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

International Trade Administration

[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 result of antidumping duty administrative

review and notice of intent not to revoke order.

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

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

producer, the Department of Commerce 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 and four ``third-country'' resellers from Singapore,

Malaysia, Canada, and Hong Kong for the period of May 1, 1996 through

April 30, 1997. As a result of the review, the Department of Commerce

has preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for both

manufacturers/exporters and two of the third-country resellers. With

respect to the third-county resellers, one did not respond, two stated

that they made no sales of the subject merchandise to the U.S. during

the period of review, and one reseller did not fully respond. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties as appropriate. 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 9, 1998.

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 stated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (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 (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the regulations of the

Department of Commerce (the Department) are to 19 CFR part 353 (1997).

Background

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

(58 FR 27250) the antidumping duty order on DRAMs from the Republic of

Korea. On May 2, 1997, the Department published a notice of

``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this antidumping

duty order for the period of May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997 (62 FR

24081). 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 (L.G.

formerly Goldstar Electronics Co., Ltd.). The petitioner, Micron

Technologies Inc., requested an administrative review of these same two

Korean manufacturers of DRAMs as well as four third-country resellers

of DRAMS. The third-country resellers are Techgrow Limited (Hong Kong)

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

Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia, and Vitel Electronics Ottawa Office (Canada)

(Vietel). On June 19, 1997, the Department initiated a review of the

above-mentioned Korean manufacturers and third-country resellers (62 FR

33394). The period of review (POR) of all respondents is May

[[Page 11412]]

1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

In addition, on June 25, 1997, we initiated an investigation to

determine if Hyundai and LG made sales of subject merchandise below the

cost of production (COP) during the POR based upon the fact that we had

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 a final determination was available when this

review was initiated. On January 12, 1998, the Department published in

the Federal Register (63 FR 1824) a notice extending the time for the

preliminary results from January 30, 1998, until March 2, 1998.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are shipments of Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors (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 currently 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.

Intent Not To Revoke

Both Hyundai and LG submitted requests to revoke the order covering

DRAMS from Korea pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b). Under the Department's

regulations, the Department may revoke an order, in part, if the

Secretary concludes that, among other things: (1) ``[o]ne or more

producers or resellers covered by the order have sold the merchandise

at not less than [normal] 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 normal 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 [normal] value.'' See 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2). In

this case, neither respondent meets the first criterion for revocation.

The Department has preliminarily found that the two respondents, LG and

Hyundai, sold subject merchandise at not less than normal value in the

two prior reviews under this order, but did sell at less than normal

value during the instant review. Since neither respondent has met the

first criterion for revocation, i.e., or de minimis margins for three

consecutive reviews, the Department need not reach a conclusion with

respect to the ``not likely'' standard. Therefore, on this basis, we

have preliminarily determined not to revoke the Korean DRAM antidumping

duty order.

Facts Available

LG

Based on information obtained from the Customs Service, we have

preliminarily determined that a number of sales LG had reported as

being to a third country were actually sales to the United States. See

Memorandum from Team to Thomas Futtner, February 25, 1998. The

Department has preliminarily determined that in accordance with section

776(a) of the Act, the margin for LG should be based on facts available

as it failed to report those U.S. sales. As facts available, the

Department has calculated a dumping margin based on both the reported

and the unreported sales to the United States which we were able to

identify based on Customs Service data.

For LG's unreported sales, we used product-specific weighted

average U.S. selling expenses based on reported expenses for identical

products. Where there were no identical matches, we used weighted

average selling expenses based on reported selling expenses.

Interested parties may submit comments regarding the application of

facts available to LG due to unreported sales within 14 calendar days

of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments may be submitted from

the 15th calendar day through and including the 21st calendar day.

Comments submitted during this period may address the application of

facts available due to LG's unreported sales only. Time limits for case

briefs and rebuttal briefs, and the contents thereof, are not affected

by the stipulations noted above. Requirements for the submission of

case briefs and rebuttal briefs are described elsewhere in this notice.

Techgrow

On October 16, 1997, the Department notified Techgrow that under

the Department's regulations Techgrow was affiliated with Tech Perfect

Inc. and requested that Techgrow submit a response for sections B

through E which included information covering Techgrow, Tech Perfect,

and any other affiliated parties which sold subject merchandise during

the POR. The Department reiterated this request on November 17, 1997.

Techgrow submitted responses to sections A, B, and C only, and did not

include the information requested for its affiliates. On November 26,

1997 and December 3, 1997, Tech Perfect, Inc. and Techgrow

respectively, notified the Department that they would not participate

in the instant review. Tech Perfect Inc. and Techgrow formally filed

notices of withdrawal with the Department on December 16, 1997. Failure

to submit the requested information, and withdrawal from this

proceeding, has significantly impeded our review with respect to

Techgrow. Thus in

[[Page 11413]]

accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we must rely on facts

available for sales to Techgrow and its affiliates.

Vitel

On August 12, 1997, Vitel confirmed it had received the

questionnaire, but subsequently failed to submit a response. Since

Vitel failed to submit a questionnaire response in accordance with

section 776(a) of the Act, we are relying on facts available to

establish an antidumping margin for Vitel.

Corroboration of Facts Available

As discussed above, Techgrow submitted responses to sections A, B,

and C only, and did not include the information requested for its

affiliates. Vitel confirmed it had received the questionnaire, but

subsequently failed to submit a response. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act

provides that if any interested party: (1) withholds information that

has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested; (3)

significantly impedes an antidumping investigation; or (4) provides

such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department

is required to use facts otherwise available (subject to subsections

782(c)(1) and (e)) to make its determination. Because Techgrow failed

to respond in full to the Department's questionnaire, and Vitel did not

respond at all, we must use facts otherwise available to calculate

their dumping margin.

Section 776(b) provides that adverse inferences may be used against

a party that failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for information. See also the Statement

of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d

Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) (``SAA''). Techgrow's decision to respond

only in part, and failure to provide affiliate information,

demonstrates that Techgrow has failed to cooperate to the best of its

ability in this review. Vitel failed to cooperate since it provided no

questionnaire response at all. Therefore, the Department has determined

that, in selecting among the facts otherwise available for Techgrow and

Vitel, an adverse inference is warranted.

Section 776(b) states that an adverse inference may include

reliance on information derived from the petition or any other

information placed on the record. See also SAA at 829-831. Section

776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on

secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts

otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate

that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its

disposal.

As adverse facts available, we are assigning to Techgrow and Vitel,

individually, the highest margin calculated in these preliminary

results, that rate calculated for Hyundai, 12.64 percent. The

Department considers this rate corroborated and having probative value

since it was calculated based on information collected and verified

specifically for purpose of calculating a margin for a respondent in

the instant review.

No Shipments

Singapore Resources Pte. Ltd. (Singapore) and NIE Electronics Sdn.

Bhd. (Malaysia) reported that they made no U.S. sales of subject

merchandise during the POR. Therefore, unless and until these companies

sell subject merchandise to the U.S. and participate in an

administrative review, any future shipments by these companies of

subject merchandise to the U.S. will be subject to the all others rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

Constructed Export Price

For LG and Hyundai, in calculating price to the United States, the

Department used constructed export price (CEP), as defined in section

772(b) of the Act, because the merchandise was first sold to an

unaffiliated U.S. purchaser after importation.

We calculated CEP based on packed, factory prices to unaffiliated

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 credit expenses, warranty expenses, royalty payments,

commissions as applicable, advertising and promotion expenses paid by

the respondent, and inventory carrying costs incurred by the

respondents U.S. subsidiaries) in accordance with sections 772(c)(2)

and 772(d)(1) of the Act. We added duty drawback paid on imported

materials in the home market, where applicable, pursuant to section

772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

For DRAMS that were further manufactured into memory modules after

importation, we deducted all costs of further manufacturing in the

United States, pursuant to section 772(b)(2) of the Act. These costs

consisted of the costs of the materials, fabrication, and general

expenses associated with the further manufacturing in the United

States.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we also reduced the CEP

United States price by the amount of profit allocated to the expenses

deducted under section 772(d)(1) and (2).

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 normal value, we compared the 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)(C) of the

Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign

like products for both Hyundai and LG was greater than five percent of

the respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis

for calculating NV for all respondents.

We disregarded Hyundai's and LG's sales found to have been made

below the COP during the 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 the 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 price 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

[[Page 11414]]

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.

On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir.).

In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court

discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as the

basis for foreign market when the Department finds home market sales to

be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was not raised

by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended the

definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to include

sales below cost. See Section 771(15) of the Act. Consequently, the

Department has determined that it would be inappropriate to resort

directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis for NV if

the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise identical or

most similar to that sold in the United States to be outside the

``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the Department will use sales of

similar merchandise, if such sales exist. The Department will use CV as

the basis for NV only when there are no above-cost sales that are

otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, when

making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we

considered all products sold in the home market as described in the

``Scope of Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in the

ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales in the

ordinary course of trade of the identical or the most similar

merchandise in the home market that were otherwise suitable for

comparison, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar

foreign like product, based on the characteristics listed in Section B

and C of our antidumping questionnaire. We have implemented the Court's

decision in this case, to the extent that the data on the record

permitted.

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

based on the 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 cost 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 the respondents' questionnaire responses. For selling

expenses, we used the average of the selling expenses reported for home

market sales that survived the cost test, weighted by the total

quantity of those 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, adjusted as necessary. As discussed below, we

adjusted the respondents' reported COP and CV with respect to the

following: (1) research and development (R&D), (2) depreciation, and

(3) foreign exchange losses.

R&D

The Department recalculated the respondents' reported R&D expense

based on the ratio of each company's total semiconductor expenses to

the total semiconductor cost of goods sold. Due to the forward-looking

nature of the R&D activities, the Department, in this review, cannot

identify every instance where DRAM R&D may influence logic products or

where logic R&D may influence DRAM products, but the Department's own

semiconductor expert has identified areas where R&D from one type of

semiconductor product has influenced another semiconductor product in

the past. Dr. Murzy Jhabvala, a semiconductor device engineer at NASA

with twenty-four years experience, was asked by the Department to state

his views regarding cross-fertilization of R&D efforts in the

semiconductor industry. In a July 14, 1995 Memorandum to Holly Kuga,

``Cross Fertilization of Research and Development Efforts in the

Semiconductor Industry,'' Dr. Jhabvala stated that ``it is reasonable

and realistic to contend that R&D from one area (e.g., bipolar) applies

and benefits R&D efforts in another area (e.g., MOS memory).'' It is

the Department's practice where costs benefit more than one product to

allocate those costs to all the products which they benefit. This

practice is consistent with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act because we

have determined that the product-specific R&D accounts do not

reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of

DRAMS. Therefore, as semiconductor R&D benefits all semiconductor

products, we allocated semiconductor R&D to all semiconductor products.

Depreciation

In contrast to the previous year, both respondents, for this POR,

elected not to take special depreciation. This represents a failure to

report depreciation expenses in a systematic and rational manner. As a

result, disproportionately greater costs were attributed to products

manufactured during the period for which the special depreciation was

taken than for the subsequent period when it was not taken. Therefore,

for these preliminary results, we are making an adjustment to the

respondents' reported depreciation. We are adding special depreciation

to the reported cost of production.

Foreign Exchange Losses

We have included the amortized portion of foreign exchange losses

on long-term debt in the cost of production as part of interest

expense. The translation gains and losses at issue are related to the

cost of acquiring and maintaining debt. These costs are related to

production and are properly included in the calculation of financing

expense as a part of COP. In previous cases, we have found that

translation losses represent an increase in the actual amount of cash

needed by the respondents to retire their foreign currency denominated

loan balances. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than

Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Ecuador, 24 FR 7019, 7039, (Feb. 6,

1995). Also, see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From the

Republic of Korea, 63 FR 8937, (Feb. 23, 1998). Furthermore, the

Department has amortized these expenses over the remaining life of the

companies' loans in the past. See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars

From Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 9743, (Mar. 4, 1997). Also, see Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random

Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 8937,

(Feb. 23, 1998). We have verified deferred foreign exchange translation

gains and losses for both respondents. To reasonably reflect the cost

of producing and selling the subject merchandise, it is necessary that

the respondents' costs reflect the additional financial burden

represented by the cash needed to retire foreign currency denominated

loans.

[[Page 11415]]

Therefore, we are amortizing deferred foreign exchange translation

gains and losses over the average remaining life of the loans on a

straight-line basis and are including the amortized portion in net

interest expense.

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, in

accordance with 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 unaffiliated customers and, where appropriate, to

affiliated customers in the home market.

In calculating NV for both CV and home market prices, we made

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

discounts, rebates, and Korean brokerage and handling charges. 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 section 773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act. Finally, in

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

adjustment for differences in the circumstances of sale by deducting

home market direct selling expenses (credit expenses, advertising

expenses, royalty expenses, and bank charges) and adding 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

In accordance with section 773(a)(1(B) of the Act, to the extent

practical, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at

the same level of trade as the EP or CEP sales. The NV level of trade

is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when

NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from which

we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and

profit. For EP, it is also the level of the starting-price sale, which

is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the level of the

constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade

than EP or CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and

selling activities along the chain of distribution between the producer

and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a

different level of trade, and the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price

differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-

market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a

level of trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory

than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the

difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the

CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from

South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

We reviewed the questionnaire responses of both respondents to

establish whether there were sales at different levels of trade based

on the distribution system, selling activities, and services offered to

each customer or customer category.

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 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 selling

functions performed by the Korean companies for U.S. CEP sales (as

adjusted) and preliminarily determine that they are at a different

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

companies' CEP transactions were at a less advanced stage of marketing.

For instance, at the CEP level 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 more

advanced 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 pattern of consistent

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 not 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 and the level of trade in the home market is at 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 adjusted home market prices or

constructed value, as appropriate. 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 homemarket indirect selling

expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed. 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 making level of

trade comparisons and adjustments for its final results of review.

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............................ 12.64

LG Semicon Co., Ltd........................................... 7.61

Techgrow Limited (Hong Kong).................................. 12.64

Vitel Electronics Ottawa Office (Canada)...................... 12.64

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

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. The

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

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have 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

[[Page 11416]]

POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those

duties. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries of each

particular importer made during the POR. (This is equivalent to

dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which are calculated

by taking the difference between statutory NV and statutory EP and CEP,

by the total statutory EP or CEP value of the sales compared, and

adjusting the result by the average difference between EP or CEP and

customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR).

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, LG,

Techgrow and Vitel will be the rates indicated above; (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 not later than

120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

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

this notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 2, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-5991 Filed 3-6-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M