Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26577

sales involved a more advanced stage of

distribution than CEP sales.

Because we compared these CEP sales

to HM sales at a different LOT, we

examined whether a LOT adjustment

may be appropriate. In this case SKC

sold at one LOT in the home market;

therefore, there is no demonstrated

pattern of consistent price differences

between LOTs. Further, we do not have

the information which would allow us

to examine pricing patterns of SKC’s

sales of other similar products, and

there is no other record evidence on

which such an analysis could be based.

Because the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis for making

a LOT adjustment but the LOT in Korea

for SKC is at a more advanced stage than

the LOT of its CEP sales, a CEP offset

is appropriate in accordance with

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as

claimed by SKC. We based the CEP

offset amount on the amount of home

market indirect selling expenses, and

limited the deduction for home market

indirect selling expenses to the amount

of indirect selling expenses deducted

from CEP in accordance with section

772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We applied the

CEP offset to NV, whether based on

home market prices or CV.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999:

Company Margin

(percent)

HSI .............................................. 0

Hyosung ...................................... 0

SKC ............................................ 1.35

We will disclose calculations

performed in connection with these

preliminary results of review within 5

days of the day of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may request a

hearing not later than 30 days after

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also submit written

arguments in case briefs on these

preliminary results within 30 days of

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised

in case briefs, may be filed no later than

five days after the time limit for filing

case briefs. Parties who submit

arguments are requested to submit with

each argument a statement of the issue

and a brief summary of the argument.

All memoranda to which we refer in

this notice can be found in the public

reading room, located in the Central

Records Unit, room B–009 of the main

Commerce building. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held two days after

the scheduled date for submission of

rebuttal briefs.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including a discussion of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing. The Department will

issue final results of this review within

120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

Upon completion of the final results

in this review, the Department shall

determine, and the Customs Service

shall assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.212 (b), we have calculated

an importer/customer-specific

assessment rate based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

entered value of those same sales. This

Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each exporter directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of PET film from the Republic of Korea

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the

cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm

will be the rate established in the final

results of administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less-thanfair-value (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 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 this

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 21.5%, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

This notice also 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. This

administrative review and notice are in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: May 1, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11460 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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,

26578 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

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 reimported 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 GLink 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 thirdcountry 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 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-inmerchandise 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 nonaberrant 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 comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the

export transaction, we make a level-oftrade 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, GLink’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

26580 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 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 thirdcountry 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’slength’’ 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

26582 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

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):

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–469–807]

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain:

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard Smith at (202) 482–5193 or

Timothy Finn at (202) 482–0065, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Time Limits

Statutory Time Limits

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),

requires the Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) to make a

preliminary determination within 245

days after the last day of the anniversary

month of an order or finding for which

a review is requested. However, if it is

not practicable to complete the

preliminary results of review within this

time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act allows the Department to extend the

time limit for the preliminary

determination to a maximum of 365

days.

Background

On November 4, 1999, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel wire rod from Spain, covering the

period March 5, 1998 through August

31, 1999 (64 FR 60161). The preliminary