[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merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse from consumption prior 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