96-17462. Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 36029-36032]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-17462]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    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
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Review.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In response to requests from three 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, 1994 through 
    April 30, 1995. The review indicates that there are no dumping margins 
    for either manufacturer/exporter during this period of review.
        If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
    administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
    assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the United 
    States price and the normal value (NV). 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: July 9, 1996.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas F. Futtner, Office of 
    Antidumping Compliance, 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 10, 
    1995, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
    Administrative Review'' of this antidumping duty order for the period 
    of May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995 (60 FR 24831). We received 
    timely requests for review from three manufacturers/exporters of 
    subject merchandise to the United States: Hyundai Electronics 
    Industries Co. (Hyundai), LG Semicon Co., Ltd. (LGS, formerly Goldstar 
    Electron Co., Ltd.), and Samsung Electronics Co. (Samsung). The 
    petitioner, Micron Technologies Inc., requested an administrative 
    review of these same three Korean manufacturers of DRAMS. On June 15, 
    1995, the Department initiated a review of the above Korean 
    manufacturers (60 FR 31447). The period of review (POR) for all 
    respondents was May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995. The Department has 
    now conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
        In addition, on June 26, 1995, 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 a review had been completed.
        Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), formerly a respondent in 
    this administrative review, was excluded from the antidumping duty 
    order on DRAMS from Korea on February 8, 1996. See Final Court Decision 
    and Partial Amended Final Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory 
    Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above From the Republic of Korea, 61 
    FR 4765 (February 8, 1996). Accordingly, we terminated this review with 
    respect to Samsung.
    
    [[Page 36030]]
    
    Scope of the Review
    
        Imports covered by the review are shipments of DRAMs of one megabit 
    or above from the Republic of Korea (Korea). For purposes of this 
    review, DRAMS are all one megabit and above DRAMS, whether assembled or 
    unassembled. 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, 1994, through 
    April 30, 1995.
    
    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, where 
    appropriate, for discounts, rebates, foreign brokerage and handling, 
    foreign inland insurance, air freight, air insurance, U.S. duties, 
    credit expenses, warranty expenses, royalty payments, U.S. commissions, 
    advertising and promotion expenses, foreign banking charges, U.S. 
    subsidiary packing, and U.S. and Korean indirect selling expenses, 
    including inventory carrying costs in accordance with sections 
    772(c)(2) and 772(d)(1) of the Act. The U.S. price was increased for 
    packing expense in accordance with section 772(c)(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, 
    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. In determining the 
    costs incurred to produce the memory module, we included materials, 
    fabrication, and general expenses, including selling expenses and 
    interest expenses. 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 a review had been completed. 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 found that sales of that 
    model were
    
    [[Page 36031]]
    
    made in ``substantial quantities,''in accordance with section 
    773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. We then determined whether the below-cost 
    sales of a given product are at prices which 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 found that sales had been made 
    in ``substantial quantities'' and were not at prices which would permit 
    recovery within a reasonable period of time, we disregarded the below-
    cost sales, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, and 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 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 sold. 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 reduced 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.
    
    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 accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare a 
    U.S. sale at one level of trade to normal value sales at a different 
    level of trade, the Department will adjust the NV to account for the 
    difference in level of trade if two conditions are met. First, in order 
    to determine that there are distinct levels of trade, there must be 
    differences between the actual selling functions performed by the 
    seller at the level of trade of the U.S. sale and at the level of trade 
    of the NV sale. Second, 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 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 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 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 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 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
    
    [[Page 36032]]
    
    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 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.
    
    Fair Value Comparisons
    
        To determine whether sales of DRAMS by respondents to the United 
    States were made at less than fair value, we compared the CEP to the 
    NV, as described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
    sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we 
    calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to 
    individual U.S. transactions.
    
    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...........................       0.00
    LG Semicon Co., Ltd..........................................       0.00
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        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: June 27, 1996/
    Robert S. LaRussa,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 96-17462 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/9/1996
Published:
07/09/1996
Department:
Commerce Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
Document Number:
96-17462
Dates:
July 9, 1996.
Pages:
36029-36032 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-580-812
PDF File:
96-17462.pdf