[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51437-51442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25942]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-828]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Blankenbaker or Rebecca Woodings, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement
II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0989 or (202) 482-0651.
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as
[[Page 51438]]
amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to 19 CFR part 353 (1997).
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that static random access memory
semiconductors (``SRAMs'') from the Republic of Korea (``Korea'') are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''
section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation (Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation: Static Random access Memory
Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 13596 (March 21,
1997)), the following events have occurred:
In an April 1, 1997 letter to the Department, LG Semicon Co. Ltd.
(``LGS'') requested exclusion from participation as a mandatory
respondent in this investigation. In the request, LGS argued that it
was an extremely small exporter of SRAMs and it accounted for only a
small fraction of U.S. SRAM imports from Korea during the period of
investigation.
On April 4, 1997, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (``Samsung'')
requested that the Department limit its analysis in this proceeding to
sales of identical merchandise. On April 16, 1997, the Department
determined that it would not limit its analysis to only sales of
identical merchandise. The department concluded that the reporting of a
very small number of sales of similar merchandise would not impose an
undue burden on either Samsung or the Department. (See Memorandum form
Thomas Futtner to Louis Apple dated April 16, 1997.)
On April 11, 1997, the United States International Trade Commission
(``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary
determination. (See ITC Investigations No. 731-TA-761-762). The ITC
found that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the
United States is materially injured by reason of imports of SRAMs from
Korea.
On April 16, 1997, we presented the Section A-E questionnaire to
Hyundai Electronics Industries Co. Ltd. (``Hyundai''), LGS, and
Samsung.
On April 25, 1997, Samsung respected that the Department not
require the reporting of the following: (1) Sales of SRAMs that were
further processed by Samsung's U.S. subsidiary prior to sale in the
United States; (2) export price (``EP'') sales to the United States;
and (3) sales of 64K SRAMs. on April 28, 1997, Hyundai also requested
to be excused from section E of the questionnaire, which required the
reporting of further processed (``FP'') sales. On May 8, 1997, the
Department excluded the reporting of FP sales (Section E of the
questionnaire) for Samsung and Hyundai, and requested that Samsung
report EP sales and sales of 64K SRAMs in the United States. The
Department concluded that the value of the FP sales at issue did not
justify the extensive expenditure of Department resources that
analyzing the sales would have required, whereas the analysis of EP and
64K sales would be both less complex and less burdensome. See
Memorandum from Thomas Futtner to Louis Apple dated May 8, 1997.
On May 14, 1997, Hyundai, LGS, and Samsung submitted their Section
A questionnaire responses. On June 16, 1997, Hyundai and Samsung
submitted their Section B-D questionnaire responses.
In a June 16, 1997, letter submitted to the Department, LGS
notified the Department that it was withdrawing from further
participation in the investigation. In the letter, LGS stated its SRAM
sales had declined substantially. LGS explained that, as a result, it
had decided to cease U.S. SRAM sales and withdraw from the
investigation ``rather than incur the enormous burden in time and
expense of further participation in the Department's investigation.''
On July 7, 1997, at the request of the petitioner, we postponed the
preliminary determination to September 23, 1997. See Notice of
Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Korea and
Taiwan, 62 FR 36260 (July 7, 1997). On July 31, 1997, the petitioner
provided requested a clarification of the scope language in the notice
of initiation.
Postponement of Final Determination
On September 10, 1997, Hyundai requested, pursuant to section
735(a)(2)(B) of the Act, that in the event of an affirmative
preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department
postpone its final determination until not later than 125 days after
the date of publication of the affirmative preliminary determination in
the Federal Register. In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.20(b), inasmuch as: (1) Our preliminary
determination is affirmative; (2) Hyundai accounts for a significant
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise under investigation;
and (3) we are not aware of the existence of any compelling reasons for
denying the request, we are granting Hyundai's request and postponing
the final determination. Suspension of liquidation will be extended
accordingly.
Facts Available
As discussed above, LGS withdrew from the investigation and
declined to answer the Department's Section B-E questionnaire. Section
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party: (1)
Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (2)
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or
manner requested; (3) significantly impedes an antidumping
investigation; or (4) provides such information but the information
cannot be verified, the Department is required to use facts otherwise
available (subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e)) to make its
determination. Because LGS failed to respond to the Department's
questionnaire, and because subsections (c)(1) and (e) do not apply with
respect to LGS, we must use facts otherwise available to calculate its
dumping margin.
Section 776(b) provides that adverse inferences may be used against
a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information. See also the Statement
of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) (``SAA''). LGS's decision not to reply to
the Department's questionnaire demonstrates that LGS has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation. Therefore,
the Department has determined that, in selecting among the facts
otherwise available for LGS, an adverse inference is warranted.
Section 776(b) states that an adverse inference may include
reliance on information derived from the petition or any other
information placed on the record. See also SAA at 829-831. Section
776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on
secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts
otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its
disposal. When analyzing the petition, the Department
[[Page 51439]]
reviewed all of the data the petitioner relied upon in calculating the
estimated dumping margin, and adjusted those calculations where
necessary. See Initiation Checklist, dated March 17, 1997. The
estimated dumping margin was based on a comparison of constructed value
to a price quotation in the U.S. market offered by Samsung. The
estimated dumping margin, as recalculated by the Department, was 55.36
percent.
For purposes of corroboration, the Department re-examined the price
information provided in the petition in light of information developed
during the investigation and found that it has probative value. See
Memorandum from the Team to Tom Futtner dated September 23, 1997, for a
detailed explanation of corroboration of the information in the
petition.
Therefore, as adverse facts available, we are assigning to LGS to
margin stated in the notice of initiation, 55.36 percent. This margin
is higher than the margin calculated for either respondents in this
investigation.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are synchronous,
asynchronous, and specialty SRAMs from Korea, 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, but packaged, or assembled into
memory modules, in a third country, are included in the scope;
processed wafers produced in a third country and assembled or packaged
in Korea are not included in the scope.
The scope of this investigation 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 within the scope of this investigation are classifiable
under the 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 this investigation is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 1996 through
December 31, 1996.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of SRAMs from Korea to the United States
were made at less than fair value, we compared the United Price
(``USP'') to the Normal Value (``NV''), as described in the ``United
States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated
weighted-average USPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.
In making our comparisons, in accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market, fitting
the description specified in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section of
this notice, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign
like product, based on the characteristics listed in Appendix III of
the Department's antidumping questionnaire.
Level of Trade and Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practical, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade as the EP or CEP sales. The NV level of trade
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when
NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from which
we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and
profit. For EP, it is also the level of the starting-price sale, which
is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the level of the
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different level of trade, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level of trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the
CEP offset provision). See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes
and Tubes From India: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 62 FR 23760, 23761 (May 1, 1997).
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 foreign
producers to unaffiliated domestic customers. These direct sales were
made by both respondents to original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'')
and to distributors. All sales, whether made to OEM customers or to
distributors, were made at the same marketing stage and involved the
same selling functions. For the U.S. market, all U.S. sales for Hyundai
and some sales by Samsung were reported as CEP sales. We examined the
marketing stage and selling functions performed by the Korean companies
for U.S. CEP sales, after the adjustment required by section 772(d) of
the Act, and preliminarily determine that they are at a different level
of trade from the Korean companies' home market sales because the CEP
represents a different marketing stage with fewer selling functions.
For instance, the CEP does not include any general promotion, marketing
activities, or price negotiations.
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 and the level of trade in the home market is a more
advanced stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP
sales, a CEP offset is appropriate. Therefore, we have accepted both
respondents' claims for a CEP offset, pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B)
of the Act.
[[Page 51440]]
Time Period for Cost and Price Comparisons
Section 777A(d) of the Act states that in an investigation, the
Department will compare the weighted average of the NVs to the weighted
average of the EPs/CEPs. Generally, the Department will compare sales
and conduct the sales below cost testing using annual averages.
However, where prices have moved significantly over the course of the
POI, it has been the Department's practice to use shorter time periods.
See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories (EPROMs) from Japan; 51 FR
39680, 39682 (October 30, 1986); Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One
Megabit and Above From the Republic of Korea; 58 FR 15467, 15476 (March
23, 1993).
We invited comments from interested parties regarding this issue.
An analysis of these comments revealed that all parties agreed that the
SRAMs market experienced a significant and consistent price decline
during the POI. Accordingly, in recognition of the significant and
consistent price declines in the SRAMs market during the POI, the
Department has compared prices and conducted the sales below cost test
using quarterly data. In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the
Act, we conducted the recovery of cost test using annual cost data.
United States Price
Hyundai
We calculated CEP for Hyundai, in accordance with sections 772(b),
(c), and (d) of the Act. We found that CEP is warranted because all
U.S. sales activities associated with U.S. sales took place in the
United States through a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hyundai. We
calculated CEP based on the price to the first unaffiliated customer in
the United States. We made deductions from the gross unit price for the
following expenses: foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling;
international freight and insurance; and U.S. brokerage, handling and
inland freight.
Pursuant to section 772(d) (1) and (2) of the Act, we also made
deductions for commissions; credit, inventory carrying costs, and other
indirect and direct selling expenses; and bank and extended test
charges. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Samsung
We calculated CEP for Samsung, in accordance with sections 772 (b),
(c), and (d) of the Act. We found that CEP is warranted for some U.S.
sales because these sales took place in the United States through a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung. We calculated CEP based on the
price to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made
deductions from the gross unit price for the following expenses:
foreign inland freight, brokerage, handling, and banking charges;
international freight and insurance; and U.S. inland freight,
brokerage, handling, insurance, and banking charges.
Pursuant to section 772(d) (1) and (2) of the Act, we also made
deductions for commissioners, credit, advertising, cooperative, and
royalty expenses; inventory carrying costs and other direct and
indirect selling expenses. We also deducted U.S. repacking costs.
Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
For the EP sales by Samsung, we made deductions from the gross unit
price for the following expenses: foreign inland freight, brokerage,
handling, and banking charges; international freight and insurance; and
U.S. inland freight, brokerage, handling, and banking charges.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of
the foreign like product to the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the
Act. Each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we
determined that its home market was viable for each respondent.
Based on a cost allegation presented in the petition, the
Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by
both respondents in their home market were made at prices below their
respective costs of production (``COPs''). As a result, the Department
initiated an investigation to determine whether either respondent made
home market sales during the POI at prices below its COP, within the
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
We calculated COP as the sum of each respondent's cost of materials
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A and
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We used
the respondents' reported COP, adjusted as discussed below, to compute
quarterly weighted-average COP of the POI. We compared the weighted-
average COPs to home market sales of the foreign like product as
required under section 773(b) of the Act in order to determine whether
these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific
basis, we compared COP to the home market prices, less any applicable
movement charges, discounts, and packing expenses.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2)
such sales were made at prices which permitted recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where
20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of given product during the
POI were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of that model
were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of
time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2) (B) and (C). To determine
whether prices were such as to provide for recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time, we tested whether the prices which were
below the per unit cost of production at the time of the sale were
above the weighted average per unit cost of production for the POI, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D). Where we found that a substantial
quantity of sales during the POI were below cost and not at prices that
provided for recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, we
disregarded the below cost sales.
Where NV was calculated using prices to unaffiliated customers, we
made appropriate adjustments to those prices. First, we deducted home
market inland freight and home market packing costs. Where there were
differences in the merchandise to be compared, we made adjustments in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act to account for
those differences. Where appropriate, we made circumstances-of-sale
adjustments in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
For purposes of CEP sales comparisons, we deducted home market indirect
expenses up to allowable levels. For purposes of CEP and EP sales
comparisons, we added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.
Where there was no above cost home market sale for comparison, NV
was based on CV. In accordance with section
[[Page 51441]]
773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of each
respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit, and U.S.
packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we
based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by
each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption
in the foreign country.
Although we generally relied, in our COP and CV calculation, on the
data submitted by respondents, we made adjustments in the allocation of
both research and development (``R&D'') and interest expense.
Adjustments common to both companies are detailed immediately, below,
followed by company-specific comments.
For both companies, we allocated all semiconductor R&D over all
semiconductor cost of goods sold. See Decision Memorandum dated
September 23, 1997. We concluded that R&D related to semiconductors
benefits all semiconductor products, and that allocation of R&D on a
product-specific basis was not appropriate. In support of our
methodology, we have placed on the record information regarding cross-
fertilization of semiconductor R&D.
In our Section D cost questionnaire, we requested that respondents
allocate interest expense over the total cost of goods sold. However,
we subsequently determined that this allocation methodology does not
appropriately recognize the expenses related to capital investment
necessary for semiconductors as compared to other lines of business.
Therefore, we allocated net interest expense on the basis of
proportional fixed assets for both companies. The Court of
International Trade has upheld the Department's methodology of
allocating interest expenses on the basis of semiconductor fixed
assets. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 893 F. Supp. 21,
30 (June 12, 1995).
Finally, we adjusted both respondents' depreciation expenses to
reflect their historical depreciation methodologies. We based our
adjustments on the fact that, in 1996, both Samsung and Hyundai chose
not to record certain accelerated depreciation expenses that, according
to their financial statements, they had relied upon in the previous
year. In switching to alternative methods for recognizing depreciation
expense, the companies did not retroactively restate the bases of their
assets, but instead used the net book value of the assets as of the
date of the change. Thus, the companies failed to report depreciation
expense in a systematic and rational manner over the useful lives of
their assets. As a result, disproportionately greater costs were
attributed to products manufactured before the change than subsequent
to it. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above
From the Republic of Korea; 58 FR 15467.15479 (March 23, 1993).
In adjusting the depreciation expenses by Samsung and Hyundai, we
relied on the same accelerated depreciation methods used by the
companies in 1995. The current record does not contain information with
respect to what the appropriate depreciation expenses would be after
taking into account the restated bases of the companies' assets. Our
use of Samsung's and Hyundai's historical depreciation methods in
adjusting reported depreciation expense for COP and CV is consistent
with the statutory preference for use of cost allocation methods that
have been historically relied upon by respondents. See section
773(f)(i)(A) of the Act and SAA at 834.
Hyundai
For those comparison products for which there were sales above the
COP, we based NV on delivered prices to home market customers. We made
deductions for inland freight, imputed credit expenses and banking
charges, and home market direct and indirect selling expenses. As
indirect selling expenses, we including inventory carrying costs and
other indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(b)(2).
For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted home market packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section
773(a)(6) of the Act. In addition, where appropriate, we made
adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 353.57.
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses and banking charges. We also deducted home market
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs and other
indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(b)(2).
Samsung
For those comparisons for which there were sales above the COP, we
based NV on delivered prices to home market customers. We made
deductions for inland freight, imputed credit, advertising, and royalty
expenses, and home market direct and indirect selling expenses. As
indirect selling expenses, we including inventory carrying costs and
other indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling
expenses and commissions incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19
CFR 353.56(b)(2). In the case of letter-of-credit sales, we added in
the amount of any duty-drawback.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) directs the
Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign
currencies into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate involves a
fluctuation. It is the Department's practice to find that a fluctuation
exists when the daily exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by
2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the moving average of rates
for the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation to have
existed, we substitute the benchmark rate for the daily rate, in
accordance with established practice. See Policy Bulletin 96-1:
Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996).
Section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60-day adjustment
period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement. A sustained
movement has occurred when the weekly average of actual daily rates
exceeds the weekly average of benchmark rates by more than five percent
for eight consecutive weeks. For an explanation of this methodology,
see id. Such an adjustment period is required only when a foreign
currency is appreciating against the U.S. dollar. The use of an
adjustment period was not warranted in this case because the Korean Won
did not undergo a sustained movement.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all
information used in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of entries of subject
merchandise from Korea, as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation''
section of this notice, with the exception of subject merchandise that
is the product of Samsung. Suspension
[[Page 51442]]
will apply to products that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. For these entries, the Customs Service will
require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price as
shown below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain
in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/manufacturer percent
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung..................................................... \1\ 1.59
Hyundai..................................................... 3.38
LG Semicon \2\.............................................. \2\ 55.36
All others.................................................. 3.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ De minimis.
\2\ Facts Available Rate.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments in at least six copies must
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no
later than December 29, 1997; and rebuttal briefs, no latter than
January 5, 1997. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. The
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing,
if requested, to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing
will be held on January 7, 1998; time and room to be determined; at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time,
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
1870, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be
discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the
briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final
determination by February 5, 1998.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 773(f) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 23, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-25942 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M