United States GAAP states that the “estimated useful life of a depreciable asset is the
period over which services are expected to be rendered by the asset. An asset’s estimated useful
life may differ from company to company or industry to industry.” Id. at Principles of
Accounting for Depreciable Assets. With respect to the use of an asset after the time it has been
2
The Court notes a recent decision by this court to remand to Commerce a similar
depreciation methodology as distortive. See American Silicon Technologies v. United States, No.
99-34 (CIT April 9, 1999). The Court declines to follow this decision for the reasons discussed
herein and in Hercules and Daewoo.
completely depreciated, United States GAAP notes that “[t]otal utility of an asset, expressed in
time, is called physical life. The utility of an asset to a specific owner, expressed in time, is
called the service life.” Id. Thus, the estimated useful life is separate and distinct from the
amount of time that machinery and equipment may actually operate. In this regard, American
Silicon’s argument that RIMA’s depreciation method is distortive because RIMA is still using its
machinery and equipment after full depreciation, logically must fail. Merely because an asset
which has been fully depreciated is still being used does not mean that there has been a distortive
shift away from systematically and rationally capturing the costs of the machinery and
equipment.
In addition, the Court agrees with Commerce when it argues against changing the
depreciation methodology from that accepted in prior reviews. Because of the manner in which
judicial and administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders occur in one year periods, each a
separate proceeding, it is especially important for all parties that consistent methods be sustained
when possible. Here, the business records reasonably reflect costs as required by the statute and
the agency demonstrated a consistent administrative practice which is reasonable and permitted
by the statute.
Therefore, the Court sustains Commerce’s conclusion that RIMA’s reported depreciation
methodology is acceptable.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion in part, denies it in part, and
remands. An order will be entered accordingly.
Dated: ____________________ _____________________________
New York, NY Judith M. Barzilay
Judge