[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 118 (Monday, June 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34413-34414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13945]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS-296]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) 
from Korea

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative 
(``USTR'') is providing notice that on November 19, 2003, the 
Government of the Republic of Korea requested the establishment of a 
dispute settlement panel under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization (``WTO Agreement'') regarding the U.S. 
countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation on dynamic random access 
memory semiconductors (``DRAMS'') from Korea. Korea alleges that 
determinations made in this investigation are inconsistent with 
Articles 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, and 32.1 of the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (``SCM Agreement''), and Articles 
VI:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT 
1994''). USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the 
issues raised in this dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted on or before July 7, 2004, to be assured of timely 
consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to 
[email protected], with ``Korea DRAMS (DS296)'' in the subject line, or 
(ii) by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640, with a confirmation 
copy sent electronically to the address above, in accordance with the 
requirements for submission set out below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William D. Hunter, Associate General 
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-
3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA'') (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice 
and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits 
or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement 
panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that 
consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO Dispute 
Settlement Understanding (``DSU''). If a dispute settlement panel is 
established, such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, 
Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its findings and 
recommendations within six to nine months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by Korea

    With respect to the measures at issue, Korea's panel request refers 
to the following:
     The affirmative preliminary CVD determination by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce (``Commerce''), 68 FR 16766 (April 7, 2003);
     The affirmative final CVD determination by Commerce, 68 FR 
37122 (June 23, 2003);
     The affirmative final injury determination by the U.S. 
International Trade Commission (``USITC''), 67 FR 47607 (August 11, 
2003), and USITC Pub. 3617 (August 2003);
     The CVD order by Commerce, 68 FR 47546 (August 11, 2003).
    With respect to the claims of WTO-inconsistency, Korea's panel 
request refers to the following:
     With respect to the Commerce determinations:
     Commerce failed to demonstrate the existence of a 
financial contribution by the Government of Korea with respect to

[[Page 34414]]

each distinct financial transaction at issue in its subsidy 
investigation.
     Commerce assumed that every Korean private financial 
institution involved in its subsidy investigation was under the 
direction or entrustment of the Government of Korea;
     Commerce failed to demonstrate that a benefit was 
conferred on the respondent Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. (``Hynix''), 
given available market benchmarks among Hynix's creditors;
     Commerce disregarded market benchmarks for measuring 
benefit established by a foreign bank operating in the Korean market 
that extended financing to Hynix during the period of investigation;
     Commerce failed to utilize relevant market benchmarks in 
determining whether Hynix was ``creditworthy'' or ``equityworthy'' and 
Commerce's application of an improper ``uncreditworthy'' benchmark and 
discount rate in calculating the benefit to Hynix;
     Commerce levied countervailing duties in excess of the 
amount allowed;
     Commerce imposed an improper burden of proof on the 
Government of Korea and Hynix;
     Commerce disregarded the fact that many Korean companies 
underwent debt restructuring similar to that undergone by Hynix; and
     Commerce conducted various private verification meetings 
in the territory of Korea, at which the Government of Korea had no 
representatives, over the explicit objection of the Government of 
Korea.
     With respect to the ITC determinations:
     The ITC determinations on injury and causation were not 
based on positive evidence and an objective assessment of the effects 
of allegedly subsidized imports;
     The ITC determinations on injury and causation improperly 
assessed the significance of the volume and price effects of subject 
imports;
     The ITC improperly assessed the overall condition of the 
domestic industry;
     The ITC improperly ignored the definition of domestic 
industry as set forth in Article 16 of the SCM Agreement, defined the 
domestic industry and imports inconsistently, and thus distorted the 
volume of imports and the effects thereof on the domestic industry;
     The ITC failed to demonstrate the requisite causal link 
between subject imports and injury, improperly assessed the role of 
other factors, and improperly attributed the effect of other factors to 
the allegedly subsidized imports; and
     The ITC's injury determination did not set forth in 
sufficient detail the ITC's findings and conclusions on all material 
issues of fact and law.
     With respect to the CVD order, the order was not imposed 
in accordance with the relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement or the 
relevant provisions of the GATT 1994.

Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons submitting 
comments may either send one copy by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-
3640, or transmit a copy electronically to [email protected], with 
``Korea DRAMS (DS296)'' in the subject line. For documents sent by fax, 
USTR requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy 
electronically to the electronic mail address listed above. USTR 
encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as 
attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make 
submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover 
letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be 
included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, 
any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file 
as the submission itself, and not as separate files.
    A person requesting that information contained in a comment 
submitted by that person be treated as confidential business 
information must certify that such information is business confidential 
and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. 
Confidential business information must be clearly marked ``BUSINESS 
CONFIDENTIAL'' at the top and bottom of the cover page and each 
succeeding page of the submission.
    Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than 
business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be 
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitting person believes that 
information or advice may qualify as such, the submitting person--
    (1) Must so designate the information or advice;
    (2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE'' 
at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page of the 
submission; and
    (3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the 
information or advice.
    Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR 
will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible 
to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-
confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to 
the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened, the U.S. 
submissions to that panel, the submissions, or non-confidential 
summaries of submissions, to the panel received from other participants 
in the dispute, as well as the report of the panel; and, if applicable, 
the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public 
file (Docket No. WT/DS-296, Korea DRAMS, may be made by calling the 
USTR Reading Room at (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to 
the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.

Daniel E. Brinza,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 04-13945 Filed 6-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W4-P