[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56906-56909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28500]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of 
One Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea: (A-580-812)

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

ACTION: Amended final results of administrative review of antidumping 
duty order.

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

SUMMARY: On September 23, 1998, the Department of Commerce published 
the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One 
Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea. This review covered 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 May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The two 
manufacturers/exporters were Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co. 
(Hyundai), and LG Semicon Co., Ltd. (LG, formerly Goldstar Electronics 
Co., Ltd.). The third-country resellers were Techgrow Limited (Hong 
Kong) (Techgrow), Singapore Resources Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), NIE 
Electronics Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) (NIE), and Vitel Electronics Ottawa 
Office (Canada) (Vitel).
    LG and Hyundai submitted ministerial error allegations with respect 
to the final results of administrative review on September 17, 1998. 
The petitioner, Micron Technology Inc. (Micron), submitted rebuttal 
comments on September 24, 1998. Based on the correction of certain 
ministerial errors made in the final results of review, we are amending 
our final results of review with respect to LG. We are also clarifying 
the assessment language cited in our final results with respect to both 
LG and Hyundai

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff, AD/CVD Enforcement Group 
II, Office Four, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has now amended the 
final results of this administrative review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to 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. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations set forth at 19 CFR 353 (1997).

[[Page 56907]]

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of DRAMs of one megabit 
or above from 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; and, 
removable memory modules placed on motherboards, with or without a 
central processing unit (CPU), unless the importer of the 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 and modules subject to this review are currently 
classifiable under subheadings 8471.50.0085, 8471.91.8085, 
8542.11.0024, 8542.11.8026, 8542.13.8034, 8471.50.4000, 8473.30.1000, 
8542.11.0026, 8542.11.8034, 8471.50.8095, 8473.30.4000, 8542.11.0034, 
8542.13.8005, 8471.91.0090, 8473.30.8000, 8542.11.8001, 8542.13.8024, 
8471.91.4000, 8542.11.0001, 8542.11.8024 and 8542.13.8026 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the Department's written description of the scope of this review 
remains dispositive.

Background

    On September 23, 1998, the Department published the final results 
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on DRAMs 
from Korea. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One 
Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 50867, September 23, 
1998) (final results).
    On September 17, 1998, LG and Hyundai submitted timely written 
allegations that the Department made certain ministerial errors in the 
above-referenced administrative review. Petitioner submitted timely 
rebuttal comments in regards to respondents' allegations. For a 
complete discussion of the allegations, see the Department's October 1, 
1998, Memorandum from Tom Futtner to Holly A. Kuga regarding 
Antidumping Review of Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors 
(DRAMs) from Korea: Ministerial Error Allegations Regarding the Final 
Results.
    As discussed below, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have 
determined that the language used in our final results needed to be 
clarified and that certain ministerial errors were made in the margin 
calculations for LG.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

LG

    Comment 1: Typographical Error in its Model Match Programming. LG 
claims that the Department made a typographical error when it defined 
the variable US MONTH for the model matching programming. Petitioner 
had no comment.
    DOC Position: We agree with LG. We have corrected this 
typographical error.
    Comment 2: Typographical Error in a Product Code. LG alleges that 
the Department incorrectly input a product code in the computer 
program. Petitioner had no comment.
    DOC Position: We agree with LG. We have amended the computer 
program to correct this typographical error.
    Comment 3: Selling Expenses by Product Code Rather Than Control 
Number. LG alleges that the Department assigned selling expenses to the 
unreported sales based on product code rather than control number since 
the Department stated in its final results that some of the unreported 
sales involved product codes that had not been part of the 
questionnaire response. LG claims that the Department had control 
numbers for the unreported sales that it assigned selling expenses to 
based on product code. LG, therefore, claims that the Department should 
correct the program to assign selling expenses on the basis of control 
number.
    Petitioner states that the Department intended to assign selling 
expenses on the basis of product code. Petitioner further contends that 
the Department rejected LG's argument to assign selling expenses to the 
unreported sales on the basis of control number in its final results.
    DOC Position: We disagree with LG. We did not have product codes 
for all unreported sales. Furthermore, where we did not have product 
codes, we did not have control numbers. Independent of those facts, 
however, the Department decided to use product code where it existed as 
the basis for assigning selling expenses to the unreported DRAM 
transactions. Where we did not have product code, we relied on the 
density of the DRAM in question to assign the selling expenses that 
would be used in our analysis. Because this is not a clerical error, we 
have not made any changes to our calculations.
    Comment 4: Control Numbers Used for Several Unreported Sales. LG 
alleges that the Department assigned the wrong control numbers to 
certain unreported sales. LG states that the Department assigned 
control numbers to certain unreported sales for the purpose of 
assigning costs to those products. However, according to LG, the 
Department should have, for model matching purposes, changed the 
control numbers for those products back to the original control number. 
LG claims that the dumping margin is distorted as a result of this 
failure to use the proper control number. Petitioner had no comment.
    DOC Position: We agree with LG. We assigned control numbers to 
three models of DRAMs in the unreported sales for the purposes of 
assigning costs to those products. However, after assigning production 
costs to these products, we failed to re-apply the original control 
numbers to these products for sales comparison purposes. We have 
amended the computer program to ensure that the original control 
numbers are re-assigned to these products.
    Comment 5: Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) Profit. LG alleges 
that the Department applied the CV-profit rate to a basis different 
than that used to calculate the profit rate. Specifically, LG claims 
that the CV-profit rate was calculated based on a cost of production 
(``COP'') that excludes selling expenses and profit, while it was 
applied to a COP that included selling expenses and packing.

[[Page 56908]]

    The petitioner claims that the CV-profit rate was calculated 
incorrectly, but that LG's proposed method of correction is incorrect 
as well. Petitioner contends instead that the Department should correct 
its error by applying the standard CV-profit calculation methodology.
    DOC Position: We agree with LG and the petitioner that the CV-
profit rate was applied to a basis different than that used to 
calculate the CV-profit rate. We have corrected our calculations to 
ensure that we calculate the CV-profit rate according to the standard 
methodology.
    Comment 6: Deduction of Imputed Inventory Carrying Costs in the 
Calculation of CV. LG alleges that the Department failed to deduct 
imputed inventory carrying expenses in its calculation of CV. 
Petitioner claims that, since imputed inventory carrying expenses are 
not included in CV, they should not be deducted from CV.
    DOC Position: We do not add amounts for imputed expenses in 
calculating CV. However, after calculating CV, we have, in essence, NV, 
and adjustments to NV are appropriate when CV is the basis for NV. In 
this case, imputed inventory carrying expenses are indirect selling 
expenses. Because LG's U.S. price was based on constructed export price 
(CEP), and an offset to CEP was appropriate in this case, we intended 
in the final review results to deduct the imputed inventory carrying 
expenses as an adjustment to CV. As this did not occur, we made the 
appropriate changes to our calculations to account for this clerical 
error (see DOC position on Comment 7).
    Comment 7: Inclusion of Imputed Inventory Carrying Costs in the 
Calculation of the CEP Offset for CV Comparisons. LG alleges that the 
Department failed to include imputed inventory carrying expenses in its 
calculation of the CEP offset for CV comparisons. Petitioner agrees 
that imputed inventory carrying expenses should be included in the CEP 
offset.
    DOC Position: We agree with LG and the petitioner. We failed to 
include imputed inventory carrying expenses in the calculation of LG's 
CEP offset calculations as we said we would in the final review 
results. For these amended results, we have adjusted our computations 
accordingly.
    Comment 8: Adjustments made to Unreported Sales for Credit Expenses 
and Commissions. LG claims that the Department mistakenly made 
adjustments to the unreported sales for commissions and credit. LG 
states that the record supports the conclusion that there were no 
commissions or credits expenses associated with these sales. Therefore, 
LG concludes, the Department should not have assigned these expenses to 
the unreported sales.
    Petitioner claims that the Department intended, as part of its 
application of adverse facts available, to include commissions and 
credit expenses in its calculations of the adjustments for the 
unreported sales. Petitioner therefore concludes that the Department 
did not commit any clerical error by assigning these expenses to the 
unreported sales.
    DOC Position: We disagree with LG. We intentionally assigned 
selling expenses, including credit expenses and commissions, to the 
unreported sales on an adverse facts available basis. No changes have 
been made to the program.
    Comment 9: Calculation of Duty Assessment Rates by Importer. LG 
alleges that the Department's computer program failed to appropriately 
calculate importer-specific rates. Instead, LG claims that the program 
calculated an assessment rate for only one importer of record, LG 
Semicon America, Inc. (``LGSA''). LG states that the Department should 
amend its computer program to ensure that duty assessment rates are 
calculated for each importer.
    The petitioner claims that the Department properly attributed the 
antidumping duties related to the unreported sales to LG. Petitioner 
therefore concludes that the Department should continue to calculate a 
single weighted-average assessment rate for LGSA as the importer.
    DOC Position: We agree with LG. As stated in the final results, we 
intended to calculate importer-specific assessment rates. We have 
corrected the computer program to ensure that an assessment rate is 
calculated for each importer of record in this review.

Hyundai

    Comment 1: Calculation of Duty Assessment Rate. Hyundai alleges 
that the Department mistakenly calculated its assessment rate by 
dividing the total antidumping duty by the total entered value of sales 
made during the POR. Hyundai argues that the Department should have 
divided the antidumping duty by the value of the entries made during 
the POR.
    Petitioner points out that the Department included only Hyundai's 
CEP sales in its calculation of an assessment rate. It mistakenly 
excluded the duties due and total value of further manufactured sales.
    DOC Position: We disagree with Hyundai. We intentionally based 
Hyundai's assessment rate on the entered value of the sales made during 
the POR. In our preliminary results, we stated that we ``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 the POR to the total customs value of the sales used 
to calculate those duties.'' See Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One Megabit or Above from the Republic of 
Korea, 63 FR 11411, March 9, 1998 (Preliminary Results) We received no 
comments from either respondent or petitioner regarding that 
methodology. However, in the final results, we stated that we 
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and 
dividing this amount by the total value of subject merchandise entered 
during the POR for each importer. The sentence should have read that we 
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and 
dividing this amount by the total entered value of sales of subject 
merchandise sold during the POR for each importer (emphasis added). We 
are amending these final results to reflect that assessment language.
    We agree with the petitioner. We mistakenly excluded the total 
value and duties related to the further manufactured sales. We have 
corrected the computer program to calculate an assessment rate for 
Hyundai based on its CEP sales as well as the further manufactured 
sales.

Amended Final Results

    We are clarifying the assessment language with respect to both LG 
and Hyundai and, as a result of our correction of the ministerial 
errors for LG, we have determined the following amended margin exists 
for LG for the period May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Amended weighted-
                Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                          percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LG..................................................                9.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is no change to Hyundai's weighted-average margin percentage 
as a result of the correction of ministerial errors in this review 
period.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondents 
directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon

[[Page 56909]]

publication of this notice of amended final results of review for all 
shipments of DRAMs from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a) of the Act: (1) For the company named above, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for merchandise 
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but 
covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate 
will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most 
recent final results which covered that manufacturer or exporter; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous 
segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise 
in these final results of review or in the most recent final results 
which covered that manufacturer; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous 
segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 3.85 percent, 
the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These 
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the 
final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary 
information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of 
the Department's regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction 
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
section 751(i) of the Act.

    Dated: October 16, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-28500 Filed 10-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P