[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56906-56909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28500]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of
One Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea: (A-580-812)
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Amended final results of administrative review of antidumping
duty order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 23, 1998, the Department of Commerce published
the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One
Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea. This review covered two
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States
and four third-country resellers from Singapore, Malaysia, Canada, and
Hong Kong for the period May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The two
manufacturers/exporters were Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co.
(Hyundai), and LG Semicon Co., Ltd. (LG, formerly Goldstar Electronics
Co., Ltd.). The third-country resellers were Techgrow Limited (Hong
Kong) (Techgrow), Singapore Resources Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), NIE
Electronics Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) (NIE), and Vitel Electronics Ottawa
Office (Canada) (Vitel).
LG and Hyundai submitted ministerial error allegations with respect
to the final results of administrative review on September 17, 1998.
The petitioner, Micron Technology Inc. (Micron), submitted rebuttal
comments on September 24, 1998. Based on the correction of certain
ministerial errors made in the final results of review, we are amending
our final results of review with respect to LG. We are also clarifying
the assessment language cited in our final results with respect to both
LG and Hyundai
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff, AD/CVD Enforcement Group
II, Office Four, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has now amended the
final results of this administrative review in accordance with section
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to 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 references to the Department's regulations are
to the regulations set forth at 19 CFR 353 (1997).
[[Page 56907]]
Scope of Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of DRAMs of one megabit
or above from Korea. Included in the scope are assembled and
unassembled DRAMs of one megabit and above. Assembled DRAMs include all
package types. Unassembled DRAMs include processed wafers, uncut die,
and cut die. Processed wafers produced in Korea, but packaged or
assembled into memory modules in a third country, are included in the
scope; wafers produced in a third country and assembled or packaged in
Korea are not included in the scope.
The scope of this review includes memory modules. A memory module
is a collection of DRAMs, the sole function of which is memory. Modules
include single in-line processing modules (SIPs), single in-line memory
modules (SIMMs), or other collections of DRAMs, whether unmounted or
mounted on a circuit board. Modules that contain other parts that are
needed to support the function of memory are covered. Only those
modules which contain additional items which alter the function of the
module to something other than memory, such as video graphics adapter
(VGA) boards and cards, are not included in the scope. The scope of
this review also includes video random access memory semiconductors
(VRAMS), as well as any future packaging and assembling of DRAMs; and,
removable memory modules placed on motherboards, with or without a
central processing unit (CPU), unless the importer of the motherboards
certifies with the Customs Service that neither it nor a party related
to it or under contract to it will remove the modules from the
motherboards after importation. The scope of this review does not
include DRAMs or memory modules that are reimported for repair or
replacement.
The DRAMS and modules subject to this review are currently
classifiable under subheadings 8471.50.0085, 8471.91.8085,
8542.11.0024, 8542.11.8026, 8542.13.8034, 8471.50.4000, 8473.30.1000,
8542.11.0026, 8542.11.8034, 8471.50.8095, 8473.30.4000, 8542.11.0034,
8542.13.8005, 8471.91.0090, 8473.30.8000, 8542.11.8001, 8542.13.8024,
8471.91.4000, 8542.11.0001, 8542.11.8024 and 8542.13.8026 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the Department's written description of the scope of this review
remains dispositive.
Background
On September 23, 1998, the Department published the final results
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on DRAMs
from Korea. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One
Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 50867, September 23,
1998) (final results).
On September 17, 1998, LG and Hyundai submitted timely written
allegations that the Department made certain ministerial errors in the
above-referenced administrative review. Petitioner submitted timely
rebuttal comments in regards to respondents' allegations. For a
complete discussion of the allegations, see the Department's October 1,
1998, Memorandum from Tom Futtner to Holly A. Kuga regarding
Antidumping Review of Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors
(DRAMs) from Korea: Ministerial Error Allegations Regarding the Final
Results.
As discussed below, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have
determined that the language used in our final results needed to be
clarified and that certain ministerial errors were made in the margin
calculations for LG.
Alleged Ministerial Errors
LG
Comment 1: Typographical Error in its Model Match Programming. LG
claims that the Department made a typographical error when it defined
the variable US MONTH for the model matching programming. Petitioner
had no comment.
DOC Position: We agree with LG. We have corrected this
typographical error.
Comment 2: Typographical Error in a Product Code. LG alleges that
the Department incorrectly input a product code in the computer
program. Petitioner had no comment.
DOC Position: We agree with LG. We have amended the computer
program to correct this typographical error.
Comment 3: Selling Expenses by Product Code Rather Than Control
Number. LG alleges that the Department assigned selling expenses to the
unreported sales based on product code rather than control number since
the Department stated in its final results that some of the unreported
sales involved product codes that had not been part of the
questionnaire response. LG claims that the Department had control
numbers for the unreported sales that it assigned selling expenses to
based on product code. LG, therefore, claims that the Department should
correct the program to assign selling expenses on the basis of control
number.
Petitioner states that the Department intended to assign selling
expenses on the basis of product code. Petitioner further contends that
the Department rejected LG's argument to assign selling expenses to the
unreported sales on the basis of control number in its final results.
DOC Position: We disagree with LG. We did not have product codes
for all unreported sales. Furthermore, where we did not have product
codes, we did not have control numbers. Independent of those facts,
however, the Department decided to use product code where it existed as
the basis for assigning selling expenses to the unreported DRAM
transactions. Where we did not have product code, we relied on the
density of the DRAM in question to assign the selling expenses that
would be used in our analysis. Because this is not a clerical error, we
have not made any changes to our calculations.
Comment 4: Control Numbers Used for Several Unreported Sales. LG
alleges that the Department assigned the wrong control numbers to
certain unreported sales. LG states that the Department assigned
control numbers to certain unreported sales for the purpose of
assigning costs to those products. However, according to LG, the
Department should have, for model matching purposes, changed the
control numbers for those products back to the original control number.
LG claims that the dumping margin is distorted as a result of this
failure to use the proper control number. Petitioner had no comment.
DOC Position: We agree with LG. We assigned control numbers to
three models of DRAMs in the unreported sales for the purposes of
assigning costs to those products. However, after assigning production
costs to these products, we failed to re-apply the original control
numbers to these products for sales comparison purposes. We have
amended the computer program to ensure that the original control
numbers are re-assigned to these products.
Comment 5: Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) Profit. LG alleges
that the Department applied the CV-profit rate to a basis different
than that used to calculate the profit rate. Specifically, LG claims
that the CV-profit rate was calculated based on a cost of production
(``COP'') that excludes selling expenses and profit, while it was
applied to a COP that included selling expenses and packing.
[[Page 56908]]
The petitioner claims that the CV-profit rate was calculated
incorrectly, but that LG's proposed method of correction is incorrect
as well. Petitioner contends instead that the Department should correct
its error by applying the standard CV-profit calculation methodology.
DOC Position: We agree with LG and the petitioner that the CV-
profit rate was applied to a basis different than that used to
calculate the CV-profit rate. We have corrected our calculations to
ensure that we calculate the CV-profit rate according to the standard
methodology.
Comment 6: Deduction of Imputed Inventory Carrying Costs in the
Calculation of CV. LG alleges that the Department failed to deduct
imputed inventory carrying expenses in its calculation of CV.
Petitioner claims that, since imputed inventory carrying expenses are
not included in CV, they should not be deducted from CV.
DOC Position: We do not add amounts for imputed expenses in
calculating CV. However, after calculating CV, we have, in essence, NV,
and adjustments to NV are appropriate when CV is the basis for NV. In
this case, imputed inventory carrying expenses are indirect selling
expenses. Because LG's U.S. price was based on constructed export price
(CEP), and an offset to CEP was appropriate in this case, we intended
in the final review results to deduct the imputed inventory carrying
expenses as an adjustment to CV. As this did not occur, we made the
appropriate changes to our calculations to account for this clerical
error (see DOC position on Comment 7).
Comment 7: Inclusion of Imputed Inventory Carrying Costs in the
Calculation of the CEP Offset for CV Comparisons. LG alleges that the
Department failed to include imputed inventory carrying expenses in its
calculation of the CEP offset for CV comparisons. Petitioner agrees
that imputed inventory carrying expenses should be included in the CEP
offset.
DOC Position: We agree with LG and the petitioner. We failed to
include imputed inventory carrying expenses in the calculation of LG's
CEP offset calculations as we said we would in the final review
results. For these amended results, we have adjusted our computations
accordingly.
Comment 8: Adjustments made to Unreported Sales for Credit Expenses
and Commissions. LG claims that the Department mistakenly made
adjustments to the unreported sales for commissions and credit. LG
states that the record supports the conclusion that there were no
commissions or credits expenses associated with these sales. Therefore,
LG concludes, the Department should not have assigned these expenses to
the unreported sales.
Petitioner claims that the Department intended, as part of its
application of adverse facts available, to include commissions and
credit expenses in its calculations of the adjustments for the
unreported sales. Petitioner therefore concludes that the Department
did not commit any clerical error by assigning these expenses to the
unreported sales.
DOC Position: We disagree with LG. We intentionally assigned
selling expenses, including credit expenses and commissions, to the
unreported sales on an adverse facts available basis. No changes have
been made to the program.
Comment 9: Calculation of Duty Assessment Rates by Importer. LG
alleges that the Department's computer program failed to appropriately
calculate importer-specific rates. Instead, LG claims that the program
calculated an assessment rate for only one importer of record, LG
Semicon America, Inc. (``LGSA''). LG states that the Department should
amend its computer program to ensure that duty assessment rates are
calculated for each importer.
The petitioner claims that the Department properly attributed the
antidumping duties related to the unreported sales to LG. Petitioner
therefore concludes that the Department should continue to calculate a
single weighted-average assessment rate for LGSA as the importer.
DOC Position: We agree with LG. As stated in the final results, we
intended to calculate importer-specific assessment rates. We have
corrected the computer program to ensure that an assessment rate is
calculated for each importer of record in this review.
Hyundai
Comment 1: Calculation of Duty Assessment Rate. Hyundai alleges
that the Department mistakenly calculated its assessment rate by
dividing the total antidumping duty by the total entered value of sales
made during the POR. Hyundai argues that the Department should have
divided the antidumping duty by the value of the entries made during
the POR.
Petitioner points out that the Department included only Hyundai's
CEP sales in its calculation of an assessment rate. It mistakenly
excluded the duties due and total value of further manufactured sales.
DOC Position: We disagree with Hyundai. We intentionally based
Hyundai's assessment rate on the entered value of the sales made during
the POR. In our preliminary results, we stated that we ``calculated
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio
of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined
sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used
to calculate those duties.'' See Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One Megabit or Above from the Republic of
Korea, 63 FR 11411, March 9, 1998 (Preliminary Results) We received no
comments from either respondent or petitioner regarding that
methodology. However, in the final results, we stated that we
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and
dividing this amount by the total value of subject merchandise entered
during the POR for each importer. The sentence should have read that we
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and
dividing this amount by the total entered value of sales of subject
merchandise sold during the POR for each importer (emphasis added). We
are amending these final results to reflect that assessment language.
We agree with the petitioner. We mistakenly excluded the total
value and duties related to the further manufactured sales. We have
corrected the computer program to calculate an assessment rate for
Hyundai based on its CEP sales as well as the further manufactured
sales.
Amended Final Results
We are clarifying the assessment language with respect to both LG
and Hyundai and, as a result of our correction of the ministerial
errors for LG, we have determined the following amended margin exists
for LG for the period May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended weighted-
Manufacturer/exporter average margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LG.................................................. 9.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no change to Hyundai's weighted-average margin percentage
as a result of the correction of ministerial errors in this review
period.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondents
directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon
[[Page 56909]]
publication of this notice of amended final results of review for all
shipments of DRAMs from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a) of the Act: (1) For the company named above, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but
covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate
will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most
recent final results which covered that manufacturer or exporter; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous
segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise
in these final results of review or in the most recent final results
which covered that manufacturer; and (4) if neither the exporter nor
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous
segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 3.85 percent,
the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) 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 doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of
the Department's regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
section 751(i) of the Act.
Dated: October 16, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-28500 Filed 10-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
