[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13596-13598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7251]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-828 and A-583-827]


Initiations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Static Random 
Access Memory From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

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

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping investigation.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson at (202) 482-1776 or 
Roy Unger at (202) 482-0651, Import Administration--Room B099, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiations of Investigations

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA').

The Petition

    On February 25, 1997, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'')

[[Page 13597]]

received a petition filed in proper form by Micron Technology, Inc. 
(``petitioner''). The Department received supplemental information to 
the petition on March 11, 1997.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioner alleges 
that imports of Static Random Access Memory (``SRAMs'') from the 
Republic of Korea (``Korea'') and Taiwan are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the 
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United 
States.
    The Department finds that petitioner has standing to file the 
petition because it is an interested party as defined in section 
771(9)(C) of the Act.

Scope of Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are synchronous, 
asynchronous, and specialty SRAMs from Korea and Taiwan, whether 
assembled or unassembled. Assembled SRAMs include all package types. 
Unassembled SRAMs include processed wafers or die, uncut die, and cut 
die. Processed wafers produced in Korea and Taiwan, but packaged or 
assembled into memory modules in a third country, are included in the 
scope; wafers produced in a third country and assembled or packaged in 
Korea or Taiwan are not included in the scope.
    The scope of these investigations includes modules containing 
SRAMs. Such modules include single in-line processing modules 
(``SIPs''), single in-line memory modules (``SIMMs''), dual in-line 
memory modules (``DIMMs''), memory cards, or other collections of 
SRAMs, whether unmounted or mounted on a circuit board.
    The SRAMs subject to these investigations are classifiable under 
subheadings 8542.13.8037 through 8542.13.8049, 8473.30.10 through 
8473.30.90, and 8542.13.8005 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the 
scope of these investigations is dispositive.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that petitions be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. In this regard, section 732(c)(4)(A) 
of the Act requires the Department to determine, prior to the 
initiation of an investigation, whether certain percentage thresholds 
of industry support are satisfied. A petition meets the minimum 
requirements for initiation if the domestic producers or workers who 
support the petition account for: (1) at least 25 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent 
of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion 
of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the Act directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production 
of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission 
(``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic 
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a 
domestic like product in order to define the industry. However, while 
both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory 
definition of domestic like product, they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to the law.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 
Fed. Reg. 32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines domestic like product as ``a 
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    As noted earlier, the scope of the petition is limited to SRAMs. 
This is the petitioner's sole proposed domestic like product. The 
Department has no basis on the record to find this domestic like 
product definition clearly inadequate. In this regard, we have found no 
basis on which to reject petitioner's representations that there are no 
clear dividing lines, in terms of characteristics and uses, between 
synchronous, asynchronous, and specialty SRAMs . (See March 17, 1997, 
Memorandum to the File.) The Department has, therefore, adopted the 
domestic like product definition set forth in the petition.
    Our review of the production data provided in the petition and 
petition supplements indicates that the petitioner and supporters of 
the petition account for more than 50 percent of the total production 
of the domestic like product, thus meeting the standard of section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act. The Department received no expressions of 
opposition to the petition from any domestic producers or workers. 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition is supported 
by the domestic industry.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which our decisions to initiate are based. Should 
the need arise to use any of this information in our preliminary or 
final determinations, we will re-examine the information and may revise 
the margin calculations, if appropriate.
    Petitioner based export price (``EP'') in Korea on an invoice for 
the sale of one megabit synchronous SRAMs in a 32x32 configuration from 
one producer/exporter in Korea. Petitioner based EP in Taiwan on two 
price quotations obtained by a private market research firm for the 
sale of the same type of SRAM from two producers/exporters in Taiwan. 
Regarding one of these companies, however, there is no evidence in the 
petition that it is a foreign producer. Rather, this company appears to 
be a U.S. customer who has a manufacturing arrangement with a Taiwanese 
company. Nonetheless, because the price quote involving this company 
related to merchandise produced in Taiwan, we have considered this 
offer for purposes of initiation. Petitioner made no adjustments to EP.
    With respect to normal value (``NV''), petitioner also provided 
price quotes obtained from a private market research firm for home 
market sales in Korea and Taiwan for one megabit 32x32 synchronous 
SRAMs from the same Korean and Taiwanese sources. Petitioner made no 
adjustments to the home market price quotes.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act, petitioner alleged 
that sales of SRAMs in both the Korean and Taiwanese home markets were 
made at prices below the cost of production (``COP''). The components 
of COP, as enumerated in section 773(b)(3) of the Act, are the cost of 
manufacture (``COM''), packing, and selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A'').

[[Page 13598]]

SG&A includes the company's net financing expense.
    Petitioner calculated COM for each of the Korean and Taiwanese 
producers for whom it obtained sales data based on its own production 
experience, adjusted for labor and utility costs in Korea and Taiwan. 
Petitioner also adjusted production costs for known differences in 
wafer size, where applicable, die size, and yields. Petitioner used 
each producer/exporter's most recently available financial statements 
in order to derive SG&A and research and development expenses. 
Petitioner based intellectual property expenses on its own experience.
    We made the following revisions to petitioner's COP calculations 
for both the Korean and Taiwanese companies: (1) eliminated 
intellectual property expenses from the calculation because petitioner 
provided insufficient evidence that the foreign producers incurred such 
expenses; and (2) used the higher of petitioner's actual yield 
experience or petitioner's estimate of foreign producers' yields as a 
conservative measure because petitioner did not sufficiently 
substantiate its estimates of the foreign companies' production yields. 
We also disallowed petitioner's adjustment of the Korean company's 
fabrication equipment depreciation expense based on wafer size because 
petitioner was unable to provide adequate support for this adjustment. 
Instead, we relied on petitioner's own experience for this expense in 
the COM calculation. Because petitioner did not provide SG&A 
information for one Taiwanese producer, we relied on the experience of 
the other SRAMs producer in calculating COP and CV.
    The allegation that the Korean and Taiwanese producers are selling 
the foreign like product in their home markets at prices below their 
COP is based upon a comparison of the home market prices with the 
calculated COP. Based upon our analysis of the COP information in the 
petition, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales 
of the foreign like product may have been made at prices below COP in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Department is initiating cost investigations with respect to both Korea 
and Taiwan.
    To calculate constructed value (``CV''), petitioner used the same 
information used to calculate COP. For purposes of the petition, 
petitioner used a profit rate of zero in its calculation of CV. The 
Department made the same revisions to CV as it did to COP, as discussed 
above. Because the home market prices of each producer are less than 
the COP, the Department based NV on CV.
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, the calculated dumping margin for 
SRAMs from Korea is 55.36 percent ad valorem. The calculated dumping 
margins for SRAMs from Taiwan range from 93.54 to 113.85 percent ad 
valorem.

Initiations of Investigations

    We have examined the petition on SRAMs from Korea and Taiwan and 
have found that it meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act, 
including the requirements concerning allegations of the material 
injury or threat of material injury to the domestic producers of a 
domestic like product by reason of the complained-of imports, allegedly 
sold at less than fair value. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping 
duty investigations to determine whether imports of SRAMs from Korea 
and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value. Unless extended, we will make our preliminary 
determinations by August 4, 1997.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives 
of the government of Korea, as well as to the authorities of Taiwan. We 
will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to 
each exporter named in the petition (as appropriate).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by April 11, 1997, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of SRAMs from Korea and Taiwan are 
causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a 
U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination in either of the 
investigations will result in that investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.

    Dated: March 17, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-7251 Filed 3-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P