[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55251-55254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26590]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-827]
Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by GSI Technology, the Department of
Commerce is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on static random access memory semiconductors from Taiwan. The
period of review is October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the normal value by GSI Technology. If these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct the
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-1776 or (202) 482-0656, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the
provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department
of Commerce regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).
Background
On October 15, 1998, GSI Technology requested that the Department
of Commerce (the Department) conduct a new shipper review pursuant to
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b). In this request,
GSI Technology certified that it did not export the subject merchandise
to the United States during the period covered by the original less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (the ``POI''), and that it is not
affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), GSI
Technology submitted documentation establishing the date on which it
first entered subject merchandise for consumption into the United
States, the volume of that shipment, and the date of the first sale to
an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Based on the above
information, the Department initiated a new shipper review covering GSI
Technology (see Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan:
Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR
67456 (Dec. 7, 1998)). The Department is now conducting this review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
On December 8, 1998, we issued our questionnaire to GSI Technology.
We received a response to this questionnaire in January 1999.
In February and April 1999, we issued supplemental questionnaires
to GSI Technology. We received responses to these questionnaires in
March and May 1999, respectively.
On May 24, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of postponement of the preliminary results until no later than
October 4, 1999 (64 FR 27966).
In June 1999, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to
GSI Technology. We received a response to this questionnaire in July
1999.
In July, August, and September 1999, the Department conducted
verification of the data submitted by GSI Technology, in accordance
with section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv).
Also in September 1999, the Department requested that GSI
Technology submit a revised cost database incorporating the
verification findings.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are synchronous, asynchronous,
and specialty SRAMs from Taiwan, whether assembled or unassembled.
Assembled SRAMs include all package types. Unassembled SRAMs include
processed wafers or die, uncut die and cut die. Processed wafers
produced in Taiwan, but packaged, or assembled into memory modules, in
a third country, are included in the scope; processed wafers produced
in a third country and assembled or packaged in Taiwan are not included
in the scope.
The scope of this review includes modules containing SRAMs. Such
modules include single in-line processing modules, single in-line
memory modules, dual in-line memory modules, memory cards, or other
collections of SRAMs, whether unmounted or mounted on a circuit
[[Page 55252]]
board. The scope of this review does not include SRAMs that are
physically integrated with other components of a motherboard in such a
manner as to constitute one inseparable amalgam (i.e., SRAMs soldered
onto motherboards).
The SRAMs within the scope of this review are currently
classifiable under the subheadings 8542.13.8037 through 8542.13.8049,
8473.30.10 through 8473.30.90, and 8542.13.8005 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is October 1, 1997, through September
30, 1998.
Use of Partial Facts Available
We determine that the use of partial facts available is appropriate
for GSI Technology, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. At
verification, we discovered that the respondent had mis-allocated
certain rebates received from one of its subcontractors during the POR
when calculating its difference-in-merchandise (difmer) and constructed
value (CV) data. Because we find that this mistake caused a significant
distortion in the reported costs, we determine that GSI Technology's
cost data is unreliable for use in the preliminary results. Moreover,
although the correct data exists on the record of this proceeding, we
are unable to use this data at this time in our preliminary results due
to the short time between the end of verification and the date of the
preliminary results. However, we have requested that the respondent
provide a new cost database which incorporates our verification
findings, and we may consider this data for purposes of the final
results.
Because we find that the respondent's cost data is unuseable in its
current form, for purposes of the preliminary results we have, pursuant
to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, based the margin for all U.S. sales
for which either a difmer adjustment or CV would be required on facts
available. As facts available, we have used a non-aberrant margin
calculated for identical price-to-price comparisons, in accordance with
our practice. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63
FR 8909, 8912 (Feb. 23, 1998).
Finally, we found at verification that GSI Technology failed to
report certain U.S. sales during the POR. Accordingly, we have also
based the margin for these sales on facts available. As facts
available, we have used the same margin noted above.
Level of Trade and Constructed Export Price Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine normal value (NV) based on sales in the
comparison market at the same level of trade as export price (EP) or
constructed export price (CEP). The NV level of trade is that of the
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on
CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and
administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. level of
trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually
from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the
level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different level of trade and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the
CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).
GSI Technology claimed that it made home market sales at two levels
of trade, which it defined as follows: 1) original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) who purchased directly from GSI Technology; and 2)
OEMs who purchased through the affiliated sales representative. We
examined the selling activities at each reported marketing stage and
found that there was no substantive difference in the selling functions
performed at any of these stages. Consequently, we determine that only
one level of trade exists with respect to sales made by GSI Technology
to all home market customers. For a detailed explanation of this
analysis, see the memorandum entitled ``Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review on Static Random Access Memory
Semiconductors from Taiwan,'' dated October 4, 1999 (the ``concurrence
memorandum'').
Because we have found that only one level of trade existed in the
home market during the POR, we conducted an analysis to determine
whether a CEP offset was warranted. In order to determine whether NV
was established at a level of trade which constituted a more advanced
stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP, we compared
the selling functions performed for home market sales with those
performed with respect to the CEP transaction, which excludes economic
activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to section 772(d)
of the Act. We found that GSI Technology performed most of the selling
functions and services related to U.S. sales at its sales offices in
the United States, and, therefore, that these selling functions are
associated with those expenses which we deduct from the CEP starting
price, as specified in section 772(d) of the Act. Regarding home market
sales, GSI Technology performed largely the same selling functions for
these sales as were performed for U.S. sales. Therefore, its sales in
Taiwan were at a more advanced stage of marketing and distribution
(i.e., more remote from the factory) than the constructed U.S. level of
trade, which represents an ex-factory price after the deduction of
expenses associated with U.S. selling activities. However, because GSI
Technology sells at only one home market level of trade, the difference
in the levels of trade cannot be quantified. Because the difference in
the levels of trade cannot be quantified, but the home market is at a
more advanced level of trade, we have granted a CEP offset to GSI
Technology. For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum
noted above.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of SRAMs from Taiwan were made in the
United States at less than NV, we compared the CEP to NV. We were
unable to make price-to-price comparisons involving non-identical
products because GSI Technology did not provide useable difmer data.
Moreover, we were unable to make price-to-CV comparisons because GSI
Technology similarly did not provide usable CV data. Therefore, we
based the margin for all U.S. sales with no corresponding identical
home market match on facts available. As facts available, we used a
non-aberrant
[[Page 55253]]
margin calculated for identical comparisons. See the ``Use of Partial
Facts Available'' section of this notice for further discussion.
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP
methodology because all sales took place after importation into the
United States. We revised the reported data based on our findings at
verification.
We based CEP on packed, delivered prices to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States. We made deductions from CEP for
discounts, as appropriate. We also made deductions for foreign inland
freight, international freight, U.S. customs duties and customs user
fees, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, where
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for
credit expenses, advertising expenses, commissions, testing expenses,
indirect selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, U.S. repacking
expenses, and U.S. further manufacturing costs, in accordance with
section 772(d) of the Act. Regarding credit expenses, we found that GSI
Technology had not received payment for certain sales as of the date of
verification. Consequently, we used the last day of GSI Technology's
U.S. sales verification as the date of payment for any unpaid amount
and recalculated credit expenses accordingly. Regarding testing
expenses, we found that GSI Technology had not reported these expenses
for certain products during the POR. Accordingly, we based the testing
expenses for these products on facts available. As facts available, we
used the highest testing expenses reported for any other product
produced in the same quarter.
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. As noted in
the ``Use of Partial Facts Available'' section above, we have
determined that GSI Technology's cost data is unusable at this time,
based on our findings at verification. Consequently, we are unable to
use this data for purposes of determining the CEP profit rate, in
accordance with section 772(f) of the Act. Rather, as facts available,
we have derived a CEP profit rate using the data shown on GSI
Technology's consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 1998.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared the volume of GSI Technology's home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based
on this comparison, we determined that GSI Technology had a viable home
market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.
GSI Technology made sales of SRAMs to an affiliated party in the
home market during the POR. However, because GSI Technology sold
different models to affiliated and unaffiliated parties, we were unable
to test these sales to ensure that, on average, they were made at
``arm's-length'' prices, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). (See
letter from James Maeder to H.W. Chen, dated February 16, 1999.)
Accordingly, we did not include in our analysis any sales made to the
affiliated party because we were unable to determine that they were at
``arm's-length.'' Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(d), we based our analysis
on the downstream sales of the affiliate to its unaffiliated customers.
For price-to-price comparisons, we based NV on ex-warehouse or
delivered prices to home market customers. Where appropriate, we
deducted home market movement charges, including foreign inland freight
and off-site warehousing expenses, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also deducted home market credit expenses
and testing expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
We disallowed a claim made for foreign exchange losses associated with
sales to the affiliated distributor. We also disallowed a claim made
for home market customs fees because GSI Technology was unable to
demonstrate at verification that these expenses related to home market
sales. For further discussion, see the concurrence memorandum.
We deducted home market indirect selling expenses, including
inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses, up to the
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Where applicable, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a
U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home market indirect selling
expenses remaining after the deduction for the CEP offset, up to the
amount of the U.S. commission.
Currency Conversion
Generally, we make currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on
the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. However, section 773A of the Act
directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert
foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate involves a
fluctuation. It is the Department's practice to find that a fluctuation
exists when the daily exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by
2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the moving average of rates
for the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation to have
existed, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate, in accordance
with established practice.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for GSI
Technology during the period October 1, 1997, through September 30,
1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSI Technology............................................. 18.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Interested
parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date
of publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final
results of this new shipper review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 90 days
of the issuance of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of the new shipper review, the Department shall
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to
the total entered value of that importer's entries of
[[Page 55254]]
subject merchandise during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),
we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The assessment rate will be
assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made
during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement instructions
directly to the Customs Service.
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of SRAMs from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this new shipper review, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
company will be the rate established in the final results of this
review; (2) for previously investigated companies, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate
for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 41.75
percent, the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties. This new shipper review and
notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: October 4, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-26590 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
