[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 107 (Monday, June 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32305-32306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8684]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-812]


Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or 
Above From the Republic of Korea; Notice of Court Decision Not in 
Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 5, 2006, the United States Court of International 
Trade (the Court) sustained the final remand redetermination made by 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) pursuant to the Court's 
remand of the final results of the 1997-1998 administrative review of 
dynamic random access memory semiconductors of one megabit or above 
from the Republic of Korea. See Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., 
Ltd. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc., v. United States and Micron 
Technology, Inc., Court No. 00-01-00027, Slip Op. 06-46 (CIT 2006) 
(Hyundai IV). This case arises out of the Department's Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above From the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Order in Part, 64 FR 69694 
(December 14, 1999) (Final Results). The final judgment in this case 
was not in harmony with the Department's December 1999 Final Results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Trentham or Tom Futtner, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6320 
or 482-3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 16, 2004, the Court remanded the 
Department's Final Results, in Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co., 
Ltd., and Hyundai Electronics America Inc. v. United States and Micron 
Technology, Inc., 342 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (CIT 2004). In its remand, the 
Court ordered the Department to: (1) Recalculate LG Semicon's (LG's) 
dumping margin by application of adverse facts available (AFA) to only 
a portion of its U.S. sales; (2) provide additional information 
regarding the effect of non-subject merchandise research and 
development (R&D) on R&D for subject merchandise, or recalculate R&D 
costs on the most product-specific basis possible; (3) provide specific 
evidence showing how Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd. (Hyundai) 
and LG's actual R&D expenses for the review period are not reasonably 
accounted for in their amortized R&D costs, or accept their 
amortization of R&D expenses and; (4) provide additional information 
showing how R&D expenses that are currently deferred by Hyundai and LG 
affect production or revenue for the instant review period, or accept 
their deferral methodology.
    In Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co., Ltd., and Hyundai 
Electronics America Inc. v. United States and Micron Technology, Inc., 
395 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (CIT 2005) the Court sustained the Department's 
partial AFA rate for LG and its use of amortized R&D expenses for 
calculating Hyundai's and LG's respective costs of production. The 
Court remanded the Department's cross-fertilization determination with 
instructions to recalculate Hyundai's and LG's R&D expenses without 
application of the cross-fertilization theory, and also remanded the 
Department's recognition of all of Hyundai's and LG's 1997 R&D expenses 
for antidumping duty purposes with instructions to accept Hyundai's and 
LG's deferral methodology in calculating R&D expenses for their 
respective costs of production.
    In Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co., Ltd., and Hyundai 
Electronics America Inc. v. United States and Micron Technology, Inc., 
414 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (CIT 2006) (Hyundai III), the Court ordered that 
the Department's original findings rejecting LG's and Hyundai's cost 
amortization methodology, as stated in the Final

[[Page 32306]]

Results, be reinstated in accordance with Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. 
United States, 424 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
    The Department submitted its final results of redetermination on 
remand to the Court on February 23, 2006. On April 5, 2006, the Court 
sustained the Department's remand results in all respects. See, Hyundai 
Electronics Industries, Co., Ltd., and Hyundai Electronics America 
Inc., v. United States and Micron Technology, Inc., Court No. 00-01-
00027, Slip Op. 06-46 (CIT 2006).

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516a(e) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice 
of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department 
determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's decision in Hyundai IV on 
April 5, 2006, constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in 
harmony with the Department's Final Results. This notice is published 
in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, 
the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the 
subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, 
if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 30, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administation.
[FR Doc. E6-8684 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S