[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13596-13598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7251]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-828 and A-583-827]
Initiations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Static Random
Access Memory From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Initiation of antidumping investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson at (202) 482-1776 or
Roy Unger at (202) 482-0651, Import Administration--Room B099,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.
Initiations of Investigations
The Applicable Statute
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').
The Petition
On February 25, 1997, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'')
[[Page 13597]]
received a petition filed in proper form by Micron Technology, Inc.
(``petitioner''). The Department received supplemental information to
the petition on March 11, 1997.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioner alleges
that imports of Static Random Access Memory (``SRAMs'') from the
Republic of Korea (``Korea'') and Taiwan are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United
States.
The Department finds that petitioner has standing to file the
petition because it is an interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act.
Scope of Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are synchronous,
asynchronous, and specialty SRAMs from Korea and 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 Korea and Taiwan, 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 or Taiwan are not included in the scope.
The scope of these investigations includes modules containing
SRAMs. Such modules include single in-line processing modules
(``SIPs''), single in-line memory modules (``SIMMs''), dual in-line
memory modules (``DIMMs''), memory cards, or other collections of
SRAMs, whether unmounted or mounted on a circuit board.
The SRAMs subject to these investigations are classifiable under
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, our written description of the
scope of these investigations is dispositive.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that petitions be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. In this regard, section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act requires the Department to determine, prior to the
initiation of an investigation, whether certain percentage thresholds
of industry support are satisfied. A petition meets the minimum
requirements for initiation if the domestic producers or workers who
support the petition account for: (1) at least 25 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent
of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion
of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the
petition has the requisite industry support, the Act directs the
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production
of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission
(``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a
domestic like product in order to define the industry. However, while
both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory
definition of domestic like product, they do so for different purposes
and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the
domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to the law.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp.
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays
and Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final Determination;
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56
Fed. Reg. 32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines domestic like product as ``a
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition.
As noted earlier, the scope of the petition is limited to SRAMs.
This is the petitioner's sole proposed domestic like product. The
Department has no basis on the record to find this domestic like
product definition clearly inadequate. In this regard, we have found no
basis on which to reject petitioner's representations that there are no
clear dividing lines, in terms of characteristics and uses, between
synchronous, asynchronous, and specialty SRAMs . (See March 17, 1997,
Memorandum to the File.) The Department has, therefore, adopted the
domestic like product definition set forth in the petition.
Our review of the production data provided in the petition and
petition supplements indicates that the petitioner and supporters of
the petition account for more than 50 percent of the total production
of the domestic like product, thus meeting the standard of section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act. The Department received no expressions of
opposition to the petition from any domestic producers or workers.
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition is supported
by the domestic industry.
Export Price and Normal Value
The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which our decisions to initiate are based. Should
the need arise to use any of this information in our preliminary or
final determinations, we will re-examine the information and may revise
the margin calculations, if appropriate.
Petitioner based export price (``EP'') in Korea on an invoice for
the sale of one megabit synchronous SRAMs in a 32x32 configuration from
one producer/exporter in Korea. Petitioner based EP in Taiwan on two
price quotations obtained by a private market research firm for the
sale of the same type of SRAM from two producers/exporters in Taiwan.
Regarding one of these companies, however, there is no evidence in the
petition that it is a foreign producer. Rather, this company appears to
be a U.S. customer who has a manufacturing arrangement with a Taiwanese
company. Nonetheless, because the price quote involving this company
related to merchandise produced in Taiwan, we have considered this
offer for purposes of initiation. Petitioner made no adjustments to EP.
With respect to normal value (``NV''), petitioner also provided
price quotes obtained from a private market research firm for home
market sales in Korea and Taiwan for one megabit 32x32 synchronous
SRAMs from the same Korean and Taiwanese sources. Petitioner made no
adjustments to the home market price quotes.
In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act, petitioner alleged
that sales of SRAMs in both the Korean and Taiwanese home markets were
made at prices below the cost of production (``COP''). The components
of COP, as enumerated in section 773(b)(3) of the Act, are the cost of
manufacture (``COM''), packing, and selling, general, and
administrative expenses (``SG&A'').
[[Page 13598]]
SG&A includes the company's net financing expense.
Petitioner calculated COM for each of the Korean and Taiwanese
producers for whom it obtained sales data based on its own production
experience, adjusted for labor and utility costs in Korea and Taiwan.
Petitioner also adjusted production costs for known differences in
wafer size, where applicable, die size, and yields. Petitioner used
each producer/exporter's most recently available financial statements
in order to derive SG&A and research and development expenses.
Petitioner based intellectual property expenses on its own experience.
We made the following revisions to petitioner's COP calculations
for both the Korean and Taiwanese companies: (1) eliminated
intellectual property expenses from the calculation because petitioner
provided insufficient evidence that the foreign producers incurred such
expenses; and (2) used the higher of petitioner's actual yield
experience or petitioner's estimate of foreign producers' yields as a
conservative measure because petitioner did not sufficiently
substantiate its estimates of the foreign companies' production yields.
We also disallowed petitioner's adjustment of the Korean company's
fabrication equipment depreciation expense based on wafer size because
petitioner was unable to provide adequate support for this adjustment.
Instead, we relied on petitioner's own experience for this expense in
the COM calculation. Because petitioner did not provide SG&A
information for one Taiwanese producer, we relied on the experience of
the other SRAMs producer in calculating COP and CV.
The allegation that the Korean and Taiwanese producers are selling
the foreign like product in their home markets at prices below their
COP is based upon a comparison of the home market prices with the
calculated COP. Based upon our analysis of the COP information in the
petition, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales
of the foreign like product may have been made at prices below COP in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the
Department is initiating cost investigations with respect to both Korea
and Taiwan.
To calculate constructed value (``CV''), petitioner used the same
information used to calculate COP. For purposes of the petition,
petitioner used a profit rate of zero in its calculation of CV. The
Department made the same revisions to CV as it did to COP, as discussed
above. Because the home market prices of each producer are less than
the COP, the Department based NV on CV.
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, the calculated dumping margin for
SRAMs from Korea is 55.36 percent ad valorem. The calculated dumping
margins for SRAMs from Taiwan range from 93.54 to 113.85 percent ad
valorem.
Initiations of Investigations
We have examined the petition on SRAMs from Korea and Taiwan and
have found that it meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act,
including the requirements concerning allegations of the material
injury or threat of material injury to the domestic producers of a
domestic like product by reason of the complained-of imports, allegedly
sold at less than fair value. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping
duty investigations to determine whether imports of SRAMs from Korea
and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value. Unless extended, we will make our preliminary
determinations by August 4, 1997.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives
of the government of Korea, as well as to the authorities of Taiwan. We
will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to
each exporter named in the petition (as appropriate).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will determine by April 11, 1997, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of SRAMs from Korea and Taiwan are
causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a
U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination in either of the
investigations will result in that investigation being terminated;
otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
Dated: March 17, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-7251 Filed 3-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
