[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22520-22525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-827]


Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by various interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on static random access memory semiconductors 
from Taiwan. This review covers the U.S. sales and/or entries of four 
manufacturers/exporters. In addition, we are rescinding this review 
with respect to one company. The period of review is April 1, 1999, 
through March 31, 2000.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by each of the companies subject to this review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, Office of AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0656.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), in April 2000, the 
following two producers/exporters of SRAMs requested an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on SRAMs from Taiwan: Galvantech, 
Inc. (Galvantech), and GSI Technology, Inc. (GSI Technology). In 
addition, the petitioner, Micron Technology, Inc., requested an 
administrative review of GSI Technology, as well as G-Link Technology 
(G-Link), Integrated Silicon Solution Inc. (ISSI), and Winbond 
Electronics Corporation (Winbond).
    In May 2000, the Department initiated an administrative review for 
each of these companies (65 FR 35320 (June 2, 2000)) and issued 
questionnaires to them.
    On June 16, 2000, the Department extended the time limit for 
completion of the preliminary results until April 30, 2001. See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan: Notice of Extension of 
Time Limits for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 38809 
(June 22, 2000).
    In December 2000, we received responses to sections A through C of 
the questionnaire (i.e., the sections relating to general information, 
home market sales, and U.S. sales) from each of the respondents. In 
addition, we also received responses to section D of the questionnaire 
(i.e., the section relating to cost of production (COP)/constructed 
value (CV)) from all companies except Galvantech.
    On January 9, 2001, the petitioner alleged that Galvantech was 
selling at prices below the COP in its home market. Based on an 
analysis of this allegation, the Department initiated an investigation 
to determine whether Galvantech made home market sales during the 
period of review (POR) at

[[Page 22521]]

prices below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. 
Consequently, we required Galvantech to submit a response to section D 
of the questionnaire.
    In January 2001, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to G-Link. 
We received a response to this questionnaire in February 2001.
    In February 2001, we issued supplemental questionnaires to GSI 
Technology and Winbond. We received responses to these questionnaires 
in March 2001.
    On February 5, 2001, Galvantech withdrew its request for an 
administrative review. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review with 
respect to Galvantech. For further discussion, see the ``Partial 
Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
    In March 2001, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to ISSI. We 
received a response to this questionnaire in April 2001.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are synchronous, asynchronous, 
and specialty SRAMs from Taiwan, whether assembled or unassembled. 
Assembled SRAMs include all package types. Unassembled SRAMs include 
processed wafers or die, uncut die and cut die. Processed wafers 
produced in Taiwan, but packaged, or assembled into memory modules in a 
third country, are included in the scope; processed wafers produced in 
a third country and assembled or packaged in Taiwan are not included in 
the scope. The scope of this review includes modules containing SRAMs. 
Such modules include single in-line processing modules, single in-line 
memory modules, dual in-line memory modules, memory cards, or other 
collections of SRAMs, whether unmounted or mounted on a circuit board. 
The scope of this review does not include SRAMs that are physically 
integrated with other components of a motherboard in such a manner as 
to constitute one inseparable amalgam (i.e., SRAMs soldered onto 
motherboards). The SRAMs within the scope of this review are currently 
classifiable under subheadings 8542.13.8037 through 8542.13.8049, 
8473.30.10 through 8473.30.90, 8542.13.8005, and 8542.14.8004 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, on February 5, 2001, Galvantech withdrew its 
request for an administrative review. No other interested party 
requested a review of sales of merchandise produced or exported by 
Galvantech during the POR. Although Galvantech asked to withdraw its 
review request after the 90-day time limit specified in 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), the review had not yet progressed beyond a point where 
it would have been unreasonable to allow Galvantech to withdraw its 
request for review. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) 
and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding our review with 
respect to Galvantech. For further discussion, see the February 8, 
2001, memorandum from the Team to Louis Apple, entitled ``Request by 
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation to Withdraw its Request for an 
Administrative Review in the 1999-2000 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan.''

Duty Absorption

    On June 26, 2000, the petitioner requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR 
by the respondents. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the 
Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review 
initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or 
exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an affiliated importer. Because each respondent sold to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States through an importer that is 
affiliated, and because this review was initiated two years after the 
publication of the order, we will make a duty absorption determination 
in this segment of the proceeding within the meaning of section 
751(a)(4) of the Act.
    On July 11, 2000, the Department requested evidence from each 
respondent to demonstrate that U.S. purchasers will pay any ultimately 
assessed duties charged to them. The Department requested that this 
information be provided no later than December 11, 2000. No respondent 
provided such evidence. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined 
that duty absorption by all respondents has occurred in this 
administrative review. As our analysis of the dumping margins may be 
modified in our final results, if interested parties wish to submit 
evidence that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay 
any ultimately assessed duty charged to affiliated importers, they must 
do so no later than 15 days after publication of these preliminary 
results. Any such information will be considered by the Department if 
we determine in our final results that there are dumping margins on the 
respondents' U.S. sales.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SRAMs from Taiwan to the United 
States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared the 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV for each respondent as 
specified in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice, below.
    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the foreign market as described 
in the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were 
in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the foreign market made in the ordinary course of trade 
to compare to U.S. sales in the same quarter, we compared U.S. sales to 
sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary 
course of trade within the quarter, or to CV, as appropriate.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade as the CEP. The NV level of trade is that of 
the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based 
on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For CEP, the U.S. level of 
trade 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 CEP sales, 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 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

[[Page 22522]]

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 (Nov. 
19, 1997).
    G-Link claimed that it made home market sales at only one level of 
trade, while GSI Technology, ISSI, and Winbond claimed that they made 
home market sales at two levels of trade (i.e., to original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs) and distributors). We examined the selling 
activities at each reported marketing stage for each respondent and 
found that there was no substantive difference in the selling functions 
performed at any of these alleged stages. Consequently, we determine 
that only one level of trade exists with respect to sales made by these 
companies to all home market customers.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a level of 
trade which constituted a more advanced stage of distribution than the 
level of trade of the CEP, we compared the selling functions performed 
for home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP 
transaction, which excludes economic activities occurring in the United 
States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
    Based on this comparison, we found that G-Link performed 
essentially the same selling functions in its sales offices in Taiwan 
for home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, G-Link's home market sales 
were not at a more advanced stage of marketing and distribution than 
the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents an F.O.B. foreign 
port price after the deduction of expenses associated with U.S. selling 
activities. Because we find that no difference in level of trade exits 
between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset to G-Link.
    Regarding GSI Technology, we found that this respondent generally 
performed all selling functions for certain home market sales at its 
head office in the United States, while it performed additional selling 
functions for its remaining home market sales through an affiliated 
party in Taiwan. We also found that this respondent performed all of 
the selling functions related to its U.S. sales at its U.S. office. 
These selling functions are associated with those expenses which we 
deduct from the CEP starting price, as specified in section 772(d) of 
the Act. Therefore, we find that GSI Technology's sales in the home 
market were at a more advanced stage of marketing and distribution 
(i.e., more remote from the factory) than the constructed U.S. level of 
trade.
    Similarly, we found that ISSI performed a number of selling 
functions and services related to home market sales at its sales office 
in the United States, in addition to the selling functions performed 
with respect to these sales by the affiliated entity in Taiwan. We also 
found that this respondent performed the majority of the selling 
functions related to its U.S. sales at its U.S. office. These selling 
functions are associated with those expenses which we deduct from the 
CEP starting price, as specified in section 772(d) of the Act. 
Therefore, we find that ISSI's sales in the home market were at a more 
advanced stage of marketing and distribution (i.e., more remote from 
the factory) than the constructed U.S. level of trade.
    Finally, regarding Winbond, we found that this company performed 
most of the selling functions and services related to U.S. sales at its 
sales office in the United States. These selling functions are 
associated with those expenses which we deduct from the CEP starting 
price, as specified in section 772(d) of the Act. Therefore, we find 
that Winbond's sales in the home market were at a more advanced stage 
of marketing and distribution (i.e., more remote from the factory) than 
the constructed U.S. level of trade.
    Because GSI Technology, ISSI, and Winbond sell at only one level of 
trade in the home market, we find that the difference in the levels of 
trade between the home and U.S. markets cannot be quantified. Because 
the difference in the levels of trade cannot be quantified, but the 
home market is at a more advanced level of trade, we have granted a CEP 
offset to GSI Technology, ISSI, and Winbond. For a detailed explanation 
of our analysis for all four respondents, see the memorandum from the 
Team to Louis Apple, entitled ``Concurrence Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of the 1999-2000 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan,'' 
dated April 30, 2001.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP 
methodology because all sales took place after importation into the 
United States.

A. G-Link

    We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, international freight, foreign inland insurance, marine 
insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. merchandise processing fees, U.S. 
warehousing, and U.S. freight expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
commissions, credit expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, 
including U.S. inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP. In 
accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit 
rate using the expenses incurred by G-Link and its affiliate on their 
sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign 
like product in the home market and the profit associated with those 
sales.

B. GSI Technology

    We based CEP on the starting price to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions 
from the starting price for discounts. We also made deductions for 
foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing, international freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. merchandise processing fees, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
credit expenses, commissions, warranty expenses, and U.S. indirect 
selling expenses, including U.S. inventory carrying costs and other 
indirect selling expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by GSI Technology and its affiliate on their 
sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign 
like product in the home market and the profit associated with those 
sales.

C. ISSI

    We based CEP on the starting price to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions 
from the starting price for billing adjustments and discounts. However, 
we disallowed the negative discounts reported by ISSI because it has 
not demonstrated that these credits

[[Page 22523]]

related to POR sales. We also made deductions for foreign inland 
freight, foreign warehousing, foreign brokerage and handling, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 
merchandise processing fees, U.S. harbor maintenance fees, and U.S. 
warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
credit expenses, commissions, repacking expenses, and U.S. indirect 
selling expenses, including U.S. inventory carrying costs and other 
indirect selling expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP. In 
accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit 
rate using the expenses incurred by ISSI and its affiliate on their 
sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign 
like product in the home market and the profit associated with those 
sales.

D. Winbond

    We based CEP on the starting price to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import duties in Taiwan. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions for foreign inland freight, 
foreign warehousing, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, inland 
insurance, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. merchandise 
processing fees, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
commissions, credit expenses, and U.S. indirect selling expenses, 
including U.S. inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling 
expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP. In 
accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit 
rate using the expenses incurred by Winbond and its affiliate on their 
sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign 
like product in the home market and the profit associated with those 
sales.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the foreign market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b). Based on this 
comparison, we determined that each of the respondents had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales for each respondent.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that each respondent had made 
home market sales at prices below their COPs in this review. In the 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the Department disregarded 
below-cost sales for ISSI made in the home market. (See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8913 (Feb. 23, 1998).) 
Also, in the most recently completed administrative review, the 
Department disregarded below-cost sales for G-Link, GSI Technology, and 
Winbond (ISSI was not reviewed). (See Static Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 55005 (Sep. 12, 2000).) 
As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine 
whether each respondent made home market sales during the POR at prices 
below their COPs.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product in each quarter 
of the POR, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses and 
financing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We compared the weighted-average quarterly COP figures to home 
market prices 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 their respective COPs. On a product-specific 
basis, we compared the COP to foreign market prices, less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, selling expenses, and 
packing expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard foreign market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: 1) in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and 2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below 
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 a respondent's sales of a given product 
were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of that model were 
made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. To 
determine whether prices provided for recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time, we tested whether the prices which were 
below the per-unit cost of production at the time of the sale were also 
below the weighted-average per-unit cost of production for the POR, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D). If they were, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales in determining NV. We did not disregard any below-cost 
sales for GSI Technology.
    We found that, for certain models of SRAMs, more than 20 percent of 
each respondent's foreign market sales within an extended period of 
time were at prices below the COP. Further, the prices did not provide 
for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
therefore disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales 
as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act. For those U.S. sales of SRAMs for which there were no 
comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared CEP to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A (including financing expenses), profit, and U.S. packing costs. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A, 
financing expenses, and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by 
each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in 
the foreign country.
    Company-specific calculations are discussed below.

A. G-Link

    Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the 
starting price for foreign inland freight and foreign inland insurance, 
where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

[[Page 22524]]

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we also made 
deductions for home market credit expenses.
    Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset 
any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by home market 
indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.
    For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6) of the Act. 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.
    Where NV was based on CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-average 
foreign market direct selling expenses, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act. Where applicable, we offset 
any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the amount of 
home market indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of the U.S. 
commission.

B. GSI Technology

    We based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated customers. We 
made deductions from the starting price for foreign warehousing, where 
appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we also made deductions for home 
market credit expenses and commissions.
    We deducted home market indirect selling expenses, including 
inventory carrying costs, advertising expenses, and other indirect 
selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling expenses 
incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 
Act. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset 
any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home 
market indirect selling expenses remaining after the deduction for the 
CEP offset, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.
    For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6) of the Act. 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.
    Where NV was based on CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-average 
home market direct selling expenses and commissions, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a CEP offset adjustment, 
calculated as noted above. Where applicable, we offset any commission 
paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home market selling 
expenses remaining after the deduction of the CEP offset, up to the 
amount of the U.S. commission.

C. ISSI

    Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers, less rebates, where 
appropriate. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight and foreign inland insurance, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we also made deductions for home market 
credit expenses, bank charges, and industrial park administration fees, 
where appropriate.
    We deducted home market indirect selling expenses, including 
inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses, up to the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Where applicable, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a 
U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home market selling expenses 
remaining after the deduction for the CEP offset, up to the amount of 
the U.S. commission.
    In addition, 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 the 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.
    Where NV was based on CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-average 
home market direct selling expenses, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act. In accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a CEP offset adjustment, calculated 
as explained above. Where applicable, we offset any commission paid on 
a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home market indirect selling 
expenses remaining after the deduction for the CEP offset, up to the 
amount of the U.S. commission.

D. Winbond

    Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers, less billing adjustments, 
early payment discounts, and quality discounts, where appropriate. We 
made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, and foreign inland insurance, pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we also made deductions for home market 
credit expenses and trade development fees, where appropriate.
    We deducted home market indirect selling expenses, including 
inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses, up to the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Where applicable, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a 
U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home market selling expenses 
remaining after the deduction for the CEP offset, up to the amount of 
the U.S. commission.
    In addition, 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.
    Where NV was based on CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-average 
foreign market direct selling expenses, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act. In accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a CEP offset adjustment, calculated 
as explained above. Where applicable, we offset any commission paid on 
a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home market indirect selling 
expenses remaining after the deduction for the CEP offset, up to the 
amount of the U.S. commission.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, 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) of the Act 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 for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.

[[Page 22525]]

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period April 1, 1999, through March 31, 
2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-Link Technology..........................................        10.68
GSI Technology, Inc........................................         4.22
Integrated Silicon Solution Inc............................        16.25
Winbond Electronics Corp...................................         0.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days 
after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will 
publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such case briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these 
preliminary results.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
each importer's sales during the POR. These rates will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries of particular importers made during the POR. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service 
to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries for any 
importer for whom the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 
0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of SRAMs from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for G-Link, GSI 
Technology, ISSI, and Winbond will be the rates established in the 
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 
percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 41.75 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.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective January 20, 
2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: April 30, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-11310 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P