[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12794-12799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6679]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-812]
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or
Above from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review and notice of intent not to revoke order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12795]]
SUMMARY: In response to requests from two respondents and one U.S.
producer, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on dynamic random
access memory semiconductors of one megabit or above from the Republic
of Korea. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States for the period of May 1, 1995 through
April 30, 1996.
As a result of the review, the Department has preliminarily
determined that no dumping margins exist for both respondents. We
intend not to revoke the order on DRAMs from Korea.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service not to
assess antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on
these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this
proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of
the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas F. Futtner, AD/CVD Enforcement
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
On May 10, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 27250) the antidumping duty order on dynamic random access
memory semiconductors (DRAMs) from the Republic of Korea. On May 8,
1996, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' of this antidumping duty order for the period
of May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996 (61 FR 20791). We received
timely requests for review from two manufacturers/exporters of subject
merchandise to the United States: Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co.
(Hyundai), and LG Semicon Co., Ltd. (LGS, formerly Goldstar Electron
Co., Ltd.). The petitioner, Micron Technologies Inc., requested an
administrative review of these same two Korean manufacturers of DRAMs.
On June 25, 1996, the Department initiated a review of the above Korean
manufacturers (61 FR 32771). The period of review (POR) for all
respondents was May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996. The Department is
conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
In addition, on June 25, 1996, we automatically initiated an
investigation to determine if Hyundai and LGS made sales of subject
merchandise below the cost of production (COP) during the POR based
upon the fact that we disregarded sales found to have been made below
the COP in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation,
which was the most recent period for which final results were available
when this review was initiated.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of DRAMs of one megabit
or above from the Republic of Korea (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.
The scope of this review also includes removable memory modules
placed on motherboards, with or without a central processing unit
(CPU), unless the importer of 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 subject to this review are classifiable under subheadings
8542.11.0001, 8542.11.0024, 8542.11.0026, and 8542.11.0034 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Also included
in the scope are those removable Korean DRAMs contained on or within
products classifiable under subheadings 8471.91.0000 and 8473.30.4000
of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of this review remains dispositive. The POR is May 1, 1995, through
April 30, 1996.
Intent Not To Revoke
Both respondents submitted requests, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.25(b), to revoke the order covering DRAMs from Korea.
A threshold question here concerns the Department's responsibility
in rendering a preliminary determination on revocation. The
Department's regulations provide that in a preliminary determination on
revocation, the Department ``will * * * include [its decision] whether
there is a reasonable basis to believe that the requirements for
revocation or termination are met.'' 19 CFR 353.25(c)(2)(iii). In the
respondents'' view, the ``reasonable basis'' standard has been met once
certain evidence on the record arguably supports a finding that a
``reasonable basis'' exists to believe that the requirements for
revocation have been met. We disagree with this approach and believe
that the Department is obligated to issue a preliminary determination
which provides parties with its preliminary view, on the basis of all
of the information on the record at that time, of whether the
revocation requirements have been met. This provides the parties notice
of the Department's initial views on revocation and affords them the
opportunity to present arguments either supporting or opposing the
Department's preliminary determination. See memorandum from Thomas G.
Ehr to Robert S. LaRussa,
[[Page 12796]]
February 24, 1997. Thus, the question here is whether, on the basis of
all of the evidence of record, the Department's requirements for
revocation have been preliminarily met.
Under the Department's regulations, the Department may revoke an
order in part if the Secretary concludes that, among other things: (1)
``one or more producers or resellers covered by the order have sold the
merchandise at not less than fair value for a period of at least three
consecutive years'; (2) ``[i]t is not likely that those persons will in
the future sell the merchandise at less than fair value * * *''; and
(3) ``the producers or resellers agree in writing to the immediate
reinstatement of the order as long as any producer or reseller is
subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that the producer or
reseller, subsequent to the revocation, sold the merchandise at less
than fair value.'' 19 CFR 353.25(a)(1).
In this case, the first and third criteria for revocation have
preliminarily been met. The Department has found that the two
respondents, LGS and Hyundai, did not sell at less than normal value in
the first and second reviews under this order. Also, in this review,
LGS and Hyundai have preliminarily been found not to have made less
than normal value sales. Further, both respondents have certified to
immediate reinstatement of the order pursuant to the third criterion
noted above. Accordingly, the key question here is whether the second
revocation criteria--the ``no likelihood'' standard--has been met. In
considering this issue, it is important to note that the standard for
revocation is not whether the Department finds that there is a
likelihood of future dumping. Rather, the standard is whether the
Department has found that ``no likelihood'' of future dumping exists.
On the ``no likelihood'' issue, the Department has a considerable
factual record before it. At the request of the parties, the Department
established a process for the submission of factual information on the
issue of whether no likelihood of future dumping exists. Both the
petitioner and respondents have now made several submissions of
information relevant to the likelihood issue, including various in-
depth economic analyses. Accordingly, the Department has a full record
before it on which to make a preliminary determination on this issue.
As discussed below, on the basis of this record, we preliminarily
find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion at this
time that there is no likelihood of future dumping by the Korean
respondents. Therefore, on this basis, we have preliminarily determined
not to revoke the Korean DRAM order. As this ruling is preliminary, all
parties will have a full opportunity to present relevant arguments on
the likelihood issue through briefs and a hearing, if one is requested.
As a threshold matter, the respondents argue that the Department's
preliminary finding that LGS and Hyundai have not made less than normal
value sales for three consecutive years is dispositive of the ``no
likelihood'' issue. We note that the presence of no dumping for three
years is germane to whether there is no likelihood that future dumping
will occur. Indeed, in most cases, this is the only evidence on the
record on the ``likelihood'' issue at the time of the Department's
preliminary determination and, therefore, it often becomes
determinative of whether the Department issues a notice of intent to
revoke. In this case, however, as noted above, the Department has a
much fuller record on this issue, with a wide range of economic
information and analysis on other factors pertaining to revocation. The
Department can, and has, considered other factors in its ``no
likelihood'' analysis, such as ``conditions and trends in the domestic
and home market industries, currency movements, and the ability of the
foreign entity to compete in the U.S. marketplace without LTFV sales.''
See Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 61
FR 49727 (September 23, 1996) (``Brass Sheet and Strip').
In this case, the Department has preliminarily examined the
relevant market circumstances on the basis of the submissions of the
parties and publicly available information. On the basis of this
examination, we have preliminary found the following: (1) The DRAM
market is in a year-long downturn, with steep price declines in the
DRAM market beginning in January 1996 and continued price declines
forecasted; (2) the downturn has resulted in declines of sales and
revenues in the DRAM market, growth in DRAM inventories, and the
existence of significant DRAM oversupply; (3) the Korean respondents
and other DRAM producers have continued to increase DRAM production
during the downturn (which may further depress prices during such an
oversupply period); (4) the Korean respondents will likely continue to
maintain a substantial presence in the U.S. market during various
phases of the business cycle (including periods of significant price
decline) in light of substantial Korean capacity and large U.S. demand;
and (5) based on the information on the record, Korean pricing in the
United States appears, according to price trends, to be at or near
normal value, indicating that only a slight downward movement in U.S.
price will likely result in dumping margins.
More specifically, DRAM prices declined severely starting in late
1995, and this decline in prices continued well into 1996, after the
conclusion of the current POR (i.e., April 30, 1996). For example,
according to publicly available data, the average U.S. price for a 16
megabyte (MB) DRAM fell from approximately $18.00 in May 1996 to
approximately $7.00 in December 1996. Similarly, the average U.S. price
for a 4 MB DRAM fell from approximately $5.25 in May 1996 to a low of
approximately $2.00 in December 1996. This represents a 61 percent
decline in prices between the end of the third period of review (April
30, 1996) and December 1996. DRAM prices are still unstable and
continue to fall. Since DRAMs are a commodity product, it is reasonable
to expect that Korean producers will have to match prevailing market
prices in the United States.
As prices have fallen, Korean DRAM producers have continued to
increase DRAM production. Publicly available information indicates that
Korea's three major integrated circuit companies (Hyundai, LGS, and
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.) will increase their DRAM output by almost
30 percent in 1997, despite poor chip forecasts and increased
production in Japan and Taiwan. Although the Korean producers have
announced gradual production cutbacks, there is no evidence that these
cutbacks have occurred. While some industry projections forecast
increased demand, the existing DRAM oversupply is likely to cause
prices to remain low or fall lower in the future.
Given these circumstances, we preliminarily find that it would be
difficult for the Korean respondents to remain competitive without
selling DRAMs at less than normal value. The history of the DRAM
industry is one of dumping in periods of significant downturn. Various
foreign producers were found to have dumped in the mid-1980s (see
Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices from Japan, 51 FR 15943 (April 29,
1986)), and the Korean respondents in this case were found to have
dumped during the period of downturn in 1991-1992 during the LTFV
investigation. While Korean respondents did not dump in the three
consecutive review periods, most of this period was marked by an
expanding DRAM market. DRAMs prices stabilized
[[Page 12797]]
in mid-1992, and the industry experienced growth until late 1995. This
third review period ended in April 1996, and there has been a
continuing decline in global prices since that time. Further, we note
that the price decline in 1996 was more severe than in prior downturns.
These market trends indicate that respondents may have dumped in the
post April 1996 period (i.e., a period of continuing industry downturn)
in the absence of the order. A comparison of U.S. market prices to
Korean costs and projections of Korean costs indicates that Korean
pricing would be likely to be at or below normal value in the absence
of the order. For these reasons, we preliminarily find that there is no
basis to conclude that there is no likelihood of future dumping by LGS
and Hyundai. Therefore, we preliminarily intend not to revoke the
antidumping order on DRAMS from Korea.
We welcome the views of all interested parties on this issue. In
particular, we welcome the views of the parties on the extent to which,
in current and projected market circumstances, the order is
constraining LGS and Hyundai from dumping and the degree to which
dumping would be likely to occur in the absence of the order.
United States Price
In calculating U.S. price, the Department used constructed export
price (CEP), as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, when the
merchandise was first sold to an unaffiliated U.S. purchaser after
importation.
We calculated CEP based on packed, ex-U.S. warehouse prices to
unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions from the
starting price, where appropriate, for discounts, rebates, foreign
brokerage and handling, foreign inland insurance, air freight, air
insurance, U.S. duties and direct and indirect selling expenses to the
extent that they are associated with economic activity in the United
States (these included U.S. credit expenses, warranty expenses, royalty
payments, U.S. commissions, advertising and promotion expenses, and
U.S. indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs,
incurred by respondents'' U.S. subsidiary) in accordance with sections
772(c)(2) and 772(d)(1) of the Act. We added duty drawback, where
applicable, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to
section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we reduced the United States price by the
amount of profit to derive the CEP.
For DRAMs that were further manufactured into memory modules after
importation, we deducted all value added in the United States, pursuant
to section 772(e) of the Act. The value added consists of the costs of
the materials, fabrication, and general expenses associated with the
portion of the merchandise further manufactured in the United States.
In determining the costs incurred to produce the memory module, we
included materials, fabrication, and general expenses, including
selling expenses and interest expenses, associated with the portion of
the merchandise further manufactured in the United States, as well as a
proportional amount of profit or loss attributable to the value added.
Profit or loss was calculated by deducting from the sales price of the
memory module all production and selling costs incurred by the company
for the memory module. The total profit or loss was then allocated
proportionately to all components of cost. Only the profit or loss
attributable to the value added was deducted. No other adjustments were
claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales of DRAMs in the home market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV, we compared respondents' volume of home market sales of
the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
products for all respondents was greater than five percent of the
respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise,
we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for
calculating NV for all respondents, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Because LGS made some home market sales to related parties during
the POR, we tested these sales to ensure that, on average, the related
party sales were at ``arms-length.'' To conduct this test, we compared
the gross unit prices of sales to related and unrelated customers net
of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, value-
added tax and packing. Based on the results of that test, we discarded
from LGS' home market database all sales made to a related party where
that related party failed the ``arm's-length'' test.
We disregarded many of Hyundai's and LGS' sales found to have been
made below the COP during the original LTFV investigation, the most
recent period for which final results were available at the time of the
initiation of this review. Accordingly, the Department, pursuant to
section 773(b) of the Act, initiated COP investigations of both
respondents for purposes of this administrative review.
We calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and
fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus
selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and the cost of
all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in
condition packed ready for shipment, in accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP
information provided by respondents in the questionnaire responses.
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to
determine whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below
the COP, we examined whether, within an extended period of time, such
sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were
made at prices which permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of home market sales of a given model were at prices less than
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model
because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of home market sales of a given
model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost
sales because we determined that the below-cost sales were made in
``substantial quantities'' and at prices that would not permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. If we disregarded all contemporaneous
sales of a comparison model pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,
we based normal value on constructed value (CV).
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on respondents' cost of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the subject merchandise, SG&A and profit incurred and
realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like
product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the costs of materials,
fabrication, and G&A as reported in the CV portion of the questionnaire
response. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales
portion of respondents' questionnaire responses. We based selling
expenses and profit on the information reported in the home market
sales portion of respondents' questionnaire responses. See Certain
Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Postponement
[[Page 12798]]
of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349 (January 19, 1996). For
selling expenses, we used the average of above-cost per-unit HM selling
expenses weighted by the total quantity of home market sales. For
actual profit, we first calculated the difference between the home
market sales value and home market COP, and divided the difference by
the home market COP. We then multiplied this percentage by the COP for
each U.S. model to derive an actual profit.
For both respondents, the Department relied on the submitted COP
and CV information. There were no adjustments to respondents' reported
COP and CV data.
For price-to-price comparisons, we based NV on the price at which
the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the exporting
country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course
of trade, and to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade, as
defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We compared the U.S.
prices of individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price
of sales of the foreign like product. We calculated NV based on
delivered prices to unrelated customers and, where appropriate, to
related customers in the home market. In calculating NV, we made
adjustments, where appropriate, for inland freight, inland insurance,
discounts, rebates, and Korean brokerage and handling charges.
Both respondents only had CEP sales during the POR. For comparisons
to CEP sales, we made deductions to NV, where appropriate, for home
market credit expenses, advertising expenses, royalty expenses, and
bank charges in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, due to
differences in circumstances of sale. We also reduced NV by packing
costs incurred in the home market, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. In addition, we increased NV for U.S.
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We
also made further adjustments, when applicable, to account for
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.57 of the Department's regulations. Finally,
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made an
adjustment for differences in the circumstances of sale to account for
any direct selling expenses associated with U.S. sales not deducted
under the provisions of section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
Level of Trade and CEP Offset
As set forth in section 773(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department
will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S.
sale. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the comparison
market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the Department
may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at a different level
of trade.
In order to determine whether sales in the comparison market are at
a different level of trade than the export price or CEP, we examined
whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing
process than the export price or CEP. We made this determination on the
basis of a review of the distribution system in the comparison market,
including selling functions, class of customer, and the level of
selling expenses for each type of sale. Different stages of marketing
necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences
in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone sufficient
to establish a difference in the level of trade. Similarly, while
customer categories such as ``distributor'' and ``wholesaler'' may be
useful in identifying different levels of trade, they are insufficient
in themselves to establish that there is a difference in the level of
trade. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 51891, 51896
(October 4, 1996).
Secondly, the differences must affect price comparability as
evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at
the different levels of trade in the market in which normal value is
determined. When constructed export price is applicable, section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes the procedures for making a
constructed export price offset when: (1) NV is at a different level of
trade, and (2) the data available do not provide an appropriate basis
for a level of trade adjustment. Also, in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B), to qualify for a CEP offset, the level of trade in the
home market must constitute a more advanced stage of distribution than
the level of trade of the CEP sales.
In order to identify levels of trade, the Department must review
information concerning marketing stages and selling functions of the
manufacturer/exporter. We reviewed the questionnaire responses of both
respondents to establish whether there were sales at different levels
of trade based on marketing stages, selling functions performed, and
services offered to each customer or customer class. For both
respondents, we identified one level of trade in the home market with
direct sales by the parent corporation to the domestic customer. These
direct sales were made by both respondents to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and to distributors. In addition, all sales,
whether made to OEM customers or to distributors, included the same
marketing stage and selling functions. For the U.S. market, all sales
for both respondents were reported as CEP sales. The level of trade of
the U.S. sales is determined for the sale to the affiliated importer
rather than the resale to the unaffiliated customer. We examined the
marketing stage and selling functions performed by the Korean companies
for U.S. CEP sales and preliminarily determine that they are at a
different level of trade from the Korean companies' home market sales
because the Korean companies engaged in a different marketing stage and
had fewer selling functions for the adjusted CEP sales than for their
home market sales. For instance, the Korean companies did not engage in
any general promotion, marketing activities, or price negotiations for
U.S. sales.
Because we compared CEP sales to home market sales at a different
level of trade, we examined whether a level of trade adjustment may be
appropriate. In this case, both respondents only sold at one level of
trade in the home market; therefore, there is no basis upon which
either respondent can demonstrate a consistent pattern of price
differences between levels of trade. Further, we do not have
information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on
the respondents' sales of other products and there is no other record
information on which such an analysis could be based. Because the data
available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a level of
trade adjustment but the level of trade in the HM is a more advanced
stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP sales, a CEP
offset is appropriate. Both respondents claimed a CEP offset. We
applied the CEP offset to normal value or constructed value, as
appropriate. The level of trade methodology employed by the Department
in these preliminary results of review is based on the facts particular
to this review. The Department will continue to examine its policy for
[[Page 12799]]
making level of trade comparisons and adjustments for its final results
of review.
Because both respondents made sales at differing levels of trade in
the home market and in the United States, and because we determined it
was not possible to quantify the price differences resulting from the
differing levels of trade, we made a CEP offset to NV for both
respondents pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset
consisted of an amount equal to the lesser of the weighted-average U.S.
indirect selling expenses and U.S. commissions or home market indirect
selling expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Electronic Industries, Inc......................... 0.01
LG Semicon Co., Ltd........................................ 0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between United States price and NV may vary from the percentages stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
Customs. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by
the determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews
for all shipments of DRAMs from Korea entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of the final
results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Hyundai and LGS,
because their weighted-average margins were de minimis, will be zero
percent; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not
covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV investigation
or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for
which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate;
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous
review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the
merchandise in the final results of the most recent review, or the LTFV
investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is
a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate
will be 3.85 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.
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the
date of publication of this notice, and may request a hearing within
ten days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be
held as early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days
after the date of publication or the first work day thereafter. Case
briefs or other written comments from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues in the
case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments.
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: March 10, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-6679 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
