[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 965-969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-295]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-812]


Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or 
Above From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 9, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on dynamic random access memory semiconductors 
(DRAMs) of one megabit or above from the Republic of Korea (61 FR 
36029). The review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States for the period May 1, 1994 through 
April 30, 1995. These manufacturers/exporters are LG Semicon Co., Ltd. 
(LGS, formerly Goldstar Electron Co., Ltd.) and Hyundai Electronics 
Industries, Inc. (HEI/Hyundai).
    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, the 
antidumping margins have changed from those presented in our 
preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 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:

Background

    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.
    On June 26, 1995, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, we also initiated an investigation to determine 
if Hyundai and LGS made sales of the 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.
    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.
    On July 9, 1996, the Department published the preliminary results 
(61 FR 36029) of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
DRAMs of one megabit or above from the Republic of Korea. We received 
timely comments from the petitioner and both respondents.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of DRAMs of one megabit 
and above from the Republic of Korea (Korea). For purposes of this 
review, DRAMs are all one megabit and above, 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 of this review.
    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.

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).

United States Price

    We calculated U.S. price according to the methodology described in 
our preliminary results.

Normal Value

    We calculated normal value (NV) according to the methodology 
described in our preliminary results.

[[Page 966]]

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results 
of this administrative review. We received timely comments from the 
petitioner and both respondents.

General Comments

Comment 1

    The petitioner argues (1) that the Department should not have 
allowed a level of trade adjustment for both respondents, and (2) that 
the Department inappropriately applied a constructed export price (CEP) 
offset to respondents' CEP sales for this level of trade adjustment. 
The petitioner maintains that the Department erred in determining that 
one level of trade existed in the home market (direct sales by the 
parent corporation to the domestic customer) and a different level of 
trade existed in the U.S. market, where the Department used the level 
of trade of the sale to the affiliated importer rather than the resale 
to the unaffiliated customer (i.e., a ``constructed'' level of trade). 
According to the petitioner, the Act and the SAA do not permit the 
Department to use a ``constructed'' level of trade for CEP sales when 
identifying the level of trade. The petitioner argues that section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, which provides for a level of trade 
adjustment, does not make any distinction between export price (EP) 
sales and CEP sales, and that the distinction between EP and CEP sales 
in subsections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act does not warrant any 
different treatment when identifying levels of trade.
    The petitioner argues that, in view of the sections of the Act 
mentioned above, the Department's interpretation of the SAA as 
permitting a constructed level of trade means that the home market 
level of trade will always be a more advanced stage of distribution 
than the level of trade of the CEP and that the data available will 
never provide an adequate basis to determine a level of trade 
adjustment, and thus that the CEP offset will always be used. The SAA, 
according to the petitioner, intended the application of the CEP offset 
to be an exception, rather than the rule. The Department's acceptance 
of a constructed level of trade, the petitioner argues, contradicts the 
SAA's intent and the intent of the statute in section 773(a)(7)(A).
    The petitioner argues further that, even if the Department adheres 
to the distinction between EP and CEP sales in determining the starting 
price for determining the level of trade, neither respondent has 
adequately demonstrated that it is entitled to a level of trade 
adjustment. The petitioner argues that the simple enumeration of 
selling functions in both the home market and in the U.S. market is not 
sufficient to demonstrate the significance of the differing selling 
functions in both markets.
    LGS and Hyundai argue that the Department correctly applied the CEP 
offset to adjust for differences in the levels of trade in the two 
markets which were not able to be quantified. Both respondents assert 
that the Department's use of a ``constructed'' level of trade when 
analyzing CEP sales is in accordance with past interpretation of the 
SAA and of the Act. LGS maintains that the Department has consistently 
followed this approach and has explicitly stated in the antidumping 
questionnaire that constructed level of trade will be used.
    LGS and Hyundai also reject the petitioner's argument that 
respondents have not adequately documented differences in selling 
functions in the home and in the U.S. markets. Respondents point out 
that the petitioner only referenced the brief discussion of the selling 
function differences contained in the notice of preliminary results and 
ignores the detailed analysis presented in its questionnaire response 
and in the Department's preliminary analysis memorandum. LGS and 
Hyundai argue that, because respondents' home market sales were at 
levels of trade more advanced than its U.S. sales and it was not 
possible to quantify the price differential caused by these 
differences, the Department should continue to allow a CEP offset to NV 
or to constructed value (CV) to adjust for the differences of trade in 
the two markets.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondents. We have consistently determined that the 
statute and the SAA both support analyzing the level of trade of CEP 
sales at the constructed level, after expenses associated with economic 
activities in the United States (section 772(d) of the Act) have been 
deducted. We believe that it is neither reasonable nor logical to base 
level of trade on the starting price for both EP and CEP sales. We 
stated in Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7308, 7347 (February 
27, 1996), the following:

    With respect to the identification of levels of trade, some 
commentators argued that, consistent with past practice, the 
Department should base level of trade on the starting price for both 
export price (``EP'') and CEP sales...The Department believes that 
this position is not supported by the SAA...If the starting price is 
used for all U.S. sales, the Department's ability to make meaningful 
comparisons at the same level of trade (or appropriate adjustments 
for differences in levels of trade) would be severely undermined in 
cases involving CEP sales. As noted by other commentators, using the 
starting price to determine the level of trade of both types of U.S. 
sales would result in a finding of different levels of trade for an 
EP sale and a CEP sale adjusted to a price that reflected the same 
selling functions. Accordingly, the regulations specify that the 
level of trade analyzed for EP sales is that of the starting price, 
and for CEP sales it is the constructed level of trade of the price 
after the deduction of U.S. selling expenses and profit.

    We have consistently stated that, in those cases where a level of 
trade comparison is warranted and possible, then for CEP sales the 
level of trade will be evaluated based on the price after adjustments 
are made under section 772(d) of the Act (see Large Newspaper Printing 
Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From 
Japan; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
61 FR 38139, 38143 (July 23, 1996). In every case decided under the 
revised antidumping statute, we have consistently adhered to this 
interpretation of the SAA and of the Act. See, e.g., Aramid Fiber 
Formed of Poly para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
15766, 15768 (April 9, 1996); Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 
France; Preliminary Result of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
FR 8915, 8916 (March 6, 1996); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and parts Thereof from France, et. al., 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
25713, 35718-23 (July 8, 1996). In accordance with this clear 
precedent, our instructions in the questionnaire response issued to 
respondents in this administrative review stated that constructed level 
of trade should be used.
    We disagree that respondents have not adequately documented the 
differences in selling functions in the home and in the U.S. markets. 
As noted by respondents, the petitioner based this argument solely upon 
the content of the preliminary results of review and ignored the 
detailed data on the record of this proceeding in respondents' 
questionnaire responses and in our preliminary analysis memorandum 
concerning the differences in selling functions. These data contained 
detailed

[[Page 967]]

information and descriptions of the differences in selling functions in 
the two markets (for example, the differences in shipments per month 
from respondents to U.S. and home market customers is described in 
detail).

Comment 2

    The petitioner maintains that the Department's preliminary 
calculations contained the following clerical errors with respect to 
both respondents: (1) the preliminary calculations double counted 
interest expenses by including both reported interest expense and 
imputed home market credit and inventory carrying expenses in its 
calculation of total cost of production for purposes of calculating 
profit for home market, CEP, and further-processed U.S. sales; (2) the 
preliminary calculations failed to add U.S. packing expenses to the 
foreign unit price in dollars for comparisons of U.S. sales to CV; and, 
(3) the Department erred in computing profit for CV based upon all home 
market sales, including those with negative profits, maintaining that 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended by the URAA, has changed 
the calculation of profit to consider only profitable sales and to 
exclude sales below the cost of production.

DOC Position:

    We agree with the petitioner that our preliminary calculations 
inadvertently double counted interest expense in the computation of the 
total cost of production for purposes of calculating profit for home 
market, CEP, and further-processed U.S. sales. We also agree that U.S. 
packing expenses should have been added to the foreign unit price in 
dollars. We have revised our calculations accordingly.
    While we agree that our inclusion of all home market sales for 
purposes of calculating profit for CV was an error, we do not agree 
that it was a clerical error. Section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act specifies 
the addition of ``the actual amounts incurred and realized by the 
specific exporter or producer * * * for selling, general, and 
administrative expenses, and for profits, in connection with the 
production and sales of a foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade * * *'' Although the petitioner argues that sales below cost 
are outside of the ordinary course of trade, section 773(b) of the Act 
is clear that sales below cost may be disregarded as being outside the 
ordinary course of trade only if made within an extended period of time 
in substantial quantities and at prices which do not permit the 
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Section 771(15) 
of the Act provides that sales which failed the cost of production test 
provided for under section 773(b) of the Act are outside the ordinary 
course of trade. However, section 771(15) of the Act does not provide 
that sales made below the cost of production per se are outside the 
ordinary course of trade. Thus, sales below cost are not in and of 
themselves outside the ordinary course of trade, only those sales which 
fail our cost of production test and are thus disregarded. Accordingly 
for both respondents, as a result of this analysis, we have revised our 
calculations to base profit on CV for both respondents upon those home 
market sales which do not fail our cost of production test.

Company-Specific Comments

LGS

Comment 3

    The petitioner argues that the Department erred in its preliminary 
results in calculating research and development expenses for LGS by 
allocating only a portion of LGS' semiconductor research and 
development expenses over a portion of LGS' cost of sales. The 
petitioner maintains that, in accordance with the precedent set in the 
first administrative review, the Department should allocate all of LGS' 
semiconductor research and development expenses over all of LGS' 1994 
semiconductor cost of sales. The petitioner also maintains that the 
Department erred in allocating LGS' purchased research and development 
over the applicable contract periods. According to the petitioner, any 
purchased research and development should be included with all 
semiconductor research and development expenses allocated over LGS' 
1994 cost of sales.
    LGS agrees with the petitioner that purchased research and 
development should be included in those research and development 
expenses allocated over cost of sales for 1994. LGS contends that since 
the Department rejected LGS' allocation of purchased research and 
development over contract periods in the previous administrative 
review, it should allocated research and development purchased in 1994 
over 1994 cost of sales.
    LGS disagrees with the petitioner that all semiconductor research 
and development expenses should be allocated over all cost of sales. 
LGS maintains that non-DRAM research and development does not benefit 
LGS' DRAM production and that the Department should calculate a 
product-specific research and development rate for LGS.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioner that, in calculating a research and 
development rate for LGS, all semiconductor research and development 
expenses should be allocated over all of LGS' semiconductor cost of 
sales reported in its audited 1994 financial statements. This method of 
allocation is consistent with our practice in the last administrative 
review, where we determined that sufficient evidence of cross-
fertilization exists in the semiconductor industry to rule out the use 
of only product or DRAM-related research and development expenses. See 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 20216, 
20218 (May 6, 1996).
    We agree with both the petitioner and LGS that research and 
development purchased in 1994 should be included in those research and 
development expenses allocated over LGS' 1994 cost of sales.

Comment 4

    LGS argues that the Department erred in the preliminary 
calculations by deducting indirect selling expenses and inventory 
carrying costs incurred in Korea from U.S. price. LGS maintains that 
under the revised antidumping law, such expenses which do not result 
from or bear relationship to selling activities in the United States 
should not be deducted from U.S. price. LGS argues that the SAA only 
permits the deduction from U.S. price of selling expenses which result 
from, and bear a direct relationship to, selling activities in the 
United States.
    The petitioner argues that the Department was correct in deducting 
these Korean expenses from U.S. price for LGS. The petitioner maintains 
that section 772(d) of the Act clearly requires the Department to 
reduce CEP by all expenses generally incurred by or for the account of 
the producer. According to the petitioner, the SAA is a clarification 
of prior law and was not intended to change current law.

DOC Position

    We agree with the respondent. Section 772(d)(1) provides for the 
deduction of all expenses generally incurred by or for the account of 
the producer or exporter, or the affiliated reseller in the United 
States. However, the deductions under section 772(d) of the Act do not 
involve all direct and indirect selling expenses. The deductions under 
section 772(d) of the Act remove only expenses associated

[[Page 968]]

with economic activities in the United States. Thus, the CEP is not a 
price necessarily exclusive of all selling expenses. Therefore, we have 
not deducted indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs 
incurred in Korea from U.S. price because these expenses do not result 
from or bear relationship to selling activities in the United States.

Comment 5

    LGS and the noted the following clerical errors in the Department's 
computer program: (1) a programming error caused several home market 
sale dates to be mistakenly changed; (2) the Department's preliminary 
results failed to deduct home market packing expenses in its 
calculations of net home market price; (3) the preliminary calculations 
mistakenly double counted U.S. repacking expense; (4) the preliminary 
calculations mistakenly included duty drawback and movement expenses in 
the calculation of CEP profit; and, (5) the preliminary results 
mistakenly excluded non-profitable sales when computing profit for CEP.

DOC Position

    We agree with LGS on each of these points and have revised our 
calculations accordingly.

Hyundai

Comment 6

    The petitioner maintains that Hyundai misclassified its advertising 
expenses in the home market as direct selling expenses. Insofar as 
Hyundai did not submit samples of these advertisements, the petitioner 
maintains that Hyundai did not meet the burden of demonstrating that 
these home market advertising expenses were direct in nature. The 
petitioner urges the Department to reclassify all of Hyundai's home 
market advertising expenses as indirect expenses.
    Hyundai argues that its home market advertising classification is 
correct. Hyundai notes that its home market advertising classification 
methodology remains unchanged from the previous administrative review 
where the Department accepted Hyundai's classification of home market 
advertising expenses. Hyundai maintains that there is no justification 
for reclassifying its home market advertising expenses.

DOC Position

    We agree with Hyundai. Hyundai fully complied with our instructions 
in the antidumping questionnaire issued for this administrative review 
with respect to information requested for home market advertising 
expenses. Because Hyundai's methodology remained unchanged from the 
previous administrative review, we chose not to require Hyundai to 
submit further documentation on its home market advertising expenses 
during the POR. Therefore, we have accepted Hyundai's classification of 
its home market advertising expenses as direct selling expenses.

Comment 7

    The petitioner maintains that the Department's preliminary results 
did not include Hyundai's sales of DRAMs sold by the ISD and Axil 
divisions of Hyundai's U.S. subsidiary Hyundai Electronics America, 
Inc. (HEA) in its dumping margin calculations. These DRAMs were further 
processed by ISD and Axil in the production of personal computers and 
computer workstations, some of which were sold with the memory modules 
separately invoiced (option sales) and some of which were sold without 
separately invoiced memory modules (embedded sales). The petitioner 
argues that the Department should include these sales in its margin 
analysis by setting the margin for these sales equal to the margin 
found on other further-processed sales and averaging the two margins 
together to derive one margin for all further-processed sales of DRAMs.
    Hyundai agrees with the petitioner that these further-processed 
sales should be included in the Department's margin analysis, but 
disagrees with the petitioner on the method of including them. Hyundai 
maintains that, since there are other U.S. sales of merchandise 
identical to the ISD/Axil sales, the Department should apply the margin 
found on U.S. sales of identical merchandise to these ISD/Axil sales.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioner and with Hyundai that the further-
processed sales of DRAMs by ISD and Axil should be included in the 
dumping analysis of U.S. sales in the POR because it is the 
Department's longstanding practice to include all U.S. sales in its 
dumping calculations except in instances where title does not transfer 
to the U.S. customer or in the case of statistical sampling (see Color 
Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea, 58 FR 50333 (1993)). 
We agree with Hyundai that, because Hyundai had other U.S. sales 
identical models of DRAMs, the margins on these identical sales should 
be applied to the ISD/Axil sales. We revised our final calculations for 
Hyundai's ISD/Axil sales by applying the margin found on the other U.S. 
sales of models identical to those sold by ISD/Axil to Hyundai's ISD/
Axil further-processed U.S. sales.

Comment 8

    Hyundai asserts that the Department's preliminary calculations 
contained a clerical error in the computation of Hyundai's antidumping 
margin on sales of DRAMs in the United States further processed into 
memory modules. Hyundai maintains that the preliminary calculations 
incorrectly compared the U.S. price of these memory modules to NV, 
rather than to the foreign unit price in dollars.

DOC Position

    We agree with Hyundai and have adjusted our final calculations 
accordingly.

Final Results of Review

    Upon review of the comments submitted, the Department has 
determined that the following margins exist for the period of May 1, 
1994 through April 30, 1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                     Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 1994 through April 30, 1995:                                     
  LG Semicon Co., Ltd..........................................     0.01
  Hyundai Electronic Industries, Inc...........................     0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Individual differences between USP and NV may vary 
from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions concerning each respondent directly to the 
U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of 
these final results of administrative review, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed firms will be zero percent; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or in the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash

[[Page 969]]

deposit rate will be 3.85 percent, the all others rate established in 
the LTFV investigation. 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).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    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: December 24, 1996.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-295 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P