[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