[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