[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55764-55769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-580-851]


Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of 
Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on dynamic random access memory 
semiconductors from the Republic of Korea for the period January 1, 
2008, through August 10, 2008. We preliminarily find that Hynix 
Semiconductor, Inc. received countervailable subsidies during the 
period of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to assess

[[Page 55765]]

countervailing duties as detailed in the ``Preliminary Results of 
Review'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results. See the ``Public Comment'' 
section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: September 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler or Jennifer Meek, Office 
of AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3069, 14th 
Street, and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0189 and (202) 482-2778, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 11, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published a countervailing duty order on dynamic random access memory 
semiconductors (``DRAMS'') From the Republic of Korea (``Korea''). See 
Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 47546 (August 11, 
2003) (``CVD Order''). On August 14, 2009, we published a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' for this 
countervailing duty order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 41120 (August 14, 2009). On August 18, 
2009, we received a request for review from Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. 
(``Hynix''). On August 21, 2009, we received a request for review of 
Hynix and its affiliates from the petitioner, Micron Technology, Inc. 
(``Micron''). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published 
a notice of initiation of the review on September 22, 2009. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224 (September 22, 
2009).
    On December 22, 2009, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires 
to the Government of Korea (``GOK'') and Hynix. We received responses 
to these questionnaires on February 25, 2010, and February 26, 2010, 
from Hynix and the GOK, respectively. On May 27, 2010, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Hynix and the GOK. We received responses 
on June 3, 2010, and June 25, 2010, respectively.
    We received new subsidy allegations from Micron on October 5, 
2009.\1\ On December 22, 2009, we initiated an investigation of 
preferential income tax treatment for Hynix's 2001 and 2002 debt 
restructurings. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, 
``Sixth Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From Korea: New Subsidy Allegations 
Memorandum'' (December 22, 2009) (``NSA Memo''), available in the 
Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See submission from Micron to the Department, Re: Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Korea: New Subsidy 
Allegations (October 5, 2009) (``New Subsidy Allegations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2010, we published a postponement of the preliminary 
results in this review until September 7, 2010. See Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 20564 (April 20, 2010).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are DRAMS from Korea, whether 
assembled or unassembled. Assembled DRAMS include all package types. 
Unassembled DRAMS include processed wafers, uncut die, and cut die. 
Processed wafers fabricated in Korea, but assembled into finished 
semiconductors outside Korea are also included in the scope. Processed 
wafers fabricated outside Korea and assembled into finished 
semiconductors in Korea are not included in the scope.
    The scope of the order additionally includes memory modules 
containing DRAMS from Korea. A memory module is a collection of DRAMS, 
the sole function of which is memory. Memory modules include single in-
line processing modules, single in-line memory modules, dual in-line 
memory modules, small outline dual in-line memory modules, Rambus in-
line memory modules, and memory cards or other collections of DRAMS, 
whether unmounted or mounted on a circuit board. Modules that contain 
other parts that are needed to support the function of memory are 
covered. Only those modules that contain additional items which alter 
the function of the module to something other than memory, such as 
video graphics adapter boards and cards, are not included in the scope. 
The order also covers future DRAMS module types.
    The scope of the order additionally includes, but is not limited 
to, video random access memory and synchronous graphics random access 
memory, as well as various types of DRAMS, including fast page-mode, 
extended data-out, burst extended data-out, synchronous dynamic RAM, 
Rambus DRAM, and Double Data Rate DRAM. The scope also includes any 
future density, packaging, or assembling of DRAMS. Also included in the 
scope of the order are removable memory modules placed on motherboards, 
with or without a central processing unit, unless the importer of the 
motherboards certifies with U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') that neither it, nor a party related to it or under contract 
to it, will remove the modules from the motherboards after importation. 
The scope of the order does not include DRAMS or memory modules that 
are re-imported for repair or replacement.
    The DRAMS subject to the order are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 8542.21.8005, 8542.21.8020 through 8542.21.8030, and 
8542.32.0001 through 8542.32.0023 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS''). The memory modules containing DRAMS from 
Korea, described above, are currently classifiable under subheadings 
8473.30.1040, 8473.30.1080, 8473.30.1140, and 8473.30.1180 of the 
HTSUS. Removable memory modules placed on motherboards are classifiable 
under subheadings 8443.99.2500, 8443.99.2550, 8471.50.0085, 
8471.50.0150, 8517.30.5000, 8517.50.1000, 8517.50.5000, 8517.50.9000, 
8517.61.0000, 8517.62.0010, 8517.62.0050, 8517.69.0000, 8517.70.0000, 
8517.90.3400, 8517.90.3600, 8517.90.3800, 8517.90.4400, 8542.21.8005, 
8542.21.8020, 8542.21.8021, 8542.21.8022, 8542.21.8023, 8542.21.8024, 
8542.21.8025, 8542.21.8026, 8542.21.8027, 8542.21.8028, 8542.21.8029, 
8542.21.8030, 8542.31.0000, 8542.33.0000, 8542.39.0000, 8543.89.9300, 
and 8543.89.9600 of the HTSUS. However, the product description, and 
not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise 
imported into the United States falls within the scope.

Scope Rulings

    On December 29, 2004, the Department received a request from Cisco 
Systems, Inc., to determine whether removable memory modules placed on 
motherboards that are imported for repair or refurbishment are within 
the scope of the order. See CVD Order. The Department initiated a scope 
inquiry pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(e) on February 4, 2005. On January 
12, 2006, the Department issued a final

[[Page 55766]]

scope ruling, finding that removable memory modules placed on 
motherboards that are imported for repair or refurbishment are not 
within the scope of the CVD Order provided that the importer certifies 
that it will destroy any memory modules that are removed for repair or 
refurbishment. See Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys to David M. 
Spooner, regarding Final Scope Ruling, Countervailing Duty Order on 
DRAMs From the Republic of Korea (January 12, 2006).

Period of Review

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period 
of review (``POR''), is January 1, 2008, through August 10, 2008.

Changes in Ownership

    Effective June 30, 2003, the Department adopted a new methodology 
for analyzing privatizations in the countervailing duty context. See 
Notice of Final Modification of Agency Practice Under Section 123 of 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 2003). The 
Department's new methodology is based on a rebuttable ``baseline'' 
presumption that non-recurring, allocable subsidies continue to benefit 
the subsidy recipient throughout the allocation period (which normally 
corresponds to the average useful life (``AUL'') of the recipient's 
assets). However, an interested party may rebut this baseline 
presumption by demonstrating that, during the allocation period, a 
change in ownership occurred in which the former owner sold all or 
substantially all of a company or its assets, retaining no control of 
the company or its assets, and that the sale was an arm's-length 
transaction for fair market value. Hynix's ownership changed during the 
AUL period as a result of debt-to-equity conversions in December 2002 
and various asset sales. In addition, Hynix reported that its ownership 
changed in 2006 because Hynix's Share Management Council decreased its 
ownership share in Hynix from 50.6 percent to 36 percent. However, in 
this administrative review, Hynix did not challenge this baseline 
presumption. See Hynix's February 25, 2010, questionnaire response at 
13.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b), non-recurring subsidies are 
allocated over a period corresponding to the AUL of the renewable 
physical assets used to produce the subject merchandise. Section 
351.524(d)(2) of the Department's regulations creates a rebuttable 
presumption that the AUL will be taken from the U.S. Internal Revenue 
Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (the ``IRS 
Tables''). For DRAMS, the IRS Tables prescribe an AUL of five years. 
During this review, none of the interested parties disputed this 
allocation period. Therefore, we continue to allocate non-recurring 
benefits over the five-year AUL.

Discount Rates and Benchmarks for Loans

    For loans that we found countervailable in the investigation or in 
the prior administrative reviews, and which continued to be outstanding 
during the POR, we have used the benchmarks from the prior 
administrative reviews.
    For long-term, won-denominated loans originating in 1986 through 
1995, we used the average interest rate for three-year corporate bonds 
as reported by the Bank of Korea (``BOK'') or the International 
Monetary Fund's (``IMF's'') International Financial Statistics 
Yearbook.
    For long-term won-denominated loans that originated in the years in 
which we previously determined Hynix to be uncreditworthy (2000 through 
2003), we used the formula described in 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(iii) to 
determine the benchmark interest rate. We did not use the rates on 
Hynix's corporate bonds for 2000-2003 for any calculations because 
Hynix either did not obtain bonds or obtained bonds through 
countervailable debt restructurings during those years. For the 
probability of default by an uncreditworthy company, we used the 
average cumulative default rates reported for the Caa- to C-rated 
category of companies as published in Moody's Investors Service, 
``Historical Default Rates of Corporate Bond Issuers, 1920-1997'' 
(February 1998). For the probability of default by a creditworthy 
company, we used the cumulative default rates for investment grade 
bonds as published in Moody's Investors Service: ``Statistical Tables 
of Default Rates and Recovery Rates'' (February 1998). For the 
commercial interest rates charged to creditworthy borrowers, we used 
the rates for won-denominated corporate bonds as reported by the BOK 
and the U.S. dollar lending rates published by the IMF for each year.
    For countervailable short-term and long-term foreign currency-
denominated loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iv), we would 
normally use an annual average of the interest rates on comparable 
commercial loans during the year in which the government-provided loans 
were taken out. For countervailable variable-rate loans outstanding 
during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(i), we used the 
interest rates of variable-rate lending instruments issued during the 
year in which the government loans were issued. Where such loans were 
unavailable, the Department, consistent with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), 
followed our prior practice and relied upon lending rates reported in 
the IMF's International Financial Statistics Yearbook. See Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 37122 (June 23, 
2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 5-7.

Analysis of Programs

I. Program Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies--Income Tax 
Treatment of Hynix's Debt Restructurings

    In the NSA Memo, we initiated an investigation into the tax 
treatment of Hynix's debt restructurings under which Hynix issued 
shares in 2002 and 2003. In their respective February 25, 2010 and 
February 26, 2010, questionnaire responses, Hynix and the GOK responded 
to the Department's standard questions on this program and provided 
additional explanation. On May 27, 2010, we sent a supplemental 
questionnaire to the GOK on this program. The GOK responded on June 25, 
2010.
    Based on information in the GOK's and Hynix's responses, we 
preliminarily find the GOK's tax treatment of the debt-for-equity swap 
for which Hynix issued shares in 2002 to be countervailable.\2\ A 
ruling by the Korean tax authority in 2000 (Bubin 46012-1608, July 20, 
2000) established new rules for the tax treatment of debt-for-equity 
swaps by companies undergoing voluntary restructuring. The ruling 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the NSA Memo, we initiated an investigation into the 
GOK's tax treatment of the debt-for-equity swaps for which Hynix 
issued shares in 2002 and 2003. Based on proprietary information in 
Hynix's February 25, 2010, questionnaire response, however, we 
preliminarily find that only the 2002 issuance applies to this POR. 
See Memorandum from Shane Subler to Susan Kuhbach, ``Preliminary 
Results Calculations for Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.,'' (September 7, 
2010).

    In case a domestic corporation carries out debt-equity swap in 
accordance with the corporate normalization plan, with respect to 
the amount accounted, pursuant to the corporate financial accounting 
standards, as debt exemption gains resulting from the amount of 
difference between the issuance price of the concerned stock and its 
market price, said amount ought to be deemed as the

[[Page 55767]]

amount in excess of the par value of the stock shares issued * * * 
and as such, said amount shall not be included into the taxable 
income or deductible expense of each (applicable) business year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Micron's New Subsidy Allegations at 6 and Exhibit 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    General Korean tax principles treat decreased liabilities through 
the exemption or lapse of debts as a taxable gain for income tax 
purposes.\4\ Under the Bubin 46012-1608 ruling, however, the GOK deemed 
that any gain from debt forgiveness occurring through a debt-for-equity 
swap could be excluded from taxable income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Korean Taxation,'' Ministry of Finance and Economy 
(2005), at page 90, Chapter III, 5(a)(7); provided at Attachment 2 
of Micron's New Subsidy Allegations. Even though the guide is a 2005 
edition, the guide presents established Korean tax principles, not a 
set of new principles or rules for 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 7, 2002, in the context of its restructuring under the 
GOK's Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act (``CRPA''), Hynix converted 
bonds to equity and issued shares to its creditors. Hynix's 2002 
financial statements show that the issue price of these shares exceeded 
the market value of the shares on June 7, 2002.\5\ Because of the Bubin 
46012-1608 ruling, Hynix did not include the difference between the 
issue price and the market price of the shares as a gain for its 2002 
tax year taxable income. Due to losses and loss carryforwards in 2002 
and subsequent years, the exclusion of this amount from Hynix's taxable 
income in 2002 did not affect the amount of taxes owed by Hynix until 
tax year 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Hynix's financial statements show that the issue price of 
the shares was 708 won per share; the market price of Hynix's shares 
on June 7, 2002, was 390 won per share. See Hynix's 2002 Non-
Consolidated Financial Statements at page 60 (in Micron's New 
Subsidy Allegations at Attachment 7); see also Micron's New Subsidy 
Allegations at Attachment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily find that the exclusion of the gain from Hynix's 
taxable income constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning 
of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), because the GOK forewent income tax revenue that it otherwise 
would have collected in the absence of the exclusion. We also find that 
Hynix received a benefit under 19 CFR 351.509(a) because the exemption 
reduced the base (i.e., Hynix's taxable income) used to calculate 
Hynix's income taxes for the 2007 tax year. Thus, a benefit exists to 
the extent that the income taxes paid by Hynix as a result of the 
exclusion were less than the taxes Hynix would have paid in the absence 
of the exclusion. Regarding timing, under 19 CFR 351.509(b), the 
Department will normally consider the date of receipt of a benefit from 
a tax exemption or remission as the date on which the firm filed its 
tax return. Because Hynix received this benefit when it filed its 2007 
tax year tax return, we preliminarily find that Hynix received the 
benefit during the POR.
    Regarding specificity, in our May 27, 2010, supplemental 
questionnaire, we asked the GOK to report the number of companies that 
underwent debt-for-equity swaps in the ROK from 2001 through 2003. The 
GOK responded that it does not maintain information on which or how 
many companies went through debt-to-equity swaps during the period.\6\ 
Thus, record information does not allow us to determine actual use of 
the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the GOK's June 25, 2010, supplemental questionnaire 
response at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(1) of the Act states that the Department may use 
``facts available'' if necessary information is not on the record. 
Information in Hynix's financial statements and in a press release from 
the GOK's Financial Supervisory Service (``FSS'') shows that Hynix 
accounted for approximately 36 percent of the debt swapped for equity 
under the CRPA.\7\ We preliminarily determine that this percentage 
provides the best proxy for measuring Hynix's share of the benefit 
provided by the Bubin 46012-1608 ruling. We believe this is a 
reasonable measure because a company's share of the benefit provided by 
the exclusion is likely to be roughly equal to the company's share of 
debt-for-equity swaps under the CRPA. On this basis, we preliminarily 
find the exclusion to be specific to Hynix under section 
771(5A)(D)(iii)(III) of the Act because Hynix received a 
disproportionately large share of the income tax benefits relative to 
its size among all companies in Korea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Attachment 7 of Micron's New Subsidy Allegations 
(Hynix's 2002 Non-Consolidated Financial Statements at 60; see also 
id. at Attachment 8 (Hynix's 2003 Non-Consolidated Financial 
Statements at 45). The financial statements show that Hynix swapped 
debts totaling 4.84 trillion won for equity through the 2002 and 
2003 stock issuances. The FSS press release (Attachment 26 of 
Micron's New Subsidy Allegations) shows that companies swapped a 
total of 13.6 trillion won of debt for equity under the CRPA. Thus, 
4.84 trillion won / 13.6 trillion won = 36 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the benefit under this program, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.509(a), we divided the income taxes Hynix otherwise would have 
paid in the absence of the exclusion by Hynix's total sales during the 
POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Hynix received a 
countervailable subsidy of 2.84 percent ad valorem.

II. Programs Previously Determined To Confer Subsidies

    We examined the following programs determined to confer subsidies 
in the investigation and prior administrative reviews.
A. GOK Entrustment or Direction Prior to 2004
    In the investigation, the Department determined that the GOK 
entrusted or directed creditor banks to participate in financial 
restructuring programs, and to provide credit and other funds to Hynix, 
in order to assist Hynix through its financial difficulties. The 
financial assistance provided to Hynix by its creditors took various 
forms, including new loans, convertible and other bonds, extensions of 
maturities and interest rate reductions on existing debt (which we 
treated as new loans), Documents Against Acceptance financing, usance 
financing, overdraft lines of credit, debt forgiveness, and debt-for-
equity swaps. The Department determined that these were financial 
contributions that constituted countervailable subsidies during the 
period of investigation.
    In prior administrative reviews, the Department also found that the 
GOK continued to entrust or direct Hynix's creditors to provide 
financial assistance to Hynix throughout 2002 and 2003. The financial 
assistance provided to Hynix during this period included the December 
2002 debt-for-equity swap and the extensions of maturities and/or 
interest rate deductions on existing debt.
    With the exception of loans outstanding during the POR, all forms 
of assistance under GOK Entrustment or Direction Prior to 2004 were 
either fully allocated prior to the POR or were not outstanding during 
the POR. Thus, we have only calculated the benefit from loans 
outstanding during the POR. In calculating the benefit, we have 
followed the same methodology used in prior administrative reviews. We 
followed the methodology described at 19 CFR 351.505, using the 
benchmarks described in the ``Discount Rates and Benchmarks for Loans'' 
section above.
    We divided the total benefit from the outstanding loans by Hynix's 
POR sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy from this program to be less than 0.005 percent 
ad valorem during the POR. Therefore, consistent with our past 
practice, we did not include this program in our preliminary net 
countervailing duty rate. See, e.g., Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

[[Page 55768]]

Determination, 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at 15 (``CFS''); and Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from 
France, 70 FR 39998 (July 12, 2005), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at ``Purchases at Prices that Constitute `More than 
Adequate Remuneration,' '' (``Uranium from France'') (citing Notice of 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and 
Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber 
Products From Canada, 69 FR 75917 (December 20, 2004), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Other Programs Determined to Confer 
Subsidies'').
B. 21st Century Frontier R&D Program
    The 21st Century Frontier R&D Program (``21st Century Program'') 
was established in 1999 with a structure and governing regulatory 
framework similar to those of the G-7/HAN Program, and for a similar 
purpose, i.e., to promote greater competitiveness in science and 
technology. The 21st Century Program provides long-term interest-free 
loans in the form of matching funds. Repayment of program funds is made 
in the form of ``technology usance fees'' upon completion of the 
project, pursuant to a schedule established under a technology 
execution or implementation contract.
    Hynix reported that it had loans from the 21st Century Program 
outstanding during the POR. See Hynix's February 25, 2010 questionnaire 
response at 16-17 and Exhibit 10.
    In the investigation, we determined that this program conferred a 
countervailable subsidy on Hynix. No interested party provided new 
evidence that would lead us to reconsider our earlier finding. 
Therefore, we continue to find that these loans confer a 
countervailable subsidy.
    To calculate the benefit of these loans during the POR, we compared 
the interest actually paid on the loans during the POR to what Hynix 
would have paid under the benchmark described in the ``Discount Rates 
and Benchmarks for Loans'' section above. We then divided the benefit 
by Hynix's total sales in the POR to calculate the countervailable 
subsidy rate. On this basis, we preliminarily find countervailable 
benefits of less than 0.005 percent ad valorem during the POR. 
Therefore, consistent with our past practice, we did not include this 
program in our preliminary net countervailing duty rate. See CFS and 
Uranium from France.
C. Import Duty Reduction Program for Certain Factory Automation Items
    Article 95(1).4 of the Korean Customs Act provides for import duty 
reductions on imports of ``machines, instruments and facilities 
(including the constituent machines and tools) and key parts designated 
by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy for a factory 
automatization applying machines, electronics or data processing 
techniques.''
    Hynix reported that it had received duty reductions under this 
program during the POR. See Hynix's February 25, 2010 questionnaire 
response at 17-18 and Exhibit 13.
    In a prior administrative review, the Department found that the 
above program provided a financial contribution in the form of revenue 
forgone and a benefit in the amount of the duty savings. See Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 14218 
(March 17, 2008), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at 6--7 and Comment 6. The Department also found the program to be de 
facto specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(III) of the Act. Id. No 
interested party provided new evidence that would lead us to reconsider 
our earlier finding. Therefore, we continue to find that these duty 
reductions confer a countervailable subsidy.
    To calculate the benefit, we divided the total duty savings Hynix 
received during the POR by Hynix's total sales during the POR. On this 
basis, we preliminarily find countervailable benefits of less than 
0.005 percent ad valorem during the POR. Therefore, consistent with our 
past practice, we did not include this program in our preliminary net 
countervailing duty rate. See CFS and Uranium from France.
D. Import-Export Bank of Korea Import Financing
    As outlined in Article 18, paragraph 1, subparagraph 4 of the 
Import-Export Bank of Korea (``KEXIM'') Act, the ``Import Financing 
Program'' is provided to Korean importers to facilitate their purchase 
of essential materials, major resources, and operating equipment, the 
stable and timely supply of which is essential to the stability of the 
general economy. The equipment and materials eligible to be imported 
under the program fall under 13 headings listed in Article 14 of the 
KEXIM Business Manual. The listed items range from raw materials to 
factory automation equipment and include products and materials 
described in government notices.
    Further, according to the GOK, any Korean company is eligible for 
the ``Import Financing Program'' as long as the equipment or material 
appears under the 13 headings of eligible items, the company can 
satisfy the financial criteria laid out in ``KEXIM's Credit Extension 
Regulation,'' and KEXIM's Credit Extension Committee approves the 
financing application. Regarding the last item, the GOK stated that all 
decisions to offer this financing are based on the application and 
financial status of the applicant company.
    Hynix carried balances into the POR on loans received from KEXIM 
under this program in 2006 and 2007. See Hynix's February 25, 2010 
supplemental questionnaire response at 18 and Exhibit 10.
    In a prior administrative review, the Department found that the 
above program provided a financial contribution pursuant to sections 
771(5)(B)(i) and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and also provided benefits 
equal to the difference between what Hynix paid on its loans and the 
amount it would have paid on comparable commercials loans within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act. See Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 60238, 60239 (November 
20, 2009). The Department also found the program to be de facto 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act. 
Id. No interested party provided new evidence that would lead us to 
reconsider our earlier finding. Therefore, we continue to find this 
program to be countervailable.
    To calculate the benefit under this program, we used the benchmarks 
described in the ``Discount Rates and Benchmarks for Loans'' section 
above, as well as the methodology described in 19 CFR 351.505. We then 
divided the benefit during the POR by Hynix's total sales during the 
POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Hynix received a 
countervailable subsidy of 0.10 percent ad valorem under this program.

III. Programs Preliminarily Found To Have Provided No Benefits

A. KEXIM Short-Term Export Financing
    KEXIM provides short-term export financing to small-, medium- and 
large-sized companies (not including companies included in the largest 
five conglomerates in the ROK, unless the company's headquarters is 
located

[[Page 55769]]

outside the Seoul Metropolitan area). The loans are not tied to 
particular export transactions. However, a company, along with the 
financing application, must provide its export performance periodically 
for review by KEXIM. Further, any loan agreement may only cover an 
amount ranging from 50 to 90 percent of the company's export 
performance up to 30 billion won.
    Hynix carried a balance on a loan under this program during the POR 
and provided documentation (e.g. loan application, approval document, 
and loan agreement), as well as data regarding the loan amount and 
interest paid during the POR. See Hynix's February 25, 2010 
questionnaire response at Exhibits 10, 12, and 18. Based on Hynix's 
submitted interest payment information for this loan, we preliminarily 
determine that the interest Hynix paid was greater than the interest 
Hynix would have paid under the benchmark interest rate. Thus, we 
preliminarily determine that Hynix received no benefit from these loans 
during the POR.
B. Export Insurance
    At pages 22-25 of its February 25, 2010, questionnaire response, 
Hynix reported that it purchased short-term export insurance from the 
Korea Export Insurance Corporation (``KEIC'') during the POR. On page 1 
of its supplemental questionnaire response dated June 3, 2010, Hynix 
stated that it received no insurance payouts from the KEIC during the 
POR and otherwise made no claims on KEIC insurance.
    Under 19 CFR 351.520(a)(2), the Department will normally calculate 
the benefit from an export insurance program as the difference between 
the amount of premiums paid by the firm and the amount received by the 
firm under the insurance program. Because Hynix stated that it did not 
receive any payouts from the KEIC during the POR, we preliminarily 
determine that Hynix received no benefit from this program during the 
POR.

IV. Programs Previously Found Not To Have Been Used or Provided No 
Benefits

    We preliminarily determine that the following programs were not 
used during the POR:
    A. Reserve for Research and Human Resources Development (formerly 
Technological Development Reserve) (Article 9 of the Restriction of 
Special Taxation Act (``RSTA'')/formerly, Article 8 of Tax Reduction 
and Exemption Control Act (``TERCL''))
    B. Tax Credit for Investment in Facilities for Productivity 
Enhancement (Article 24 of RSTA/Article 25 of TERCL)
    C. Tax Credit for Investment in Facilities for Special Purposes 
(Article 25 of RSTA)
    D. Reserve for Overseas Market Development (formerly, Article 17 of 
TERCL)
    E. Reserve for Export Loss (formerly, Article 16 of TERCL)
    F. Tax Exemption for Foreign Technicians (Article 18 of RSTA)
    G. Reduction of Tax Regarding the Movement of a Factory That Has 
Been Operated for More Than Five Years (Article 71 of RSTA)
    H. Tax Reductions or Exemption on Foreign Investments under Article 
9 of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (``FIPA'')/FIPA (Formerly 
Foreign Capital Inducement Law)
    I. Duty Drawback on Non-Physically Incorporated Items and Excessive 
Loss Rates
    J. Electricity Discounts Under the Requested Load Adjustment 
(``RLA'') Program
    K. Import Duty Reduction for Cutting Edge Products
    L. System IC 2010 Project
    M. Operation G-7/HAN Program

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for Hynix, the producer/exporter covered by 
this administrative review. We preliminarily determine that the total 
estimated net countervailable subsidy rate for Hynix for the POR is 
2.94 percent ad valorem.
    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
this review, 15 days after publication of the final results of this 
review the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of DRAMS 
by Hynix entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from 
January 1, 2008, through August 10, 2008, at 2.94 percent ad valorem of 
the entered value.
    On October 3, 2008, the Department published a Federal Register 
notice that, inter alia, revoked this order, effective August 11, 2008. 
See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of 
Korea: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Order, 73 FR 
57594 (October 3, 2008). As a result, CBP is no longer suspending 
liquidation for entries of subject merchandise occurring after the 
revocation. Therefore, there is no need to issue new cash deposit 
instructions in the final results of this administrative review.

Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later 
than five days after the date of filing the case briefs. Parties who 
submit briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the 
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs 
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f).
    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice. Unless otherwise specified, the 
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date 
for submission of rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these 
preliminary results.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-22889 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P