[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26577-26582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-827]


Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; 
Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by various interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on static random access memory semiconductors 
from Taiwan. This review covers the U.S. sales and/or entries of three 
manufacturers/exporters. In addition, we are rescinding this review 
with respect to two companies. The period of review is October 1, 1997, 
through March 31, 1999, for two of these companies and October 1, 1998, 
through March 31, 1999, for the remaining company.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by each of the companies subject to this review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Office 
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

[[Page 26578]]

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1776 or (202) 482-0656, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, 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 citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 15, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on static 
random access memory semiconductors (SRAMs) from Taiwan (64 FR 18600).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), in April 1999, the 
following five producers/exporters of SRAMs requested an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on SRAMs from Taiwan: Alliance 
Semiconductor (Alliance), Galvantech, Inc. (Galvantech), G-Link 
Technology Inc. (G-Link), GSI Technology, Inc. (GSI Technology), and 
Winbond Electronics Corporation (Winbond). In addition, one company 
which purchased, exported, and re-imported subject merchandise, White 
Electronic Designs (White Electronics), also requested an 
administrative review with respect to merchandise produced by G-Link. 
Because we determined that the merchandise subject to the antidumping 
duty order was the merchandise originally imported by G-Link (rather 
than re-imported by White Electronics), we did not initiate an 
administrative review for G-Link based on White Electronics' request. 
In addition, based on the facts associated with White Electronics' 
purchase, exportation, and re-importation, we determined that, upon re-
importation, the merchandise at issue is not subject to cash deposits 
of antidumping duties. For further discussion of our treatment of re-
imported merchandise, see the memorandum entitled ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors 
(SRAMs) from Taiwan--Request by Electronic Designs, Inc. (EDI) for 
Clarification on Whether EDI is Liable for Antidumping Duties on the 
Second Importation of Certain SRAMs'' from the Team to Louis Apple, 
Director, Office 5, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, dated June 21, 1999.
    On May 19, 1999, the Department issued questionnaires to Alliance, 
Galvantech, G-Link, GSI Technology, and Winbond. The Department 
initiated an administrative review for each of these companies on May 
20, 1999 (64 FR 28973 (May 28, 1999)).
    In June and July 1999, respectively, Alliance and Galvantech 
withdrew their requests for an administrative review. For further 
discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this 
notice, below.
    Also in July 1999, we received a response to sections A through D 
of the questionnaire (i.e., the sections relating to general 
information, foreign market sales, U.S. sales, and cost of production 
(COP)/constructed value (CV), respectively) from Winbond.
    In August 1999, we received a response to sections A through C of 
the questionnaire from G-Link. On August 27, 1999, the petitioner 
alleged that G-Link was selling at prices below the COP in its home 
market. Based on an analysis of this allegation, the Department 
initiated an investigation to determine whether G-Link made home market 
sales during the period of review (POR) at prices below the COP within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Consequently, we issued 
section D of the questionnaire to G-Link.
    In October 1999, we received a response to sections A through D of 
the questionnaire from GSI Technology. In November 1999, the petitioner 
alleged that GSI Technology was selling at prices below the COP in its 
third-country market. Based on an analysis of this allegation, we 
initiated an investigation to determine whether GSI Technology made 
foreign market sales during the POR at prices below the COP within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Because GSI Technology submitted 
a response to section D of the questionnaire in October, it was not 
necessary to request additional information from GSI Technology.
    In November 1999, we received a Section D questionnaire response 
from G-Link. Also in November and December 1999, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to each of the respondents. We received responses to 
these questionnaires in December 1999, January 2000, and February 2000.
    In February, March, and April 2000, the Department conducted 
verification of the data submitted by the respondents, in accordance 
with section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv).

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are synchronous, asynchronous, 
and specialty SRAMs from Taiwan, whether assembled or unassembled. 
Assembled SRAMs include all package types. Unassembled SRAMs include 
processed wafers or die, uncut die and cut die. Processed wafers 
produced in Taiwan, but packaged, or assembled into memory modules, in 
a third country, are included in the scope; processed wafers produced 
in a third country and assembled or packaged in Taiwan are not included 
in the scope. The scope of this review includes modules containing 
SRAMs. Such modules include single in-line processing modules, single 
in-line memory modules, dual in-line memory modules, memory cards, or 
other collections of SRAMs, whether unmounted or mounted on a circuit 
board. The scope of this review does not include SRAMs that are 
physically integrated with other components of a motherboard in such a 
manner as to constitute one inseparable amalgam (i.e., SRAMs soldered 
onto motherboards). The SRAMs within the scope of this review are 
currently classifiable under subheadings 8542.13.8037 through 
8542.13.8049, 8473.30.10 through 8473.30.90, 8542.13.8005, and 
8542.14.8004 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is October 1, 1997, through March 31, 1999, for G-Link and 
Winbond. Because GSI Technology was a respondent in the 1997-1998 new 
shipper review on SRAMs, the POR for our administrative review of its 
U.S. sales is October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, in June and July 1999 respectively, Alliance and 
Galvantech withdrew their requests for administrative review. No other 
interested party requested a review of sales of merchandise produced or 
exported by either Alliance or Galvantech during the POR. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and consistent with our practice, 
we are rescinding our review with respect to Alliance and Galvantech.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SRAMs from Taiwan to the United 
States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared the 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV for G-Link, GSI

[[Page 26579]]

Technology, and Winbond as specified in the ``Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.
    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the foreign market as described 
in the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were 
in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the foreign market made in the ordinary course of trade 
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 
similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade or 
CV, as appropriate.
    Regarding G-Link and GSI Technology, we were unable to make product 
comparisons for certain models because these respondents failed to 
report cost information for these models, including both difference-in-
merchandise and CV data. Consequently, for purposes of the preliminary 
results, we based the margin for the sales of these products on facts 
available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. As facts 
available, we used the highest non-aberrant margin calculated for any 
U.S. transaction for each respondent, in accordance with our practice. 
See, e.g., Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 65 FR 
12214 (Mar. 8, 2000); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8912 (Feb. 23, 1998) (SRAMs Final Determination); 
and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany, 64 FR 30710, 30732 (June 
8, 1999). In selecting a facts-available margin, we sought a margin 
that is sufficiently adverse so as to effectuate the statutory proposes 
of the adverse facts-available rule, which is to induce respondents to 
provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a 
timely manner. We also sought a margin that is indicative of the 
respondent's customary selling practices and is rationally related to 
the transactions to which the adverse facts available are being 
applied. To that end, we selected the highest margin on an individual 
sale which fell within the mainstream of G-Link's and GSI Technology's 
transactions (i.e., transactions that reflect sales of products that 
are representative of the broader range of models used to determine 
NV).

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade as CEP. The NV level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on 
CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For CEP, the U.S. level of 
trade 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 CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions 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 (Nov. 19, 1997).
    Both GSI Technology and Winbond claimed that they made foreign 
market sales at two levels of trade (i.e., to original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs) and distributors). G-Link claimed that it made 
home market sales at three levels of trade (i.e., to OEMs, 
distributors, and trading companies). We examined the selling 
activities at each reported marketing stage for each respondent and 
found that there was no substantive difference in the selling functions 
performed at any of these stages. Consequently, we determine that only 
one level of trade exists with respect to sales made by these companies 
to all foreign market customers.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a level of 
trade which constituted a more advanced stage of distribution than the 
level of trade of the CEP, we compared the selling functions performed 
for foreign market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP 
transaction, which excludes economic activities occurring in the United 
States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. We found that G-Link 
performed essentially the same selling functions in its sales offices 
in Taiwan for home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, G-Link's home 
market sales were not at a more advanced stage of marketing and 
distribution than the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents 
an F.O.B. foreign port price after the deduction of expenses associated 
with U.S. selling activities. Because we find that no difference in 
level of trade exits between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset 
to G-Link. For a detailed explanation of this analysis, see the 
memorandum entitled ``Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors 
from Taiwan,'' dated May 1, 2000 (the ``concurrence memorandum'').
    In contrast, we found that GSI Technology and Winbond performed 
most of the selling functions and services related to U.S. sales at 
their sales offices in the United States. These selling functions are 
associated with those expenses which we deduct from the CEP starting 
price, as specified in section 772(d) of the Act. In addition, we found 
that GSI Technology generally performed the same selling functions for 
sales to its third-country customers at its office in the United 
States, while Winbond performed these functions for its home market 
sales in Taiwan. Therefore, we find that GSI Technology's and Winbond's 
sales in the foreign market were at a more advanced stage of marketing 
and distribution (i.e., more remote from the factory) than the 
constructed U.S. level of trade. However, because GSI Technology and 
Winbond sell at only one level of trade in the foreign market, the 
difference in the levels of trade cannot be quantified. Because the 
difference in the levels of trade cannot be quantified, but the foreign 
market is at a more advanced level of trade, we have granted a CEP 
offset to GSI Technology and Winbond. For further discussion, see the 
concurrence memorandum referenced above.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP 
methodology because all sales took place after importation into the 
United States. We revised the reported data based on our findings at 
verification.

A. G-Link

    We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first 
unaffiliated

[[Page 26580]]

purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions 
for foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
warehousing, U.S. freight expenses (offset by freight revenue), U.S. 
merchandise processing fees, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
commissions, credit expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, 
including U.S. inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by G-Link and its affiliate on their sales of the 
subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product 
in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

B. GSI Technology

    We based CEP on the starting price to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions 
from the starting price for discounts. We also made deductions for 
foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing, international freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. merchandise processing fees, U.S. inland 
freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
credit expenses, commissions, and indirect selling expenses, including 
U.S. inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by GSI Technology on its sales of the subject 
merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product in the 
third country and the profit associated with those sales.

C. Winbond

    We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import 
duties in Taiwan. Where appropriate, we made deductions for foreign 
inland freight, foreign warehousing, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, foreign inland insurance, international freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. merchandise processing fees, U.S. inland freight, and 
U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
commissions, credit expenses, repacking expenses, and U.S. indirect 
selling expenses, including U.S. inventory carrying costs, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Winbond and its affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like 
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the foreign market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV 
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that G-Link and Winbond had viable 
home markets during the POR, while GSI Technology did not. 
Consequently, we based NV on home market sales for G-Link and Winbond 
and on sales to Japan (i.e., the largest third-country market) for GSI 
Technology.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Winbond had made home 
market sales at prices below their COPs in this review because in the 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the Department disregarded 
below-cost sales that Winbond made in the home market. See SRAMs Final 
Determination, 63 FR 8909, 8913 (Feb. 23, 1998). As a result, the 
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Winbond made 
home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs.
    In addition, in August and November 1999, respectively, the 
petitioner alleged that G-Link and GSI Technology were selling at 
prices below the COP in their foreign markets. Based on information 
submitted by the petitioner, the Department found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that G-Link and GSI Technology made sales in the 
foreign markets at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. As a result, the 
Department initiated investigations to determine whether these 
respondents made foreign market sales during the POR at prices below 
their respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. 
For further discussion, see the decision memoranda on this topic, dated 
August 27, 1999, for G-Link and December 6, 1999, for GSI Technology.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product in each quarter 
of the POR, plus amounts for SG&A and financing costs, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We compared the weighted-average quarterly COP figures to home 
market or third country prices of the foreign like product, as 
appropriate, less any applicable movement charges and discounts, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
these sales had been made at prices below their respective COPs. On a 
product-specific basis, we compared the COP to foreign market prices, 
less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and packing 
expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard foreign market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below 
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.''
    Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of that model were 
made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. To 
determine whether prices provided for recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time, we tested whether the prices which were 
below the per-unit cost of production at the time of the sale were also 
below the

[[Page 26581]]

weighted-average per-unit cost of production for the POR, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D). If they were, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales in determining NV.
    We found that, for certain models of SRAMs, more than 20 percent of 
each respondent's foreign market sales within an extended period of 
time were at prices below the COP. Further, the prices did not provide 
for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
therefore disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales 
as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act. For those U.S. sales of SRAMs for which there were no 
comparable foreign market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared CEP to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, financing expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance 
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A, financing 
expenses, and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each 
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
foreign country.
    We revised the sales data for each of the respondents, as well as 
the cost data provided by GSI Technology, based on our findings at 
verification. Because verification of the cost data submitted by G-Link 
and Winbond was conducted in April 2000, we were unable to incorporate 
our verification findings with respect to this data in the calculations 
performed for purposes of these preliminary results. We will, however, 
consider any verification findings for purposes of the final results. 
Company-specific calculations are discussed below.

A. G-Link

    Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the 
starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing, and 
foreign inland insurance, where appropriate, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses.
    Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset 
any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by home market 
indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.
    For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to 
account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411.
    Where NV was based on CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-average 
foreign market direct selling expenses, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8). Where applicable, we offset any 
commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the amount of home 
market indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of the U.S. 
commission.

B. GSI Technology

    Where NV was based on third-country sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts. We also made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. merchandise processing 
fees, U.S. inland freight to the warehouse, and U.S. warehousing 
expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we also made deductions for 
third-country credit expenses and commissions.
    We deducted third-country indirect selling expenses, including 
inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses, up to the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Where applicable, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a 
U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any third-country indirect selling 
expenses remaining after the deduction for the CEP offset, up to the 
amount of the U.S. commission.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
    Where NV was based on CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-average 
foreign market direct selling expenses and commissions, in accordance 
with sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8). In accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a CEP offset adjustment, 
calculated as noted above. Where applicable, we offset any commission 
paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any third-country selling 
expenses remaining after the deduction of the CEP offset, up to the 
amount of the U.S. commission.

Winbond

    In its questionnaire response, Winbond stated that it made all 
sales in the home market to unaffiliated parties. However, one of 
Winbond's customers was classified as an affiliate for purposes of the 
company's audited financial statements, based on the fact that the 
President of Winbond was a managing director of the customer in 
question. Consequently, we have treated this customer as an affiliated 
party, as defined by section 771(33)(F) of the Act, for purposes of the 
preliminary results.
    We tested the affiliated-party sales in question to ensure that 
they were made at ``arm's-length'' prices, in accordance with our 
practice. (See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 
58 FR 37062, 37077 (Appendix II) (July 9, 1993).) To conduct this test, 
we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers net of all movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct 
selling expenses, and packing costs, where appropriate. Based on the 
results of that test, we disregarded sales by Winbond to its affiliated 
party because they were not made at ``arm's-length'' prices, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c).
    Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the 
starting price for foreign inland freight and foreign inland insurance, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we also made deductions for home market 
credit expenses, trade development fees, and commissions.
    We deducted home market indirect selling expenses, including 
inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses, up to the 
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Where applicable, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a 
U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home market selling expenses 
remaining after the deduction for the CEP offset, up to the amount of 
the U.S. commission.
    In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where 
appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with

[[Page 26582]]

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
    Where NV was based on CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-average 
foreign market direct selling expenses and commissions, in accordance 
with sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8). In accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a CEP offset adjustment, 
calculated as explained above. Where applicable, we offset any 
commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by any home market 
indirect selling expenses remaining after the deduction for the CEP 
offset, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank.
    Section 773A of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 
unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's 
practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate 
differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is 
defined as the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. 
When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the 
benchmark for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period October 1, 1997, through March 
31, 1999 (for G-Link and Winbond) and the period October 1, 1998, 
through March 31, 1999 (for GSI Technology):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-Link Technology............................................      21.74
GSI Technology, Inc..........................................      33.85
Winbond Electronics Corp.....................................       0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days 
after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will 
publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such case briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these 
preliminary results.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
each importer's sales during the POR. These rates will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries of particular importers made during the POR. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service 
to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries for any 
importer for whom the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 
0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of SRAMs from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for G-Link, GSI 
Technology, and Winbond will be the rates established in the final 
results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent 
and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the 
cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 41.75 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.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(i)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-11465 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P