Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Order

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-580-812]

Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or

Above from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review and notice of intent not to revoke order.

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

[[Page 12795]]

SUMMARY: In response to requests from two respondents and one U.S.

producer, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on dynamic random

access memory semiconductors of one megabit or above from the Republic

of Korea. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States for the period of May 1, 1995 through

April 30, 1996.

As a result of the review, the Department has preliminarily

determined that no dumping margins exist for both respondents. We

intend not to revoke the order on DRAMs from Korea.

If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service not to

assess antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on

these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of

the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas F. Futtner, AD/CVD Enforcement

Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in

the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

On May 10, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register

(58 FR 27250) the antidumping duty order on dynamic random access

memory semiconductors (DRAMs) from the Republic of Korea. On May 8,

1996, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review'' of this antidumping duty order for the period

of May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996 (61 FR 20791). We received

timely requests for review from two manufacturers/exporters of subject

merchandise to the United States: Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co.

(Hyundai), and LG Semicon Co., Ltd. (LGS, formerly Goldstar Electron

Co., Ltd.). The petitioner, Micron Technologies Inc., requested an

administrative review of these same two Korean manufacturers of DRAMs.

On June 25, 1996, the Department initiated a review of the above Korean

manufacturers (61 FR 32771). The period of review (POR) for all

respondents was May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996. The Department is

conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

In addition, on June 25, 1996, we automatically initiated an

investigation to determine if Hyundai and LGS made sales of subject

merchandise below the cost of production (COP) during the POR based

upon the fact that we disregarded sales found to have been made below

the COP in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation,

which was the most recent period for which final results were available

when this review was initiated.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are shipments of DRAMs of one megabit

or above from the Republic of Korea (Korea). Included in the scope are

assembled and unassembled DRAMs of one megabit and above. Assembled

DRAMs include all package types. Unassembled DRAMs include processed

wafers, uncut die and cut die. Processed wafers produced in Korea, but

packaged, or assembled into memory modules in a third country, are

included in the scope; wafers produced in a third country and assembled

or packaged in Korea are not included in the scope.

The scope of this review 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), 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 which contain additional items which 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.

The scope of this review also includes video random access memory

semiconductors (VRAMS), as well as any future packaging and assembling

of DRAMs.

The scope of this review also includes removable memory modules

placed on motherboards, with or without a central processing unit

(CPU), unless the importer of motherboards certifies with the Customs

Service 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 this review does not include DRAMs or memory modules that

are reimported for repair or replacement.

The DRAMs subject to this review are classifiable under subheadings

8542.11.0001, 8542.11.0024, 8542.11.0026, and 8542.11.0034 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Also included

in the scope are those removable Korean DRAMs contained on or within

products classifiable under subheadings 8471.91.0000 and 8473.30.4000

of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope

of this review remains dispositive. The POR is May 1, 1995, through

April 30, 1996.

Intent Not To Revoke

Both respondents submitted requests, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.25(b), to revoke the order covering DRAMs from Korea.

A threshold question here concerns the Department's responsibility

in rendering a preliminary determination on revocation. The

Department's regulations provide that in a preliminary determination on

revocation, the Department ``will * * * include [its decision] whether

there is a reasonable basis to believe that the requirements for

revocation or termination are met.'' 19 CFR 353.25(c)(2)(iii). In the

respondents'' view, the ``reasonable basis'' standard has been met once

certain evidence on the record arguably supports a finding that a

``reasonable basis'' exists to believe that the requirements for

revocation have been met. We disagree with this approach and believe

that the Department is obligated to issue a preliminary determination

which provides parties with its preliminary view, on the basis of all

of the information on the record at that time, of whether the

revocation requirements have been met. This provides the parties notice

of the Department's initial views on revocation and affords them the

opportunity to present arguments either supporting or opposing the

Department's preliminary determination. See memorandum from Thomas G.

Ehr to Robert S. LaRussa,

[[Page 12796]]

February 24, 1997. Thus, the question here is whether, on the basis of

all of the evidence of record, the Department's requirements for

revocation have been preliminarily met.

Under the Department's regulations, the Department may revoke an

order in part if the Secretary concludes that, among other things: (1)

``one or more producers or resellers covered by the order have sold the

merchandise at not less than fair value for a period of at least three

consecutive years'; (2) ``[i]t is not likely that those persons will in

the future sell the merchandise at less than fair value * * *''; and

(3) ``the producers or resellers agree in writing to the immediate

reinstatement of the order as long as any producer or reseller is

subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that the producer or

reseller, subsequent to the revocation, sold the merchandise at less

than fair value.'' 19 CFR 353.25(a)(1).

In this case, the first and third criteria for revocation have

preliminarily been met. The Department has found that the two

respondents, LGS and Hyundai, did not sell at less than normal value in

the first and second reviews under this order. Also, in this review,

LGS and Hyundai have preliminarily been found not to have made less

than normal value sales. Further, both respondents have certified to

immediate reinstatement of the order pursuant to the third criterion

noted above. Accordingly, the key question here is whether the second

revocation criteria--the ``no likelihood'' standard--has been met. In

considering this issue, it is important to note that the standard for

revocation is not whether the Department finds that there is a

likelihood of future dumping. Rather, the standard is whether the

Department has found that ``no likelihood'' of future dumping exists.

On the ``no likelihood'' issue, the Department has a considerable

factual record before it. At the request of the parties, the Department

established a process for the submission of factual information on the

issue of whether no likelihood of future dumping exists. Both the

petitioner and respondents have now made several submissions of

information relevant to the likelihood issue, including various in-

depth economic analyses. Accordingly, the Department has a full record

before it on which to make a preliminary determination on this issue.

As discussed below, on the basis of this record, we preliminarily

find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion at this

time that there is no likelihood of future dumping by the Korean

respondents. Therefore, on this basis, we have preliminarily determined

not to revoke the Korean DRAM order. As this ruling is preliminary, all

parties will have a full opportunity to present relevant arguments on

the likelihood issue through briefs and a hearing, if one is requested.

As a threshold matter, the respondents argue that the Department's

preliminary finding that LGS and Hyundai have not made less than normal

value sales for three consecutive years is dispositive of the ``no

likelihood'' issue. We note that the presence of no dumping for three

years is germane to whether there is no likelihood that future dumping

will occur. Indeed, in most cases, this is the only evidence on the

record on the ``likelihood'' issue at the time of the Department's

preliminary determination and, therefore, it often becomes

determinative of whether the Department issues a notice of intent to

revoke. In this case, however, as noted above, the Department has a

much fuller record on this issue, with a wide range of economic

information and analysis on other factors pertaining to revocation. The

Department can, and has, considered other factors in its ``no

likelihood'' analysis, such as ``conditions and trends in the domestic

and home market industries, currency movements, and the ability of the

foreign entity to compete in the U.S. marketplace without LTFV sales.''

See Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 61

FR 49727 (September 23, 1996) (``Brass Sheet and Strip').

In this case, the Department has preliminarily examined the

relevant market circumstances on the basis of the submissions of the

parties and publicly available information. On the basis of this

examination, we have preliminary found the following: (1) The DRAM

market is in a year-long downturn, with steep price declines in the

DRAM market beginning in January 1996 and continued price declines

forecasted; (2) the downturn has resulted in declines of sales and

revenues in the DRAM market, growth in DRAM inventories, and the

existence of significant DRAM oversupply; (3) the Korean respondents

and other DRAM producers have continued to increase DRAM production

during the downturn (which may further depress prices during such an

oversupply period); (4) the Korean respondents will likely continue to

maintain a substantial presence in the U.S. market during various

phases of the business cycle (including periods of significant price

decline) in light of substantial Korean capacity and large U.S. demand;

and (5) based on the information on the record, Korean pricing in the

United States appears, according to price trends, to be at or near

normal value, indicating that only a slight downward movement in U.S.

price will likely result in dumping margins.

More specifically, DRAM prices declined severely starting in late

1995, and this decline in prices continued well into 1996, after the

conclusion of the current POR (i.e., April 30, 1996). For example,

according to publicly available data, the average U.S. price for a 16

megabyte (MB) DRAM fell from approximately $18.00 in May 1996 to

approximately $7.00 in December 1996. Similarly, the average U.S. price

for a 4 MB DRAM fell from approximately $5.25 in May 1996 to a low of

approximately $2.00 in December 1996. This represents a 61 percent

decline in prices between the end of the third period of review (April

30, 1996) and December 1996. DRAM prices are still unstable and

continue to fall. Since DRAMs are a commodity product, it is reasonable

to expect that Korean producers will have to match prevailing market

prices in the United States.

As prices have fallen, Korean DRAM producers have continued to

increase DRAM production. Publicly available information indicates that

Korea's three major integrated circuit companies (Hyundai, LGS, and

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.) will increase their DRAM output by almost

30 percent in 1997, despite poor chip forecasts and increased

production in Japan and Taiwan. Although the Korean producers have

announced gradual production cutbacks, there is no evidence that these

cutbacks have occurred. While some industry projections forecast

increased demand, the existing DRAM oversupply is likely to cause

prices to remain low or fall lower in the future.

Given these circumstances, we preliminarily find that it would be

difficult for the Korean respondents to remain competitive without

selling DRAMs at less than normal value. The history of the DRAM

industry is one of dumping in periods of significant downturn. Various

foreign producers were found to have dumped in the mid-1980s (see

Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices from Japan, 51 FR 15943 (April 29,

1986)), and the Korean respondents in this case were found to have

dumped during the period of downturn in 1991-1992 during the LTFV

investigation. While Korean respondents did not dump in the three

consecutive review periods, most of this period was marked by an

expanding DRAM market. DRAMs prices stabilized

[[Page 12797]]

in mid-1992, and the industry experienced growth until late 1995. This

third review period ended in April 1996, and there has been a

continuing decline in global prices since that time. Further, we note

that the price decline in 1996 was more severe than in prior downturns.

These market trends indicate that respondents may have dumped in the

post April 1996 period (i.e., a period of continuing industry downturn)

in the absence of the order. A comparison of U.S. market prices to

Korean costs and projections of Korean costs indicates that Korean

pricing would be likely to be at or below normal value in the absence

of the order. For these reasons, we preliminarily find that there is no

basis to conclude that there is no likelihood of future dumping by LGS

and Hyundai. Therefore, we preliminarily intend not to revoke the

antidumping order on DRAMS from Korea.

We welcome the views of all interested parties on this issue. In

particular, we welcome the views of the parties on the extent to which,

in current and projected market circumstances, the order is

constraining LGS and Hyundai from dumping and the degree to which

dumping would be likely to occur in the absence of the order.

United States Price

In calculating U.S. price, the Department used constructed export

price (CEP), as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, when the

merchandise was first sold to an unaffiliated U.S. purchaser after

importation.

We calculated CEP based on packed, ex-U.S. warehouse prices to

unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions from the

starting price, where appropriate, for discounts, rebates, foreign

brokerage and handling, foreign inland insurance, air freight, air

insurance, U.S. duties and direct and indirect selling expenses to the

extent that they are associated with economic activity in the United

States (these included U.S. credit expenses, warranty expenses, royalty

payments, U.S. commissions, advertising and promotion expenses, and

U.S. indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs,

incurred by respondents'' U.S. subsidiary) in accordance with sections

772(c)(2) and 772(d)(1) of the Act. We added duty drawback, where

applicable, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to

section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we reduced the United States price by the

amount of profit to derive the CEP.

For DRAMs that were further manufactured into memory modules after

importation, we deducted all value added in the United States, pursuant

to section 772(e) of the Act. The value added consists of the costs of

the materials, fabrication, and general expenses associated with the

portion of the merchandise further manufactured in the United States.

In determining the costs incurred to produce the memory module, we

included materials, fabrication, and general expenses, including

selling expenses and interest expenses, associated with the portion of

the merchandise further manufactured in the United States, as well as a

proportional amount of profit or loss attributable to the value added.

Profit or loss was calculated by deducting from the sales price of the

memory module all production and selling costs incurred by the company

for the memory module. The total profit or loss was then allocated

proportionately to all components of cost. Only the profit or loss

attributable to the value added was deducted. No other adjustments were

claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of

sales of DRAMs in the home market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV, we compared respondents' 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)(B) of the Act.

Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like

products for all respondents was greater than five percent of the

respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for

calculating NV for all respondents, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Because LGS made some home market sales to related parties during

the POR, we tested these sales to ensure that, on average, the related

party sales were at ``arms-length.'' To conduct this test, we compared

the gross unit prices of sales to related and unrelated customers net

of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, value-

added tax and packing. Based on the results of that test, we discarded

from LGS' home market database all sales made to a related party where

that related party failed the ``arm's-length'' test.

We disregarded many of Hyundai's and LGS' sales found to have been

made below the COP during the original LTFV investigation, the most

recent period for which final results were available at the time of the

initiation of this review. Accordingly, the Department, pursuant to

section 773(b) of the Act, initiated COP investigations of both

respondents for purposes of this administrative review.

We calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus

selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and the cost of

all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in

condition packed ready for shipment, in accordance with section

773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP

information provided by respondents in the questionnaire responses.

In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to

determine whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined whether, within an extended period of time, such

sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were

made at prices which permit the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20

percent of home market sales of a given model were at prices less than

the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model

because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial

quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of home market sales of a given

model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost

sales because we determined that the below-cost sales were made in

``substantial quantities'' and at prices that would not permit recovery

of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. If we disregarded all contemporaneous

sales of a comparison model pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,

we based normal value on constructed value (CV).

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on respondents' cost of materials and fabrication employed in

producing the subject merchandise, SG&A and profit incurred and

realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like

product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the costs of materials,

fabrication, and G&A as reported in the CV portion of the questionnaire

response. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales

portion of respondents' questionnaire responses. We based selling

expenses and profit on the information reported in the home market

sales portion of respondents' questionnaire responses. See Certain

Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value and Postponement

[[Page 12798]]

of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349 (January 19, 1996). For

selling expenses, we used the average of above-cost per-unit HM selling

expenses weighted by the total quantity of home market sales. For

actual profit, we first calculated the difference between the home

market sales value and home market COP, and divided the difference by

the home market COP. We then multiplied this percentage by the COP for

each U.S. model to derive an actual profit.

For both respondents, the Department relied on the submitted COP

and CV information. There were no adjustments to respondents' reported

COP and CV data.

For price-to-price comparisons, we based NV on the price at which

the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the exporting

country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course

of trade, and to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade, as

defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We compared the U.S.

prices of individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price

of sales of the foreign like product. We calculated NV based on

delivered prices to unrelated customers and, where appropriate, to

related customers in the home market. In calculating NV, we made

adjustments, where appropriate, for inland freight, inland insurance,

discounts, rebates, and Korean brokerage and handling charges.

Both respondents only had CEP sales during the POR. For comparisons

to CEP sales, we made deductions to NV, where appropriate, for home

market credit expenses, advertising expenses, royalty expenses, and

bank charges in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, due to

differences in circumstances of sale. We also reduced NV by packing

costs incurred in the home market, in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. In addition, we increased NV for U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We

also made further adjustments, when applicable, to account for

differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.57 of the Department's regulations. Finally,

in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made an

adjustment for differences in the circumstances of sale to account for

any direct selling expenses associated with U.S. sales not deducted

under the provisions of section 772(d)(1) of the Act.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

As set forth in section 773(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act and in the

Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department

will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S.

sale. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the comparison

market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the Department

may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at a different level

of trade.

In order to determine whether sales in the comparison market are at

a different level of trade than the export price or CEP, we examined

whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing

process than the export price or CEP. We made this determination on the

basis of a review of the distribution system in the comparison market,

including selling functions, class of customer, and the level of

selling expenses for each type of sale. Different stages of marketing

necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences

in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone sufficient

to establish a difference in the level of trade. Similarly, while

customer categories such as ``distributor'' and ``wholesaler'' may be

useful in identifying different levels of trade, they are insufficient

in themselves to establish that there is a difference in the level of

trade. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 51891, 51896

(October 4, 1996).

Secondly, the differences must affect price comparability as

evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at

the different levels of trade in the market in which normal value is

determined. When constructed export price is applicable, section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes the procedures for making a

constructed export price offset when: (1) NV is at a different level of

trade, and (2) the data available do not provide an appropriate basis

for a level of trade adjustment. Also, in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B), to qualify for a CEP offset, the level of trade in the

home market must constitute a more advanced stage of distribution than

the level of trade of the CEP sales.

In order to identify levels of trade, the Department must review

information concerning marketing stages and selling functions of the

manufacturer/exporter. We reviewed the questionnaire responses of both

respondents to establish whether there were sales at different levels

of trade based on marketing stages, selling functions performed, and

services offered to each customer or customer class. For both

respondents, we identified one level of trade in the home market with

direct sales by the parent corporation to the domestic customer. These

direct sales were made by both respondents to original equipment

manufacturers (OEMs) and to distributors. In addition, all sales,

whether made to OEM customers or to distributors, included the same

marketing stage and selling functions. For the U.S. market, all sales

for both respondents were reported as CEP sales. The level of trade of

the U.S. sales is determined for the sale to the affiliated importer

rather than the resale to the unaffiliated customer. We examined the

marketing stage and selling functions performed by the Korean companies

for U.S. CEP sales and preliminarily determine that they are at a

different level of trade from the Korean companies' home market sales

because the Korean companies engaged in a different marketing stage and

had fewer selling functions for the adjusted CEP sales than for their

home market sales. For instance, the Korean companies did not engage in

any general promotion, marketing activities, or price negotiations for

U.S. sales.

Because we compared CEP sales to home market sales at a different

level of trade, we examined whether a level of trade adjustment may be

appropriate. In this case, both respondents only sold at one level of

trade in the home market; therefore, there is no basis upon which

either respondent can demonstrate a consistent pattern of price

differences between levels of trade. Further, we do not have

information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on

the respondents' sales of other products and there is no other record

information on which such an analysis could be based. Because the data

available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a level of

trade adjustment but the level of trade in the HM is a more advanced

stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP sales, a CEP

offset is appropriate. Both respondents claimed a CEP offset. We

applied the CEP offset to normal value or constructed value, as

appropriate. The level of trade methodology employed by the Department

in these preliminary results of review is based on the facts particular

to this review. The Department will continue to examine its policy for

[[Page 12799]]

making level of trade comparisons and adjustments for its final results

of review.

Because both respondents made sales at differing levels of trade in

the home market and in the United States, and because we determined it

was not possible to quantify the price differences resulting from the

differing levels of trade, we made a CEP offset to NV for both

respondents pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset

consisted of an amount equal to the lesser of the weighted-average U.S.

indirect selling expenses and U.S. commissions or home market indirect

selling expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

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

Percent

Manufacturer/exporter margin

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

Hyundai Electronic Industries, Inc......................... 0.01

LG Semicon Co., Ltd........................................ 0.02

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

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences

between United States price and NV may vary from the percentages stated

above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to

Customs. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by

the determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews

for all shipments of DRAMs from Korea entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of the final

results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Hyundai and LGS,

because their weighted-average margins were de minimis, will be zero

percent; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not

covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV investigation

or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most

recent rate published in the final determination or final results for

which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous

review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the

cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of the most recent review, or the LTFV

investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is

a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate

will be 3.85 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.

Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the

date of publication of this notice, and may request a hearing within

ten days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be

held as early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days

after the date of publication or the first work day thereafter. Case

briefs or other written comments from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this

notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such written comments.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) 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

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: March 10, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-6679 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P