[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11411-11416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5991]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[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 result of antidumping duty administrative 
review and notice of intent not to revoke order.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from two respondents and one U.S. 
producer, the Department of Commerce 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 and four ``third-country'' resellers from Singapore, 
Malaysia, Canada, and Hong Kong for the period of May 1, 1996 through 
April 30, 1997. As a result of the review, the Department of Commerce 
has preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for both 
manufacturers/exporters and two of the third-country resellers. With 
respect to the third-county resellers, one did not respond, two stated 
that they made no sales of the subject merchandise to the U.S. during 
the period of review, and one reseller did not fully respond. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties as appropriate. 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 9, 1998.

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 stated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as 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 references to the regulations of the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) are to 19 CFR part 353 (1997).

Background

    On May 10, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(58 FR 27250) the antidumping duty order on DRAMs from the Republic of 
Korea. On May 2, 1997, the Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this antidumping 
duty order for the period of May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997 (62 FR 
24081). 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 (L.G. 
formerly Goldstar Electronics Co., Ltd.). The petitioner, Micron 
Technologies Inc., requested an administrative review of these same two 
Korean manufacturers of DRAMs as well as four third-country resellers 
of DRAMS. The third-country resellers are Techgrow Limited (Hong Kong) 
(Techgrow), Singapore Resources Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), NIE Electronics 
Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia, and Vitel Electronics Ottawa Office (Canada) 
(Vietel). On June 19, 1997, the Department initiated a review of the 
above-mentioned Korean manufacturers and third-country resellers (62 FR 
33394). The period of review (POR) of all respondents is May

[[Page 11412]]

1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The Department is conducting this 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
    In addition, on June 25, 1997, we initiated an investigation to 
determine if Hyundai and LG made sales of subject merchandise below the 
cost of production (COP) during the POR based upon the fact that we had 
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 a final determination was available when this 
review was initiated. On January 12, 1998, the Department published in 
the Federal Register (63 FR 1824) a notice extending the time for the 
preliminary results from January 30, 1998, until March 2, 1998.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (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 currently 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.

Intent Not To Revoke

    Both Hyundai and LG submitted requests to revoke the order covering 
DRAMS from Korea pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b). Under the Department's 
regulations, the Department may revoke an order, in part, if the 
Secretary concludes that, among other things: (1) ``[o]ne or more 
producers or resellers covered by the order have sold the merchandise 
at not less than [normal] 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 normal 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 [normal] value.'' See 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2). In 
this case, neither respondent meets the first criterion for revocation. 
The Department has preliminarily found that the two respondents, LG and 
Hyundai, sold subject merchandise at not less than normal value in the 
two prior reviews under this order, but did sell at less than normal 
value during the instant review. Since neither respondent has met the 
first criterion for revocation, i.e., or de minimis margins for three 
consecutive reviews, the Department need not reach a conclusion with 
respect to the ``not likely'' standard. Therefore, on this basis, we 
have preliminarily determined not to revoke the Korean DRAM antidumping 
duty order.

Facts Available

LG

    Based on information obtained from the Customs Service, we have 
preliminarily determined that a number of sales LG had reported as 
being to a third country were actually sales to the United States. See 
Memorandum from Team to Thomas Futtner, February 25, 1998. The 
Department has preliminarily determined that in accordance with section 
776(a) of the Act, the margin for LG should be based on facts available 
as it failed to report those U.S. sales. As facts available, the 
Department has calculated a dumping margin based on both the reported 
and the unreported sales to the United States which we were able to 
identify based on Customs Service data.
    For LG's unreported sales, we used product-specific weighted 
average U.S. selling expenses based on reported expenses for identical 
products. Where there were no identical matches, we used weighted 
average selling expenses based on reported selling expenses.
    Interested parties may submit comments regarding the application of 
facts available to LG due to unreported sales within 14 calendar days 
of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments may be submitted from 
the 15th calendar day through and including the 21st calendar day. 
Comments submitted during this period may address the application of 
facts available due to LG's unreported sales only. Time limits for case 
briefs and rebuttal briefs, and the contents thereof, are not affected 
by the stipulations noted above. Requirements for the submission of 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs are described elsewhere in this notice.

Techgrow

    On October 16, 1997, the Department notified Techgrow that under 
the Department's regulations Techgrow was affiliated with Tech Perfect 
Inc. and requested that Techgrow submit a response for sections B 
through E which included information covering Techgrow, Tech Perfect, 
and any other affiliated parties which sold subject merchandise during 
the POR. The Department reiterated this request on November 17, 1997. 
Techgrow submitted responses to sections A, B, and C only, and did not 
include the information requested for its affiliates. On November 26, 
1997 and December 3, 1997, Tech Perfect, Inc. and Techgrow 
respectively, notified the Department that they would not participate 
in the instant review. Tech Perfect Inc. and Techgrow formally filed 
notices of withdrawal with the Department on December 16, 1997. Failure 
to submit the requested information, and withdrawal from this 
proceeding, has significantly impeded our review with respect to 
Techgrow. Thus in

[[Page 11413]]

accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we must rely on facts 
available for sales to Techgrow and its affiliates.

Vitel

    On August 12, 1997, Vitel confirmed it had received the 
questionnaire, but subsequently failed to submit a response. Since 
Vitel failed to submit a questionnaire response in accordance with 
section 776(a) of the Act, we are relying on facts available to 
establish an antidumping margin for Vitel.

Corroboration of Facts Available

    As discussed above, Techgrow submitted responses to sections A, B, 
and C only, and did not include the information requested for its 
affiliates. Vitel confirmed it had received the questionnaire, but 
subsequently failed to submit a response. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
provides that if any 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 Techgrow failed 
to respond in full to the Department's questionnaire, and Vitel did not 
respond at all, we must use facts otherwise available to calculate 
their dumping margin.
    Section 776(b) provides that adverse inferences may be used against 
a party that 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''). Techgrow's decision to respond 
only in part, and failure to provide affiliate information, 
demonstrates that Techgrow has failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability in this review. Vitel failed to cooperate since it provided no 
questionnaire response at all. Therefore, the Department has determined 
that, in selecting among the facts otherwise available for Techgrow and 
Vitel, 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.
    As adverse facts available, we are assigning to Techgrow and Vitel, 
individually, the highest margin calculated in these preliminary 
results, that rate calculated for Hyundai, 12.64 percent. The 
Department considers this rate corroborated and having probative value 
since it was calculated based on information collected and verified 
specifically for purpose of calculating a margin for a respondent in 
the instant review.

No Shipments

    Singapore Resources Pte. Ltd. (Singapore) and NIE Electronics Sdn. 
Bhd. (Malaysia) reported that they made no U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Therefore, unless and until these companies 
sell subject merchandise to the U.S. and participate in an 
administrative review, any future shipments by these companies of 
subject merchandise to the U.S. will be subject to the all others rate 
established in the LTFV investigation.

Constructed Export Price

    For LG and Hyundai, in calculating price to the United States, the 
Department used constructed export price (CEP), as defined in section 
772(b) of the Act, because the merchandise was first sold to an 
unaffiliated U.S. purchaser after importation.
    We calculated CEP based on packed, factory prices to unaffiliated 
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 credit expenses, warranty expenses, royalty payments, 
commissions as applicable, advertising and promotion expenses paid by 
the respondent, and inventory carrying costs incurred by the 
respondents U.S. subsidiaries) in accordance with sections 772(c)(2) 
and 772(d)(1) of the Act. We added duty drawback paid on imported 
materials in the home market, where applicable, pursuant to section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    For DRAMS that were further manufactured into memory modules after 
importation, we deducted all costs of further manufacturing in the 
United States, pursuant to section 772(b)(2) of the Act. These costs 
consisted of the costs of the materials, fabrication, and general 
expenses associated with the further manufacturing in the United 
States.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we also reduced the CEP 
United States price by the amount of profit allocated to the expenses 
deducted under section 772(d)(1) and (2).
    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 normal value, we compared the 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)(C) of the 
Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like products for both Hyundai and LG was greater than five percent of 
the respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis 
for calculating NV for all respondents.
    We disregarded Hyundai's and LG's sales found to have been made 
below the COP during the 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 the 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 price 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

[[Page 11414]]

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.
    On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir.). 
In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court 
discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as the 
basis for foreign market when the Department finds home market sales to 
be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was not raised 
by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended the 
definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to include 
sales below cost. See Section 771(15) of the Act. Consequently, the 
Department has determined that it would be inappropriate to resort 
directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis for NV if 
the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise identical or 
most similar to that sold in the United States to be outside the 
``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the Department will use sales of 
similar merchandise, if such sales exist. The Department will use CV as 
the basis for NV only when there are no above-cost sales that are 
otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, when 
making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we 
considered all products sold in the home market as described in the 
``Scope of Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in the 
ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales in the 
ordinary course of trade of the identical or the most similar 
merchandise in the home market that were otherwise suitable for 
comparison, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar 
foreign like product, based on the characteristics listed in Section B 
and C of our antidumping questionnaire. We have implemented the Court's 
decision in this case, to the extent that the data on the record 
permitted.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the 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 cost 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 the respondents' questionnaire responses. For selling 
expenses, we used the average of the selling expenses reported for home 
market sales that survived the cost test, weighted by the total 
quantity of those 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, adjusted as necessary. As discussed below, we 
adjusted the respondents' reported COP and CV with respect to the 
following: (1) research and development (R&D), (2) depreciation, and 
(3) foreign exchange losses.

R&D

    The Department recalculated the respondents' reported R&D expense 
based on the ratio of each company's total semiconductor expenses to 
the total semiconductor cost of goods sold. Due to the forward-looking 
nature of the R&D activities, the Department, in this review, cannot 
identify every instance where DRAM R&D may influence logic products or 
where logic R&D may influence DRAM products, but the Department's own 
semiconductor expert has identified areas where R&D from one type of 
semiconductor product has influenced another semiconductor product in 
the past. Dr. Murzy Jhabvala, a semiconductor device engineer at NASA 
with twenty-four years experience, was asked by the Department to state 
his views regarding cross-fertilization of R&D efforts in the 
semiconductor industry. In a July 14, 1995 Memorandum to Holly Kuga, 
``Cross Fertilization of Research and Development Efforts in the 
Semiconductor Industry,'' Dr. Jhabvala stated that ``it is reasonable 
and realistic to contend that R&D from one area (e.g., bipolar) applies 
and benefits R&D efforts in another area (e.g., MOS memory).'' It is 
the Department's practice where costs benefit more than one product to 
allocate those costs to all the products which they benefit. This 
practice is consistent with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act because we 
have determined that the product-specific R&D accounts do not 
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of 
DRAMS. Therefore, as semiconductor R&D benefits all semiconductor 
products, we allocated semiconductor R&D to all semiconductor products.

Depreciation

    In contrast to the previous year, both respondents, for this POR, 
elected not to take special depreciation. This represents a failure to 
report depreciation expenses in a systematic and rational manner. As a 
result, disproportionately greater costs were attributed to products 
manufactured during the period for which the special depreciation was 
taken than for the subsequent period when it was not taken. Therefore, 
for these preliminary results, we are making an adjustment to the 
respondents' reported depreciation. We are adding special depreciation 
to the reported cost of production.

Foreign Exchange Losses

    We have included the amortized portion of foreign exchange losses 
on long-term debt in the cost of production as part of interest 
expense. The translation gains and losses at issue are related to the 
cost of acquiring and maintaining debt. These costs are related to 
production and are properly included in the calculation of financing 
expense as a part of COP. In previous cases, we have found that 
translation losses represent an increase in the actual amount of cash 
needed by the respondents to retire their foreign currency denominated 
loan balances. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Ecuador, 24 FR 7019, 7039, (Feb. 6, 
1995). Also, see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From the 
Republic of Korea, 63 FR 8937, (Feb. 23, 1998). Furthermore, the 
Department has amortized these expenses over the remaining life of the 
companies' loans in the past. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
From Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 9743, (Mar. 4, 1997). Also, see Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 8937, 
(Feb. 23, 1998). We have verified deferred foreign exchange translation 
gains and losses for both respondents. To reasonably reflect the cost 
of producing and selling the subject merchandise, it is necessary that 
the respondents' costs reflect the additional financial burden 
represented by the cash needed to retire foreign currency denominated 
loans.

[[Page 11415]]

Therefore, we are amortizing deferred foreign exchange translation 
gains and losses over the average remaining life of the loans on a 
straight-line basis and are including the amortized portion in net 
interest expense.
    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, in 
accordance with 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 unaffiliated customers and, where appropriate, to 
affiliated customers in the home market.
    In calculating NV for both CV and home market prices, we made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for inland freight, inland insurance, 
discounts, rebates, and Korean brokerage and handling charges. 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 section 773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act. Finally, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made an 
adjustment for differences in the circumstances of sale by deducting 
home market direct selling expenses (credit expenses, advertising 
expenses, royalty expenses, and bank charges) and adding 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

    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 activities 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    We reviewed the questionnaire responses of both respondents to 
establish whether there were sales at different levels of trade based 
on the distribution system, selling activities, and services offered to 
each customer or customer category.
    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 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 selling 
functions performed by the Korean companies for U.S. CEP sales (as 
adjusted) and preliminarily determine that they are at a different 
level of trade from the Korean companies' home market sales because the 
companies' CEP transactions were at a less advanced stage of marketing. 
For instance, at the CEP level 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 more 
advanced 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 pattern of consistent 
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 not 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 at 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 adjusted home market prices or 
constructed value, as appropriate. 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 homemarket indirect selling 
expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed. 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 making level of 
trade comparisons and adjustments for its final results of review.

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............................     12.64
LG Semicon Co., Ltd...........................................      7.61
Techgrow Limited (Hong Kong)..................................     12.64
Vitel Electronics Ottawa Office (Canada)......................     12.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. The 
Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated 
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio 
of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined 
sales made during

[[Page 11416]]

POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those 
duties. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries of each 
particular importer made during the POR. (This is equivalent to 
dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which are calculated 
by taking the difference between statutory NV and statutory EP and CEP, 
by the total statutory EP or CEP value of the sales compared, and 
adjusting the result by the average difference between EP or CEP and 
customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR).
    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, LG, 
Techgrow and Vitel will be the rates indicated above; (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 not later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    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 
this notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 
U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: March 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-5991 Filed 3-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M