[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62385-62386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29583]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-812]
Court Decision and Suspension of Liquidation: Dynamic Random
Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above From the Republic
of Korea
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Beck, Office of Antidumping
Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230,
telephone: (202) 482-3464.
SUMMARY: On October 27, 1995, in the case of Micron Technologies, Inc.
v. United States, Cons. Ct. No. 93-06-00318, Slip Op. 95-175 (Micron),
the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) affirmed the
Department of Commerce's (the Department's) results of redetermination
on remand of the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above
from the Republic of Korea. Consistent with the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in
Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken),
the Department will not order the liquidation of the subject
merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse from consumption prior
to a ``conclusive'' decision in this case.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 23, 1993, the Department published its Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from the Republic of Korea (57
FR 15467). On May 10, 1993, the Department published its Antidumping
Order and Amended Final Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from the Republic of Korea (58
FR 27520).
Subsequent to the Department's final determination, Micron
Technologies (the petitioner) and the three respondents, Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively
Samsung), LG Semicon Co., Ltd. and LG Semicon America, Inc.
(collectively Semicon and formally
[[Page 62386]]
Goldstar), and Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd. and Hyundai
Electronics America (collectively Hyundai), filed lawsuits with the
Court challenging this determination. Thereafter, the Court issued an
Order and Opinion dated June 12, 1995, in Micron Technologies, Inc. v.
United States, Cons. Ct. No. 93-06-00318, Slip Op. 95-107, remanding
six issues to the Department. The Court instructed the Department to:
(1) recalculate respondents' cost of production by allocating research
and development (R&D) costs on a product-specific basis; (2) use
amortized rather than current R&D expenses in its calculations; (3)
reopen the record in order to afford Hyundai and Samsung an opportunity
to present complete and actual fixed asset data and use this data to
allocate interest expenses; (4) recalculate Hyundai's lag period; (5)
recalculate Semicon's production costs without reclassifying Semicon's
capitalized costs of facility construction and testing as costs of
production; and (6) reexamine its conclusion that foreign currency
translation losses of Samsung and Semicon are related to production of
subject merchandise.
The Department filed its remand results on August 24, 1995. In the
remand results, the Department: (1) recalculated respondents cost of
production by allocating R&D on a product-specific basis; (2) used
amortized rather than current R&D expenses in its calculations; (3)
reopened the record to afford Hyundai and Samsung an opportunity to
introduce actual data regarding semiconductor fixed assets, and used
such data in its allocation of interest expense; (4) recalculated
Hyundai's lag periods utilizing the same methodology that it employed
for Samsung and Semicon; (5) determined a new lag period for Hyundai's
model HY514400 which accurately matches costs to the sales in question;
(6) calculated Semicon's production costs for certain DRAMs without
reclassifying as costs of production Semicon's capitalized costs of
facility construction and testing; and (7) identified what evidence on
the record supports the conclusion that the translation losses of
Samsung and Semicon are related to production of the subject
merchandise and, having determined that there is sufficient evidence on
the record to support such a conclusion, included translation losses in
the calculation of COP for Samsung and Semicon.
On October 27, 1995, the Court sustained the Department's remand
results. See Micron Technologies, Inc. v. United States, Cons. Ct. No.
93-06-00318, Slip Op. 95-175 (CIT October 27, 1995).
Suspension of Liquidation
In its decision in Timken, the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant
to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e), the Department must publish notice of a decision
of the Court or Federal Circuit which is ``not in harmony'' with the
Department's determination. Publication of this notice fulfills this
obligation. The Federal Circuit also held that in such a case, the
Department must suspend liquidation until there is a ``conclusive''
decision in the action. A ``conclusive'' decision cannot be reached
until the opportunity to appeal expires or any appeal is decided by the
Federal Circuit. Therefore, the Department will continue to suspend
liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal or pending a
final decision of the Federal Circuit if Micron is appealed.
Dated: November 29, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-29583 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
