[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28983-28991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13684]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-583-832]


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above (``DRAMs'') From Taiwan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Futtner at (202) 482-3814, 
Alexander Amdur at (202) 482-5346 (Etron), Ronald Trentham at (202) 
482-6320 (MVI), Nova Daly at (202) 482-0989 (Nanya), or John Conniff at 
(202) 482-1009 (Vanguard), Group II, Office 4, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, 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 Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 
CFR Part 351 (1998).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that DRAMs from Taiwan 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.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 1997 to 
September 30, 1998.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation on November 18, 1998 
(Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 64040 (November 18, 
1998) (Notice of Initiation)), the following events have occurred:
    On November 13, 1998, the Department sent a cable to the American 
Institute in Taiwan requesting information identifying producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise. We did not receive a response to 
our request. On November 17, 1998, the Department requested comments 
from the petitioner and potential respondents regarding model matching 
criteria. In the Notice of Initiation, the Department requested that 
parties submit any comments regarding the scope of the investigation. 
On December 1, 1998, the respondents, Powerchip Semiconductor Corp., 
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., 
Mitsubishi Semiconductor America, Inc., Alliance Semiconductor 
Corporation and Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association submitted 
comments on the model matching criteria. We did not receive any 
comments regarding the scope language used for this investigation.
    In December 1998, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') 
issued its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from Taiwan. See ITC 
investigation No. 731-TA-811, 63 FR, 69304 (December 16, 1998).
    On December 4, 1998, Acer Semiconductor Manufacturing Inc. 
(``Acer'') requested that the Department not issue Acer a 
questionnaire.
    On December 8, 1998, based on information contained in the 
petition, the Department issued questionnaires to the following 
companies: Acer, Alliance Semiconductor Corporation

[[Page 28984]]

(``Alliance''), Etron Technology, Inc. (``Etron''), G-Link Technology 
Corp. (``G-Link''), Macronix International Co., Ltd. (``Macronix''), 
Mosel-Vitelic, Inc (``MVI''), Nan Ya Technology Corporation 
(``Nanya''), Powerchip Semiconductor Corp. (``Powerchip''), Taiwan 
Memory Technology, Inc. (``TMT''), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 
Corporation (``TSMC''), United Microelectronics Corporation (``UMC''), 
Vanguard International Semiconductor Corp. (``Vanguard''), and Winbond 
Electronics (``Winbond'').
    On December 18, 1998, based on additional research, the Department 
issued partial Section A questionnaires to the following companies: 
Fujitsu Ltd. (``Fujitsu''), Integrated Silicon Solutions, Inc. 
(``ISSI''), Matsushita Electronics Corporation (``Matsushita''), 
Monolithic Technology Systems, Inc. (``MoSys''), Siemens A.G. 
(``Siemens''), and Toshiba Corporation (``Toshiba'').
    In January 1999, the Department received responses to Section A and 
partial Section A questionnaires from all of the respondents. On 
January 6, 1999, Etron requested that it be selected as a mandatory 
respondent. On January 15, 1999, the Department decided to limit the 
number of respondents and notified Etron, MVI, Nanya and Vanguard that 
they had been selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation. 
On January 21, 1999, the Department notified Acer, Alliance, Fujitsu, 
G-Link, ISSI, Macronix, Matsushita, Mosys, Powerchip, Siemens, TMT, 
TSMC, Toshiba, UMC and Winbond that they had not been selected as 
mandatory respondents. See Memorandum on Respondent Selection, dated 
January 15, 1999 (``Respondent Selection Memo''). On January 21, 1999, 
Powerchip requested that it be selected as a mandatory respondent. On 
January 26, 1999, Powerchip withdrew its request.
    In its January 5, 1999 Section A response, MVI requested that it 
not be required to report certain U. S. sales made by an affiliate 
during the last five days of the POI, and all U.S. sales of memory 
modules that were further-manufactured in the United States by an 
affiliate. On January 26, 1999, the petitioner submitted a letter to 
the Department opposing only the exclusion request of MVI's U.S. sales 
of memory modules that were further-manufactured in the United States 
by an affiliate. On February 2, 1999, the Department granted MVI's 
request. See ``Transactions Excluded'' section of this notice.
    On January 25, 1999, Etron requested that the Department exclude 
from its analysis and from the reporting requirements that portion of 
Etron's U.S. sales which Etron characterized as constructed export 
price (``CEP'') sales. On January 28, 1999, the petitioner submitted a 
letter to the Department opposing Etron's request to exclude these 
sales. On February 2, 1999, the Department granted Etron's request. See 
``Transactions Excluded'' section of this notice.
    We received comments from the petitioner concerning the information 
reported in the respondents' Section A questionnaire responses in 
February 1999. In February 1999, we received comments from Etron, MVI 
and Siemens in reply to the petitioner's comments.
    On February 4, 1999, Compaq Computer Corporation (``Compaq'') 
requested that the Department establish per megabit cash deposit rates 
for imports of certain memory modules containing DRAMs from Taiwan. See 
``Per Megabit Cash Deposit Rates for Certain Memory Modules'' section 
of this notice.
    On February 11, 1999, the Department issued supplemental Section A 
questionnaires to the respondents and received responses to these 
questionnaires in February and March of 1999.
    On February 18, 1999, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, 
the petitioner made a timely request to postpone the preliminary 
determination. On February 22, 1999, we granted this request and 
postponed the preliminary determination until no later than May 21, 
1999. See 64 FR 10443, March 4, 1999.
    In March 1999, we received comments from the petitioner concerning 
the information reported in the respondents' Section B, C and D 
questionnaire responses. We issued supplemental Section B, C and D 
questionnaires in March, April and May 1999, and received responses to 
these questionnaires in those same months.
    On May 3, 1999, we received comments from the petitioner on the 
calculation of the respondents' dumping margins. On May 12 and 13, 
1999, Vanguard and Etron, respectively, submitted rebuttals to the 
petitioner's comments.
    On May 14, 1999, we received information from the petitioner 
concerning cross-fertilization of research and development (``R&D'') 
among semiconductor products.
    On May 14, 1999, we also received responses from all of the 
respondents to supplemental Section D questionnaires. Due to the lack 
of time to analyze these responses before the preliminary 
determination, we will consider these responses for the purposes of 
verification and the final determination.

Respondent Selection

    Based on the information received from the responding companies in 
their Section A responses, the Department determined that it did not 
have the administrative resources to investigate all known producers 
and/or exporters of DRAMs from Taiwan during the POI. Accordingly, the 
Department decided to limit the number of mandatory respondents in this 
investigation to four companies which had the largest sales volumes of 
DRAMs to the United States during the POI, pursuant to section 777A(c) 
of the Act. See Respondent Selection Memorandum. These companies are: 
Etron, MVI, Nanya and Vanguard.
    On March 29, 1999, MoSys requested that it be selected as a 
respondent in this investigation. The Department denied MoSys' request 
on the basis that it did not meet the selection criteria as explained 
above, and that the request was untimely.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on May 10, 1999, MVI, 
Nanya and Vanguard, and on May 12, 1999, Etron, requested that, in the 
event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until 
not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal Register, and 
extend the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more 
than six months. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because (1) 
our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) Etron, MVI, Nanya and 
Vanguard account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are 
granting the respondents' request and are postponing the final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be 
extended accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are DRAMs of one megabit 
or above from Taiwan, whether assembled or unassembled. Assembled DRAMs 
include all package types. Unassembled DRAMs include processed wafers, 
uncut die and cut die. Processed wafers fabricated in Taiwan, but 
packaged or assembled into finished semiconductors in a third country, 
are included in the scope. Wafers fabricated

[[Page 28985]]

in a third country and assembled or packaged in Taiwan are not included 
in the scope.
    The scope of this investigation 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''), dual in-line memory modules 
(``DIMMs''), memory cards or other collections of DRAMs whether mounted 
or unmounted on a circuit board. Modules that contain other parts that 
are needed to support the function of memory are covered. Only those 
modules that contain additional items that 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. Modules 
containing DRAMs made from wafers fabricated in Taiwan, but either 
assembled or packaged into finished semiconductors in a third country, 
are also included in the scope.
    The scope includes, but is not limited to, video RAM (``VRAM''), 
Windows RAM (``WRAM''), synchronous graphics RAM (``SGRAM''), as well 
as various types of DRAMs, including fast page-mode (``FPM''), extended 
data-out (``EDO''), burst extended data-out (``BEDO''), synchronous 
dynamic RAM (``SDRAMs''), and ``Rambus'' DRAMs (``RDRAMs''). The scope 
of this investigation also includes any future density, packaging or 
assembling of DRAMs. The scope of this investigation does not include 
DRAMs or memory modules that are reimported for repair or replacement.
    The DRAMs subject to this investigation are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 8542.13.80.05 and 8542.13.80.24 through 8542.13.80.34 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). 
Also included in the scope are Taiwanese DRAMs modules, described 
above, entered into the United States under subheading 8473.30.10 
through 8473.30.90 of the HTSUS or possibly other HTSUS numbers. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Affiliation and Collapsing

    Pursuant to section 771 (33) of the Act, the Department shall 
consider the following persons to be ``affiliated'' or ``affiliated 
persons'':

    (A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether 
by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal 
descendants.
    (B) Any officer or director of an organization and such 
organization.
    (C) Partners.
    (D) Employer and employee.
    (E) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or 
holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding 
voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization.
    (F) Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, 
controlled by, or under common control with, any person.
    (G) Any person who controls any other person and such other 
person.

    For the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to 
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.
    Section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations outlines the 
criteria for collapsing (i.e., treating as a single entity) affiliated 
producers. Pursuant to section 351.401(f), the Department will treat 
two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where (1) those 
producers have production facilities for similar or identical products 
that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in 
order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and (2) the Department 
concludes that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of 
price or production.
    In identifying a significant potential for the manipulation of 
price or production, the Department may consider the following factors:

    (i) the level of common ownership;
    (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board members 
of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and
    (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the 
sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing 
decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant 
transactions between the affiliated producers.

A. Etron and Vanguard

    The Department has preliminarily determined that Etron and Vanguard 
were not under the common control of the Lu family, and not affiliated, 
under section 771(33)(F) of the Act during the POI. Based upon the 
information contained in the administrative record, the Department 
found that the Lu family, including Chau-Chun Lu, the Chairman and CEO 
of Etron, was in position of legal and operational control of Etron 
during the POI. However, the Department also determined that the Lu 
family, and specifically, C.Y. Lu, the President of Vanguard during the 
last five months of the POI, was not in a position to exercise 
restraint or direction over Vanguard. As a result, we have preliminary 
determined that Etron and Vanguard are not affiliated. Because of the 
proprietary nature of certain aspects of these relationships, for a 
detailed discussion, see Memorandum on Whether Etron Technology, Inc. 
and Vanguard International Semiconductor Corporation are Affiliated 
Under Section 771(33) of the Act, dated May 21, 1999.

B. MVI and ProMOS Technologies Inc. (``ProMOS'')

    ProMOS is a joint venture between MVI and Siemens. Pursuant to 
section 771(33)(E) of the Act and the Department's practice in this 
area, the Department has preliminarily determined that MVI is 
affiliated with ProMOS because MVI has a 59 percent equity interest in 
ProMOS.

C. MVI and Siemens

    As noted above, MVI and Siemens are partners in the joint venture, 
ProMOS. MVI has a 59 percent equity interest in ProMOS, while Siemens 
retains a 37 percent equity share in the venture. The Department has 
preliminarily determined that, under section 771(33)(F) of the Act, MVI 
and Siemens are affiliated by virtue of their joint control of ProMOS. 
However, we have preliminarily determined not to collapse these 
entities, given that we found that there is no potential to influence 
the pricing or production decisions between MVI and Siemens. See 
Memorandum Re: Affiliation Between Mosel Vitelic, Inc. (MVI), and 
ProMOS Technologies, Inc. (ProMOS), Affiliation Between MVI and Siemens 
Aktiengesellschaft (Siemens) and Whether to collapse ProMOS with MVI, 
dated May 21, 1999 (``MVI, ProMOS, Siemens Affiliation Memo'').

D. Collapsing MVI and ProMOS

    In determining whether to collapse affiliated producers of the 
subject merchandise, the Department's regulations provide a two-prong 
test. According to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), the Department will treat two 
or more affiliated producers as a single entity where (1) those 
producers have production facilities for similar or identical products 
that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in 
order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and (2) the Department 
concludes that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of 
price or production.
    Section 771(28) of the Act explains that the term ``producer'' 
means the ``producer of the subject merchandise.'' As further clarified 
under 19 CFR 351.401(h), the Department ``will not

[[Page 28986]]

consider a toller or subcontractor to be a manufacturer or producer 
where the toller or subcontractor does not acquire ownership, and does 
not control the relevant sale of, the subject merchandise or foreign 
like product.''
    Based upon our analysis of the terms of the shareholders and 
purchase agreements between MVI and Siemens, we find that ProMOS is not 
a ``producer'' of the subject merchandise within the meaning of section 
771(28) of the Act. Rather, the terms of the agreements indicate that 
ProMOS is a ``subcontractor,'' as defined by 19 CFR 351.401(h). Given 
that ProMOS did not acquire ownership and did not control the sale of 
its merchandise, we preliminary determine that, under 19 CFR 
351.401(h), ProMOS served as a subcontractor to MVI and should be 
treated as such in our analysis. See MVI, ProMOS, Siemens Affiliation 
Memo.
    Our determination is consistent with the Department's current 
policy on subcontracted operations. For example, in the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 
Memory Semiconductor from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909 (February 23, 1998) 
(``SRAMs from Taiwan''), the Department decided to exclude a foundry, 
as a respondent, because it did not control the production of wafers. 
The Department determined that it was the design house, rather than the 
foundry, which retained ownership of the wafers at all stages of 
production. The design house in that case subcontracted the production 
of processed wafers with the foundry and determined how many wafers 
would be produced. The foundry had no right to sell the wafers to any 
party other than the design house. Further, the design house arranged 
for the subsequent steps in the production process. See also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Certain forged 
Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 58 FR 68853, 68855 (Dec. 29, 1993).
    Given that ProMOS is not a producer but a subcontractor under 19 
CFR 351.401(h) and that it does not sell subject merchandise, we 
determine that the collapsing is not appropriate in this case. See MVI, 
ProMOS, Siemens Affiliation Memo.

E. MVI and ChipMOS Technologies Inc., (``ChipMOS'')

    ChipMOS is a joint venture between MVI and Silconware Precision 
Industries Co., Ltd. (``SPI''), pursuant to a joint venture agreement 
between MVI and SPI. Pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act and the 
Department's practice in this area, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that MVI is affiliated with ChipMOS because MVI has a 48 
percent equity interest in ChipMOS.
    According to information on the record, ChipMOS is engaged in the 
testing and packaging of integrated circuits. As such, ChipMOS is not a 
producer of the subject merchandise. Because ChipMOS is neither a 
producer or seller of the subject merchandise, the question of 
collapsing MVI and ChipMOS is moot. See Memorandum Re: Affiliation 
Between Mosel Vitelic, Inc. (MVI), and ChipMOS Technologies, Inc. 
(ChipMOS), Affiliation Between MVI and Siliconware Precision Industries 
Co., Ltd. (SPI), and Collapsing MVI and ChipMOS, dated, May 21, 1999 
(``MVI, ChipMOS, SPI Affiliation Memo''). However, as mentioned above, 
we intend to examine the relationship between MVI, ChipMOS and SPI more 
closely at verification.

F. MVI and SPI

    As noted above, MVI and SPI are partners in the joint venture, 
ChipMOS. According to the joint venture agreement, MVI and SPI own 48 
percent and 30 percent of ChipMOS, respectively. The Department has 
preliminarily determined that, under section 771(33)(F) of the Act, MVI 
and SPI are affiliated by virtue of their joint control of ChipMOS.
    According to information on the record, SPI is engaged in the 
testing and packaging of integrated circuits. As such, SPI is not a 
producer of the subject merchandise. Because SPI is neither a producer 
or seller of the subject merchandise, the question of collapsing MVI 
and SPI is moot. See MVI, ChipMOS, SPI Affiliation Memo.

Treatment of Foundry Sales

    During the course of this investigation, we found that Nanya and 
Vanguard, two of the companies selected as respondents, also acted as 
foundries for DRAM design houses. As foundries, they processed DRAM 
wafers according to designs provided by the design houses. In other 
words, they did not control the production of the processed wafers in 
question but merely translated the design of other companies into 
actual products. The record evidence indicates that the design houses 
then arranged for the probing, testing and assembly of the processed 
wafers into individual DRAMs that the design houses ultimately sold to 
unaffiliated purchasers.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(h), and consistent with the 
Department's determination in SRAMs from Taiwan, 63 FR at 8918-8919, we 
have determined that, for the transactions in question, the design 
house controls the production, and ultimate sale, of the subject 
merchandise. Consequently, we did not include these foundry sales in 
our analysis of sales of subject merchandise by Nanya and Vanguard for 
purposes of this investigation. For further discussion, see Memorandum 
Regarding Design Houses and Foundries, dated May 21, 1999.

Per Megabit Cash Deposit Rates for Certain Memory Modules

    On February 4, 1999, Compaq requested that the Department establish 
per megabit cash deposit rates for imports of certain memory modules 
containing DRAMs from Taiwan, consistent with the Department's decision 
in the LTFV investigation of DRAMs from the Republic of Korea. See 
Final Determination of Sales at LTFV: Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from the Republic of Korea, 58 
FR 15467 (March 23, 1993) (``DRAMs from Korea''). Compaq noted that 
non-subject DRAMs or components could be subject to cash deposit 
requirements when individual memory modules imported into the United 
States include subject DRAMs as well as other non-subject components. 
Compaq states that the per megabit cash deposit method would allow 
Compaq and other importers to limit their cash deposits solely to 
subject merchandise that the Department finds is dumped.
    Consistent with the practice established in the LFTV investigation 
of DRAMs from Korea, the Department is establishing per megabit cash 
deposit rates to be applied to memory modules containing subject and 
non-subject merchandise. For a detailed discussion, see Memorandum on 
Application of a Per Megabit Cash Deposit Rate on Memory Modules, dated 
May 21, 1999.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value (``NV'') based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the export 
price (``EP'') or CEP. The NV LOT 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, the U.S. LOT is 
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the 
exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is

[[Page 28987]]

the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine 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 LOT, 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 LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT 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 Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov.19, 1997).
    None of the respondents claimed a LOT adjustment. Nevertheless, we 
evaluated whether a LOT adjustment was necessary by examining each 
respondent's distribution system, including selling functions, classes 
of customers, and selling expenses. For Etron, we found that the 
selling functions are sufficiently similar in the United States and the 
home market to consider them at the same LOT in the two markets. 
Accordingly, all comparisons are at the same LOT and an adjustment 
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not warranted. For 
further discussion, see Memorandum on Level of Trade Analysis--Etron 
Technology, Inc., dated May 21, 1999.
    For MVI, Nanya and Vanguard, after making deductions pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act, we found that the selling functions 
performed at the CEP LOT were sufficiently different from the selling 
functions performed at the NV LOT to consider these to be different 
LOTs. We therefore evaluated whether the difference in LOT affected 
price comparability. The effect on price comparability must be 
demonstrated by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales 
at the two relevant LOTs in the comparison market. However, because the 
POI sales of the merchandise under investigation in the comparison 
market for all three respondents were at only one LOT, we were unable 
to determine whether there was a pattern of consistent price 
differences.
    The Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') provides that, 
``if information on the same product and company is not available, the 
LOT adjustment may also be based on sales of other products by the same 
company. In the absence of any sales, including those in recent time 
periods, to different LOTs by the exporter or producer under 
investigation, the Department may further consider the selling expenses 
of other producers in the foreign market for the same product or other 
products.'' See SAA at 830. In accordance with the SAA, we have 
considered alternative sources of information to make the necessary LOT 
adjustment. However, we did not have information on the record that 
would allow us to examine or apply these alternative methods for 
calculating a LOT adjustment.
    Since we were unable to quantify a LOT adjustment based on a 
pattern of consistent price differences, in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a CEP offset to MVI, Nanya and 
Vanguard, given that all of the comparison sales in the home market 
were at a more advanced LOT than the sales to the United States. For 
further discussion of these issues, see Memoranda on Level of Trade 
Analyses--Mosel-Vitelic, Inc., Nan Ya Technology Corporation, and 
Vanguard International Semiconductor Corp., dated May 21, 1999.

Transactions Excluded

    The Department granted Etron's and MVI's requests not to report 
certain U.S. sales based on their representation that these 
transactions account for an insignificant portion of their U.S. sales. 
Specifically, the Department granted Etron's request not to report that 
portion of Etron's U.S. sales which Etron characterized in its Section 
A response as CEP sales. The Department also granted MVI's request not 
to report certain home market and U.S. sales made by an affiliate 
during the last five days of the POI, and all U.S. sales of memory 
modules that were further-manufactured in the United States by an 
affiliate. See letters from the Department to Etron and MVI dated 
February 2, 1999.
    In addition, the Department excluded certain other sales from its 
analysis. Etron and MVI reported sales of non-prime merchandise in the 
home market during the POI. However, given the limited home market 
sales quantity of non-prime merchandise, and the fact that no such 
sales were made to the United States during the POI, we excluded non-
prime sales from our analysis in accordance with our past practice. 
See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 
58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993).
    We also excluded from our analysis free samples provided for no 
consideration in either the home or U.S. markets, in accordance with 
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 969 F.Supp. 34 (CIT 1997). For a detailed 
discussion and analysis of Etron's free samples, see Memorandum on 
Etron Technology, Inc.: Company-Specific Issues for the Preliminary 
Determination, dated May 21, 1999 (``Etron Issue Memo''). For Etron, we 
also excluded from our analysis certain sales that Etron made to third 
countries but originally reported as home market sales. See Memorandum 
on Etron Technology, Inc.: Calculations for the Preliminary 
Determination, dated May 21, 1999.
    For Nanya, we excluded from our analysis those sales to affiliated 
customers in the home market which were not made at arm's-length prices 
because we considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. 
See 19 CFR 351.102(b). To test whether these sales were made at arm's-
length prices, we compared, on a model-specific basis, prices of sales 
to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of discounts, all movement 
charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested 
models of subject merchandise, prices to an affiliated party were on 
average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, 
we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's 
length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) and Preamble to the Department's 
regulations; 62 FR at 27355. In instances where no affiliated-customer 
price ratio could be constructed for an affiliated customer because 
identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were 
unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's-length prices 
and, therefore, excluded them from our LTFV analysis. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 
1993). Where the exclusion of such sales eliminated all sales of the 
most appropriate comparison product, we made a comparison to the next 
most similar model.

[[Page 28988]]

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 normal values to 
the weighted average of the EPs or CEPs. Generally, the Department will 
compare sales and conduct the sales below cost test 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. 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3) 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); DRAMs from 
Korea, 58 FR at 15476 and SRAMs from Taiwan; 63 FR 8911. As was 
demonstrated in each of these cases, the semiconductor industry is 
characterized by significant and consistent price and cost declines 
over time. The evidence on the record in this investigation shows the 
same pattern. Therefore, for this case, the Department has compared 
prices and conducted the sales below cost test using quarterly data. 
However, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we 
conducted the recovery of cost test using annual cost data.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of DRAMs from Taiwan to the United 
States were made at LTFV, we compared the EP or the CEP to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export 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 EPs 
or CEPs 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 Sections B and C 
of the Department's antidumping questionnaire.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

    For Etron, we based our calculations on EP, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, when the subject merchandise was first sold 
(or offered for sale) by the exporter outside of the United States to 
an unaffiliated purchaser before the date of importation into the 
United States, and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. In 
addition, for Etron, MVI, Nanya and Vanguard, when the subject 
merchandise was first sold in the United States by or for the account 
of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, 
we used CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
    Vanguard classified some of its sales of DRAMs in the United States 
as EP sales in its questionnaire response, including those sales made 
prior to importation through a U.S. affiliate or, in some cases, 
unaffiliated U.S. sales agents. Etron classified all of its sales of 
DRAMs in the United States as EP sales in its questionnaire response, 
including those sales made prior to importation through an unaffiliated 
U.S. sales representative. To determine whether Etron's and Vanguard's 
sales involving affiliates, agents or sales representatives are 
properly classified as EP sales, we have examined three criteria: (1) 
whether the merchandise was shipped directly from the manufacturer to 
the unaffiliated U.S. customer; (2) whether the sales follow customary 
commercial channels between the parties involved; and (3) whether the 
function of the U.S. affiliate or selling agent is limited to that of a 
``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a ``communication 
link'' with the unrelated U.S. buyer. Only when all criteria are met 
does the Department treat the sales as EP sales. See, e.g., E.I. Du 
Pont v. United States, 841 F. Supp. 1237, 1248-50 (CIT 1993); AK Steel 
Corp. v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 97-05-00865, 1998 WL 
846764 at 6 (CIT 1998). In other words, where the factors indicate that 
the activities of the U.S. affiliate and selling agent are ancillary to 
the sale (e.g., arranging transportation or customs clearance), we 
treat the transactions as EP sales. Where the U.S. affiliate or selling 
agent is substantially involved in the sales process (e.g., negotiating 
prices), we treat the transactions as CEP sales. See Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 18389, 18391 (April 15, 1997).
    Based on our review of the selling activities of Vanguard's U.S. 
affiliate and unaffiliated U.S. selling agents, we reclassified 
Vanguard's U.S. sales of DRAMs through its U.S. affiliate and 
unaffiliated U.S. selling agents as CEP sales because the agents and 
the affiliate acted as more than a ``processor of sales-related 
documentation'' and a ``communication link'' with the unaffiliated U.S. 
customer. For further discussion of this issue, see Memorandum on 
Whether to Treat Vanguard International Semiconductors' (Vanguard's) 
U.S. Sales of Subject Merchandise During the Period of Investigation as 
Export Price Sales, as Claimed by Vanguard, or as Constructed Export 
Price Sales, dated March 26, 1999.
    Furthermore, we reclassified Etron's U.S. sales of DRAMs through 
its unaffiliated U.S. sales representative as CEP sales because the 
sales representative acted as more than a ``processor of sales-related 
documentation'' and a ``communication link'' with the unaffiliated U.S. 
customer. For further discussion of this issue, see Memorandum on 
Whether Etron Technology's U.S. Sales Made Through An Unaffiliated 
Sales Representative Are Export Price or Constructed Export Price 
Sales, dated May 21,1999.

A. Export Price

    For Etron, we calculated EP based on packed, delivered and FOB 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
adjustments to the starting price for discounts and other price 
adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 
and handling expenses, international freight, marine insurance pursuant 
to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

B. Constructed Export Price

    For all respondents, we calculated CEP based on the packed, 
delivered and FOB price to the first unaffiliated customer in the 
United States in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We made 
adjustments to the starting price for discounts and other price 
adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for discounts, 
science-industrial park charges, postal charges, foreign inland freight 
and insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. duty and U.S. brokerage and warehousing 
expenses, as appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made additional 
adjustments to the starting price by deducting direct and indirect 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States, including credit expenses and

[[Page 28989]]

commissions. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in 
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. However, for 
Etron and Vanguard, because the deduction of the commission results, in 
certain cases, in a price corresponding to an EP, in these cases we 
have not made any additional deduction of CEP profit. See Certain Fresh 
Cut Flowers from Colombia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287 (October 14, 1997).

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability, whether sales to affiliates 
were at arm's-length prices, and whether home market sales were at 
below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-Price 
Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparisons'' sections of this notice.
1. Home Market Viability
    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we 
compared each respondent's 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 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 for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
was viable for each respondent.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

    Based on the cost allegation contained in the petition, the 
Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in 
the home market were made at prices below the cost of production 
(``COP''), in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. As a 
result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether 
the respondents made home market sales during the POI at prices below 
their respective COPs, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. 
See Notice of Initiation. We conducted the COP analysis described 
below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
quarterly weighted-average COP based on the sum of each respondent's 
cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for SG&A and packing costs. We preliminarily determine 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 the cross-fertilization of semiconductor R&D. See Memorandum 
regarding Cross Fertilization of Research and Development in the 
Semiconductor Industry, dated May 21, 1999.
    We relied on the COP and CV data submitted by Etron, MVI, Nanya and 
Vanguard, adjusted as discussed below, to compute quarterly weighted-
average COPs during the POI. In cases where there was no production 
within the same quarter as a given sale, we referred to the most recent 
quarter, prior to the sale, for which costs had been reported. In cases 
where there was no cost reported for either the same quarter as the 
sale, or for a prior quarter, we used the reported costs from the 
closest subsequent quarter in which production occurred.
    We made company-specific adjustments to the reported COP as 
follows:
    Etron: 1. We included stock bonuses paid to employees in the 
calculation of Etron's cost of manufacturing (``COM'').
    2. We recalculated Etron's R&D expense rate by excluding revenue 
earned from R&D projects performed for outside parties from the R&D 
expenses, and dividing the recalculated R&D expenses by cost of goods 
sold plus R&D expenses and the bonus adjustment.
    3. We adjusted Etron's general and administrative (``G&A'') expense 
ratio to include an amount for inventory write-offs.
    4. We adjusted Etron's G&A and interest expense rates after 
increasing the cost of goods sold by the amount of the bonus 
adjustment.
    See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo for Etron 
dated, May 21, 1999.
    MVI: 1. MVI claimed a startup adjustment for wafers produced at 
ProMOS, its new fab facility. We disallowed the claimed startup 
adjustment because ProMOS reached commercial production levels prior to 
the start of the POI.
    2. We included ProMOS'' G&A and R&D expenses in the COP for wafers 
purchased from ProMOS.
    3. Pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act, and section 351.407(b) 
of the Department's regulations, we compared the transfer price paid by 
MVI to ProMOS for wafers to ProMOS'' COP for these wafers. For the 
fourth quarter of the POI, we increased MVI's reported cost for these 
wafers to the higher of COP or transfer price.
    4. We recalculated the stock bonuses using the market value at the 
declaration date. We included the stock bonus amount (i.e. profit 
sharing) in COM. We excluded packing costs from the cost of goods sold 
used in the denominator of the rate.
    5. We recalculated the G&A rate based on unconsolidated amounts and 
excluded packing costs from the denominator.
    6. We recalculated the financial expense rate by excluding the 
dividend income offset from the net financial expense used in the 
numerator of the rate, and by excluding packing costs from the cost of 
goods sold used in the denominator of the rate. In addition, we also 
excluded the net exchange gains offset since the claimed offset did not 
agree with the amount presented on the audited financial statements.
    7. We recalculated MVI's R&D expense rate using R&D for all 
semiconductors divided by MVI's unconsolidated cost of goods sold plus 
bonuses. We also excluded packing costs from the cost of goods sold 
used in the denominator of the R&D rate.
    See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo for MVI dated, 
May 21, 1999.
    Nanya: Pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act, and section 
351.407(b) of the Department's regulations, for DRAM assembly and test 
performed by affiliates, we used the higher of cost, transfer price, or 
market price.
    2. We adjusted the reported R&D rate to include all of Nanya's 
semiconductor R&D expenses divided by company-wide cost of goods sold.
    3. We reclassified expenses incurred by Genesis Semiconductor, Inc. 
(GSI), a U.S. affiliate of Nanya that performs DRAM R&D, as R&D 
expense.
    4. We adjusted Nanya's reported G&A expenses to include certain 
``other revenue'' items.
    5. We recalculated Nanya's reported production-related royalty 
expense ratio by dividing the total expense incurred by the cost of 
goods sold for DRAMs.
    6. Since wafers processed in a country other than Taiwan are not 
subject to this investigation, we have excluded the costs and sales of 
fully-processed wafers purchased from a third country.
    See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo for Nanya, 
dated May 21, 1999.
    Vanguard: 1. Pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act, and section 
351.407(b) of the Department's regulations, for DRAM assembly performed 
by an affiliate, we adjusted the reported cost to the highest of cost, 
transfer price, or market price.
    2. We adjusted the R&D expense rate by including all R&D expenses 
divided by cost of goods sold.

[[Page 28990]]

    3. We reduced G&A expenses by other operating income and sales 
administrative fees and included losses on sales of fixed assets and 
other non-operating charges.
    See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo for Vanguard 
dated, May 21, 1999.

B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    We compared the weighted-average quarterly COP figures for each 
respondent, adjusted where appropriate (see above), 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 the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were 
made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, 
and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific 
basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable 
movement charges, discounts and rebates, other selling expenses and 
home market packing.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than 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) of the Act. To determine whether the below cost 
sales were at prices which permit recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time, we tested whether the prices which were below the per-
unit COP at the time of the sale (i.e., the quarterly cost) were below 
the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POI, in accordance with 
section 773 (b)(2)(D). If they were, we disregarded below-cost sales in 
determining NV.
    We found that, for all respondents, for certain models of DRAMs, 
more than 20 percent of the home market sales within an extended period 
of time were at prices less than COP. Further, the prices did not 
permit for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
therefore disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining 
above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1). For those U.S. sales of DRAMs for which there were 
no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared EPs or CEPs to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 
Act.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
G&A expenses, U.S. packing costs, direct and indirect selling expenses, 
interest expenses, R&D expenses and profit. We made adjustments to each 
respondent's reported cost as indicated above in the COP section. 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 Taiwan. Where 
respondents made no home market sales in the ordinary course of trade 
(i.e., all sales failed the cost test), we based profit and SG&A 
expenses on the weighted average of the profit and SG&A data computed 
for those respondents with home market sales of the foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For each company, we calculated NV based on packed, delivered and 
FOB prices to unaffiliated home market customers and, for Nanya, on 
prices to affiliated customers that were determined to be at arm's 
length. For Etron, we calculated NV based on the unit prices, and the 
currency of those unit prices, that were listed on its invoices. For 
all respondents, we made adjustments to the starting price for 
discounts and other price adjustments. We made deductions for foreign 
inland freight, insurance, industrial park charges and bonded warehouse 
expenses, where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where 
appropriate, for differences in royalties, commissions credit, 
discounts and bank charges. In cases where a respondent paid a 
commission on U.S. sales, and paid no commission on the matching home 
market sales, in calculating NV, we offset these commissions using the 
weighted-average amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the 
home market sales for the comparison product, up to the amount of the 
U.S. commissions. In cases where a respondent paid a commission on home 
market sales, and paid no commission on the matching U.S. sales, in 
calculating NV, we offset these commissions using the weighted-average 
amount of indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs 
incurred on the U.S. sales (or for CEP sales, the weighted-average 
amount of such expenses that are not associated with economic 
activities in the United States) for the comparison product, up to the 
amount of the home market commissions. See 19 CFR 351.410(e) and Notice 
of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 63 FR 
43661, 43670-43671 (August 14, 1998).
    For Etron, MVI and Vanguard, where the respondent has not yet 
received payment for certain transactions, we used the date of the 
preliminary determination as the date of payment to calculate credit, 
in accordance with the Department's established practice. See, e.g., 
SRAMs from Taiwan, 62 FR at 51446. We also adjusted Etron's and MVI's 
inventory carrying costs to account for the adjustments made to the 
COM, as specified above. For Etron, we also reclassified reported home 
market warranty expense as an inventory write-off (see Etron Issue 
Memo) and recalculated U.S. indirect selling expenses using the amount 
of the gross sales prices in U.S. dollars, the currency in which Etron 
made its U.S. sales.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we 
made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Where CV was compared to 
EP, we deducted from CV the weighted-average home market direct selling 
expenses incurred on sales made in the ordinary course of trade and 
added the weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling 
expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Where 
CV was compared to CEP, we deducted from CV the weighted-average home 
market direct selling expenses (which included credit expenses) 
incurred on sales made in the ordinary course of trade.

[[Page 28991]]

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
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. 
Further, 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 
method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 
(March 8, 1996).) 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 New Taiwan 
dollar and, for Vanguard, the Japanese Yen, did not undergo a sustained 
movement during the POI.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information determined to be acceptable for use 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 all imports of subject 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the 
chart below. For memory modules containing both subject and non-subject 
merchandise, we will instruct Customs to require a cash deposit or the 
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dollar amount per 
megabit by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the 
chart below (see ``Per Megabit Cash Deposit Rates for Certain Memory 
Modules'' section of this notice). These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-
average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Weighted-         Weighted-
        Exporter/manufacturer          average margin      average per
                                         percentage       megabit rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etron Technology, Inc...............              4.96             $0.03
Mosel-Vitelic, Inc..................             30.89              0.11
Nan Ya Technology Corporation.......              9.03              0.01
Vanguard International Semiconductor             10.36              0.24
 Corp...............................
All Others..........................             16.65              0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must 
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no 
later than July 19, 1999, and rebuttal briefs no later than July 26, 
1999. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues 
must accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such 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 afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing 
will be held on July 27, 1999, with the 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 and place of the hearing 48 hours before the 
scheduled date.
    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 thirty 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 no later than 135 days after the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 773(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 21, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-13684 Filed 5-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P