Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea: (A-580-812)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of

One Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea: (A-580-812)

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of administrative review of antidumping

duty order.

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

SUMMARY: On September 23, 1998, the Department of Commerce published

the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One

Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea. This review covered two

manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States

and four third-country resellers from Singapore, Malaysia, Canada, and

Hong Kong for the period May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The two

manufacturers/exporters were Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co.

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

Co., Ltd.). The third-country resellers were Techgrow Limited (Hong

Kong) (Techgrow), Singapore Resources Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), NIE

Electronics Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) (NIE), and Vitel Electronics Ottawa

Office (Canada) (Vitel).

LG and Hyundai submitted ministerial error allegations with respect

to the final results of administrative review on September 17, 1998.

The petitioner, Micron Technology Inc. (Micron), submitted rebuttal

comments on September 24, 1998. Based on the correction of certain

ministerial errors made in the final results of review, we are amending

our final results of review with respect to LG. We are also clarifying

the assessment language cited in our final results with respect to both

LG and Hyundai

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff, AD/CVD Enforcement Group

II, Office Four, Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

1009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department of Commerce (the Department) has now amended the

final results of this administrative review in accordance with section

751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to 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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are

to the regulations set forth at 19 CFR 353 (1997).

[[Page 56907]]

Scope of Review

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

or above from 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; and,

removable memory modules placed on motherboards, with or without a

central processing unit (CPU), unless the importer of the 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 and modules subject to this review are currently

classifiable under subheadings 8471.50.0085, 8471.91.8085,

8542.11.0024, 8542.11.8026, 8542.13.8034, 8471.50.4000, 8473.30.1000,

8542.11.0026, 8542.11.8034, 8471.50.8095, 8473.30.4000, 8542.11.0034,

8542.13.8005, 8471.91.0090, 8473.30.8000, 8542.11.8001, 8542.13.8024,

8471.91.4000, 8542.11.0001, 8542.11.8024 and 8542.13.8026 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,

the Department's written description of the scope of this review

remains dispositive.

Background

On September 23, 1998, the Department published the final results

of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on DRAMs

from Korea. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One

Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 50867, September 23,

1998) (final results).

On September 17, 1998, LG and Hyundai submitted timely written

allegations that the Department made certain ministerial errors in the

above-referenced administrative review. Petitioner submitted timely

rebuttal comments in regards to respondents' allegations. For a

complete discussion of the allegations, see the Department's October 1,

1998, Memorandum from Tom Futtner to Holly A. Kuga regarding

Antidumping Review of Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors

(DRAMs) from Korea: Ministerial Error Allegations Regarding the Final

Results.

As discussed below, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have

determined that the language used in our final results needed to be

clarified and that certain ministerial errors were made in the margin

calculations for LG.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

LG

Comment 1: Typographical Error in its Model Match Programming. LG

claims that the Department made a typographical error when it defined

the variable US MONTH for the model matching programming. Petitioner

had no comment.

DOC Position: We agree with LG. We have corrected this

typographical error.

Comment 2: Typographical Error in a Product Code. LG alleges that

the Department incorrectly input a product code in the computer

program. Petitioner had no comment.

DOC Position: We agree with LG. We have amended the computer

program to correct this typographical error.

Comment 3: Selling Expenses by Product Code Rather Than Control

Number. LG alleges that the Department assigned selling expenses to the

unreported sales based on product code rather than control number since

the Department stated in its final results that some of the unreported

sales involved product codes that had not been part of the

questionnaire response. LG claims that the Department had control

numbers for the unreported sales that it assigned selling expenses to

based on product code. LG, therefore, claims that the Department should

correct the program to assign selling expenses on the basis of control

number.

Petitioner states that the Department intended to assign selling

expenses on the basis of product code. Petitioner further contends that

the Department rejected LG's argument to assign selling expenses to the

unreported sales on the basis of control number in its final results.

DOC Position: We disagree with LG. We did not have product codes

for all unreported sales. Furthermore, where we did not have product

codes, we did not have control numbers. Independent of those facts,

however, the Department decided to use product code where it existed as

the basis for assigning selling expenses to the unreported DRAM

transactions. Where we did not have product code, we relied on the

density of the DRAM in question to assign the selling expenses that

would be used in our analysis. Because this is not a clerical error, we

have not made any changes to our calculations.

Comment 4: Control Numbers Used for Several Unreported Sales. LG

alleges that the Department assigned the wrong control numbers to

certain unreported sales. LG states that the Department assigned

control numbers to certain unreported sales for the purpose of

assigning costs to those products. However, according to LG, the

Department should have, for model matching purposes, changed the

control numbers for those products back to the original control number.

LG claims that the dumping margin is distorted as a result of this

failure to use the proper control number. Petitioner had no comment.

DOC Position: We agree with LG. We assigned control numbers to

three models of DRAMs in the unreported sales for the purposes of

assigning costs to those products. However, after assigning production

costs to these products, we failed to re-apply the original control

numbers to these products for sales comparison purposes. We have

amended the computer program to ensure that the original control

numbers are re-assigned to these products.

Comment 5: Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) Profit. LG alleges

that the Department applied the CV-profit rate to a basis different

than that used to calculate the profit rate. Specifically, LG claims

that the CV-profit rate was calculated based on a cost of production

(``COP'') that excludes selling expenses and profit, while it was

applied to a COP that included selling expenses and packing.

[[Page 56908]]

The petitioner claims that the CV-profit rate was calculated

incorrectly, but that LG's proposed method of correction is incorrect

as well. Petitioner contends instead that the Department should correct

its error by applying the standard CV-profit calculation methodology.

DOC Position: We agree with LG and the petitioner that the CV-

profit rate was applied to a basis different than that used to

calculate the CV-profit rate. We have corrected our calculations to

ensure that we calculate the CV-profit rate according to the standard

methodology.

Comment 6: Deduction of Imputed Inventory Carrying Costs in the

Calculation of CV. LG alleges that the Department failed to deduct

imputed inventory carrying expenses in its calculation of CV.

Petitioner claims that, since imputed inventory carrying expenses are

not included in CV, they should not be deducted from CV.

DOC Position: We do not add amounts for imputed expenses in

calculating CV. However, after calculating CV, we have, in essence, NV,

and adjustments to NV are appropriate when CV is the basis for NV. In

this case, imputed inventory carrying expenses are indirect selling

expenses. Because LG's U.S. price was based on constructed export price

(CEP), and an offset to CEP was appropriate in this case, we intended

in the final review results to deduct the imputed inventory carrying

expenses as an adjustment to CV. As this did not occur, we made the

appropriate changes to our calculations to account for this clerical

error (see DOC position on Comment 7).

Comment 7: Inclusion of Imputed Inventory Carrying Costs in the

Calculation of the CEP Offset for CV Comparisons. LG alleges that the

Department failed to include imputed inventory carrying expenses in its

calculation of the CEP offset for CV comparisons. Petitioner agrees

that imputed inventory carrying expenses should be included in the CEP

offset.

DOC Position: We agree with LG and the petitioner. We failed to

include imputed inventory carrying expenses in the calculation of LG's

CEP offset calculations as we said we would in the final review

results. For these amended results, we have adjusted our computations

accordingly.

Comment 8: Adjustments made to Unreported Sales for Credit Expenses

and Commissions. LG claims that the Department mistakenly made

adjustments to the unreported sales for commissions and credit. LG

states that the record supports the conclusion that there were no

commissions or credits expenses associated with these sales. Therefore,

LG concludes, the Department should not have assigned these expenses to

the unreported sales.

Petitioner claims that the Department intended, as part of its

application of adverse facts available, to include commissions and

credit expenses in its calculations of the adjustments for the

unreported sales. Petitioner therefore concludes that the Department

did not commit any clerical error by assigning these expenses to the

unreported sales.

DOC Position: We disagree with LG. We intentionally assigned

selling expenses, including credit expenses and commissions, to the

unreported sales on an adverse facts available basis. No changes have

been made to the program.

Comment 9: Calculation of Duty Assessment Rates by Importer. LG

alleges that the Department's computer program failed to appropriately

calculate importer-specific rates. Instead, LG claims that the program

calculated an assessment rate for only one importer of record, LG

Semicon America, Inc. (``LGSA''). LG states that the Department should

amend its computer program to ensure that duty assessment rates are

calculated for each importer.

The petitioner claims that the Department properly attributed the

antidumping duties related to the unreported sales to LG. Petitioner

therefore concludes that the Department should continue to calculate a

single weighted-average assessment rate for LGSA as the importer.

DOC Position: We agree with LG. As stated in the final results, we

intended to calculate importer-specific assessment rates. We have

corrected the computer program to ensure that an assessment rate is

calculated for each importer of record in this review.

Hyundai

Comment 1: Calculation of Duty Assessment Rate. Hyundai alleges

that the Department mistakenly calculated its assessment rate by

dividing the total antidumping duty by the total entered value of sales

made during the POR. Hyundai argues that the Department should have

divided the antidumping duty by the value of the entries made during

the POR.

Petitioner points out that the Department included only Hyundai's

CEP sales in its calculation of an assessment rate. It mistakenly

excluded the duties due and total value of further manufactured sales.

DOC Position: We disagree with Hyundai. We intentionally based

Hyundai's assessment rate on the entered value of the sales made during

the POR. In our preliminary results, we stated that we ``calculated

importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio

of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined

sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate those duties.'' See Dynamic Random Access Memory

Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One Megabit or Above from the Republic of

Korea, 63 FR 11411, March 9, 1998 (Preliminary Results) We received no

comments from either respondent or petitioner regarding that

methodology. However, in the final results, we stated that we

calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and

dividing this amount by the total value of subject merchandise entered

during the POR for each importer. The sentence should have read that we

calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and

dividing this amount by the total entered value of sales of subject

merchandise sold during the POR for each importer (emphasis added). We

are amending these final results to reflect that assessment language.

We agree with the petitioner. We mistakenly excluded the total

value and duties related to the further manufactured sales. We have

corrected the computer program to calculate an assessment rate for

Hyundai based on its CEP sales as well as the further manufactured

sales.

Amended Final Results

We are clarifying the assessment language with respect to both LG

and Hyundai and, as a result of our correction of the ministerial

errors for LG, we have determined the following amended margin exists

for LG for the period May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997:

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

Amended weighted-

Manufacturer/exporter average margin

percentage

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

LG.................................................. 9.04

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

There is no change to Hyundai's weighted-average margin percentage

as a result of the correction of ministerial errors in this review

period.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondents

directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon

[[Page 56909]]

publication of this notice of amended final results of review for all

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

consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a) of the Act: (1) For the company named above, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but

covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate

will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most

recent final results which covered that manufacturer or exporter; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous

segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise

in these final results of review or in the most recent final results

which covered that manufacturer; and (4) if neither the exporter nor

the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous

segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 3.85 percent,

the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These

deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of

the Department's regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction

of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby

requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with

section 751(i) of the Act.

Dated: October 16, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-28500 Filed 10-22-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P