Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices 51437

data are credible. Therefore, the

Department should rely on adverse facts

available for S&J.

DOC Position

At verification we were able to

reconcile S&J unaudited financial

statements to its 1996 tax return (see S&J

Cost Verification Report (July 23, 1997)).

Therefore, because we were able to tie

S&J’s financial statements to an

independent outside source, we have

determined that there is no evidence on

the record to indicate the information

on the financial statements is unreliable.

See Mexican Flowers, 60 FR at 49569.

Comment 19: Non-Mandatory

Respondents

Petitioner suggests that the

Department calculate a margin for nonmandatory respondents using the results

of each of the four mandatory

respondents, except those with zero

dumping margins.

DOC Position

Non-mandatory respondents will be

subject to the ‘‘all others’’ deposit rate,

which we have calculated based on the

weighted average of margins calculated

for mandatory respondents—excluding

zero and de minimis margins. (see

March 13, 1997, Decision Memo)

Comment 20: Critical Circumstances

Petitioner argues that the Department

should find that critical circumstances

exist with respect to K. Ticho. Petitioner

contends that a timely allegation of

critical circumstances was made in the

petition and that K. Ticho failed to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire. Therefore, as facts

available, the Department should

determine that critical circumstances

exist with respect to K. Ticho.

DOC Position

We agree with petitioner. Because K.

Ticho failed to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire, we have

used the facts available as the basis for

determining whether critical

circumstances exist. The facts available

margin (40.28%) exceeds the threshold

for imputing knowledge of dumping to

the importers of the merchandise. In

addition, we have adversely inferred, as

the facts available, a massive increase in

imports from K. Ticho. We, therefore,

determine that critical circumstances

exist for K. Ticho, and will issue

appropriate instructions to the Customs

service.

We also determine that critical

circumstances exist for Romp. As with

K. Ticho, the final dumping margin for

Romp exceeds 15%, the minimum

benchmark established sales to impute

importer knowledge of dumping and

resultant injury. Also, because we have

determined that the reported quantity

and value of POI sales are unreliable, we

are also adversely inferring, as facts

available, a massive increase in imports

from Romp.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(1)

and 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, we are

directing the Customs Service to

continue to suspend liquidation of all

entries of CR nails from Taiwan, that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after May 12,

1997 (the date of publication of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register), except as noted

below. With respect to entries of CR

nails from Taiwan, manufactured and

exported by K. Ticho or Romp in

accordance with section 735(c) of the

Act, we are directing Customs Service to

continue suspension of liquidation on

all entries that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after February 10,

1997, which is 90 days prior to the date

of publication of the preliminary

determination. The Customs Service

shall continue to require a cash deposit

or posting of a bond equal to the

estimated amount by which the normal

value exceeds the export price as shown

below.

In accordance with section 735(a)(4)

of the Act, because we have calculated

zero or de minimis rates for Unicatch,

and Lei Chu, we will instruct Customs

to terminate suspension of liquidation

of entries of CR nails manufactured by

these companies and to liquidate such

entries without regard to antidumping

duties. We note that pursuant to 19 CFR

353.21, these companies will be

excluded from any antidumping order

resulting from an affirmative finding of

material injury by the International

Trade Commission. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/producer/exporterMargin

percentage

Critical circumstances

Unicatch ................ 0.00 No.

Lei Chu .................. 0.07 (De

Minimis)

No.

S&J ........................ 5.36 No.

Romp ..................... 40.28 Yes.

K. Ticho ................. 40.28 Yes.

All Others .............. 5.36 No.

Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(A) and

section 735(c)(5) of the Act, the

Department has not included zero or de

minimis weighted-average dumping

margins, or margins determined entirely

under section 776 of the Act, in the

calculation of the ‘‘all others’’ rate.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

of our determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will, within 45 days, determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that

material injury, or threat of material

injury does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing

Customs officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered for consumption

on or after the effective date of the

suspension of liquidation.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act.

Dated: September 24, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–26045 Filed 9–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–828]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From the Republic of

Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Blankenbaker or Rebecca

Woodings, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0989 or (202) 482–0651.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as
51438 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices

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 353 (1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that static

random access memory semiconductors

(‘‘SRAMs’’) from the Republic of Korea

(‘‘Korea’’) are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section

733 of the Act. The estimated margins

of sales at LTFV are shown in the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation: Static

Random access Memory

Semiconductors From the Republic of

Korea, 62 FR 13596 (March 21, 1997)),

the following events have occurred:

In an April 1, 1997 letter to the

Department, LG Semicon Co. Ltd.

(‘‘LGS’’) requested exclusion from

participation as a mandatory respondent

in this investigation. In the request, LGS

argued that it was an extremely small

exporter of SRAMs and it accounted for

only a small fraction of U.S. SRAM

imports from Korea during the period of

investigation.

On April 4, 1997, Samsung

Electronics Co. Ltd. (‘‘Samsung’’)

requested that the Department limit its

analysis in this proceeding to sales of

identical merchandise. On April 16,

1997, the Department determined that it

would not limit its analysis to only sales

of identical merchandise. The

department concluded that the reporting

of a very small number of sales of

similar merchandise would not impose

an undue burden on either Samsung or

the Department. (See Memorandum

form Thomas Futtner to Louis Apple

dated April 16, 1997.)

On April 11, 1997, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary determination.

(See ITC Investigations No. 731–TA–

761–762). The ITC found that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports of SRAMs

from Korea.

On April 16, 1997, we presented the

Section A–E questionnaire to Hyundai

Electronics Industries Co. Ltd.

(‘‘Hyundai’’), LGS, and Samsung.

On April 25, 1997, Samsung respected

that the Department not require the

reporting of the following: (1) Sales of

SRAMs that were further processed by

Samsung’s U.S. subsidiary prior to sale

in the United States; (2) export price

(‘‘EP’’) sales to the United States; and (3)

sales of 64K SRAMs. on April 28, 1997,

Hyundai also requested to be excused

from section E of the questionnaire,

which required the reporting of further

processed (‘‘FP’’) sales. On May 8, 1997,

the Department excluded the reporting

of FP sales (Section E of the

questionnaire) for Samsung and

Hyundai, and requested that Samsung

report EP sales and sales of 64K SRAMs

in the United States. The Department

concluded that the value of the FP sales

at issue did not justify the extensive

expenditure of Department resources

that analyzing the sales would have

required, whereas the analysis of EP and

64K sales would be both less complex

and less burdensome. See Memorandum

from Thomas Futtner to Louis Apple

dated May 8, 1997.

On May 14, 1997, Hyundai, LGS, and

Samsung submitted their Section A

questionnaire responses. On June 16,

1997, Hyundai and Samsung submitted

their Section B–D questionnaire

responses.

In a June 16, 1997, letter submitted to

the Department, LGS notified the

Department that it was withdrawing

from further participation in the

investigation. In the letter, LGS stated

its SRAM sales had declined

substantially. LGS explained that, as a

result, it had decided to cease U.S.

SRAM sales and withdraw from the

investigation ‘‘rather than incur the

enormous burden in time and expense

of further participation in the

Department’s investigation.’’

On July 7, 1997, at the request of the

petitioner, we postponed the

preliminary determination to September

23, 1997. See Notice of Postponement of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Static Random

Access Memory Semiconductors from

Korea and Taiwan, 62 FR 36260 (July 7,

1997). On July 31, 1997, the petitioner

provided requested a clarification of the

scope language in the notice of

initiation.

Postponement of Final Determination

On September 10, 1997, Hyundai

requested, pursuant to section

735(a)(2)(B) of the Act, that in the event

of an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 125

days after the date of publication of the

affirmative preliminary determination

in the Federal Register. In accordance

with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and

19 CFR 353.20(b), inasmuch as: (1) Our

preliminary determination is

affirmative; (2) Hyundai accounts for a

significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise under

investigation; and (3) we are not aware

of the existence of any compelling

reasons for denying the request, we are

granting Hyundai’s request and

postponing the final determination.

Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly.

Facts Available

As discussed above, LGS withdrew

from the investigation and declined to

answer the Department’s Section B–E

questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the

Act provides that if an 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 LGS failed to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire, and because subsections

(c)(1) and (e) do not apply with respect

to LGS, we must use facts otherwise

available to calculate its dumping

margin.

Section 776(b) provides that adverse

inferences may be used against a party

that has 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’’). LGS’s decision not to reply to

the Department’s questionnaire

demonstrates that LGS has failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability in this

investigation. Therefore, the Department

has determined that, in selecting among

the facts otherwise available for LGS, 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. When

analyzing the petition, the Department
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices 51439

reviewed all of the data the petitioner

relied upon in calculating the estimated

dumping margin, and adjusted those

calculations where necessary. See

Initiation Checklist, dated March 17,

1997. The estimated dumping margin

was based on a comparison of

constructed value to a price quotation in

the U.S. market offered by Samsung.

The estimated dumping margin, as

recalculated by the Department, was

55.36 percent.

For purposes of corroboration, the

Department re-examined the price

information provided in the petition in

light of information developed during

the investigation and found that it has

probative value. See Memorandum from

the Team to Tom Futtner dated

September 23, 1997, for a detailed

explanation of corroboration of the

information in the petition.

Therefore, as adverse facts available,

we are assigning to LGS to margin stated

in the notice of initiation, 55.36 percent.

This margin is higher than the margin

calculated for either respondents in this

investigation.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are synchronous,

asynchronous, and specialty SRAMs

from Korea, 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 Korea, 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

Korea are not included in the scope.

The scope of this investigation

includes modules containing SRAMs.

Such modules include single in-line

processing modules (‘‘SIPs’’), single inline memory modules (‘‘SIMMs’’), dual

in-line memory modules (‘‘DIMMs’’),

memory cards, or other collections of

SRAMs, whether unmounted or

mounted on a circuit board.

The SRAMs within the scope of this

investigation are classifiable under the

subheadings 8542.13.8037 through

8542.13.8049, 8473.30.10 through

8473.30.90, and 8542.13.8005 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

January 1, 1996 through December 31,

1996.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of SRAMs

from Korea to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the United Price (‘‘USP’’) to

the Normal Value (‘‘NV’’), as described

in the ‘‘United States Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,

below. In accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated weighted-average USPs for

comparison to weighted-average NVs.

In making our comparisons, in

accordance with section 771(16) of the

Act, we considered all products sold in

the home market, fitting the description

specified in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’

section of this notice, above, to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the

next most similar foreign like product,

based on the characteristics listed in

Appendix III of the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire.

Level of Trade and Constructed Export

Price (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 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 Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes

and Tubes From India: Preliminary

Results of New Shipper Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review; 62 FR

23760, 23761 (May 1, 1997).

We reviewed the questionnaire

responses of both respondents to

establish whether there were sales at

different levels of trade based on

marketing stages, selling functions

performed, and services offered to each

customer or customer class. For both

respondents, we identified one level of

trade in the home market with direct

sales by the foreign producers to

unaffiliated domestic customers. These

direct sales were made by both

respondents to original equipment

manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) and to

distributors. All sales, whether made to

OEM customers or to distributors, were

made at the same marketing stage and

involved the same selling functions. For

the U.S. market, all U.S. sales for

Hyundai and some sales by Samsung

were reported as CEP sales. We

examined the marketing stage and

selling functions performed by the

Korean companies for U.S. CEP sales,

after the adjustment required by section

772(d) of the Act, and preliminarily

determine that they are at a different

level of trade from the Korean

companies’ home market sales because

the CEP represents a different marketing

stage with fewer selling functions. For

instance, the CEP does not include any

general promotion, marketing activities,

or price negotiations.

Because we compared CEP sales to

home market sales at a different level of

trade, we examined whether a level of

trade adjustment may be appropriate. In

this case, both respondents only sold at

one level of trade in the home market;

therefore, there is no basis upon which

either respondent can demonstrate a

consistent pattern of price differences

between levels of trade. Further, we do

not have information which would

allow us to examine pricing patterns

based on the respondents’ sales of other

products and there is no other record

information on which such an analysis

could be based. Because the data

available do not provide an appropriate

basis for making a level of trade

adjustment and the level of trade in the

home market is a more advanced stage

of distribution than the level of trade of

the CEP sales, a CEP offset is

appropriate. Therefore, we have

accepted both respondents’ claims for a

CEP offset, pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
51440 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices

Time Period for Cost and Price

Comparisons

Section 777A(d) of the Act states that

in an investigation, the Department will

compare the weighted average of the

NVs to the weighted average of the EPs/

CEPs. Generally, the Department will

compare sales and conduct the sales

below cost testing using annual

averages. However, where prices have

moved significantly over the course of

the POI, it has been the Department’s

practice to use shorter time periods. See,

e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Erasable

Programmable Read Only Memories

(EPROMs) from Japan; 51 FR 39680,

39682 (October 30, 1986); Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Dynamic Random Access

Memory Semiconductors of One

Megabit and Above From the Republic

of Korea; 58 FR 15467, 15476 (March 23,

1993).

We invited comments from interested

parties regarding this issue. An analysis

of these comments revealed that all

parties agreed that the SRAMs market

experienced a significant and consistent

price decline during the POI.

Accordingly, in recognition of the

significant and consistent price declines

in the SRAMs market during the POI,

the Department has compared prices

and conducted the sales below cost test

using quarterly data. In accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we

conducted the recovery of cost test

using annual cost data.

United States Price

Hyundai

We calculated CEP for Hyundai, in

accordance with sections 772(b), (c),

and (d) of the Act. We found that CEP

is warranted because all U.S. sales

activities associated with U.S. sales took

place in the United States through a

wholly-owned subsidiary of Hyundai.

We calculated CEP based on the price to

the first unaffiliated customer in the

United States. We made deductions

from the gross unit price for the

following expenses: foreign inland

freight, brokerage, and handling;

international freight and insurance; and

U.S. brokerage, handling and inland

freight.

Pursuant to section 772(d) (1) and (2)

of the Act, we also made deductions for

commissions; credit, inventory carrying

costs, and other indirect and direct

selling expenses; and bank and

extended test charges. Finally, we made

an adjustment for CEP profit in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act.

Samsung

We calculated CEP for Samsung, in

accordance with sections 772 (b), (c),

and (d) of the Act. We found that CEP

is warranted for some U.S. sales because

these sales took place in the United

States through a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Samsung. We calculated

CEP based on the price to the first

unaffiliated customer in the United

States. We made deductions from the

gross unit price for the following

expenses: foreign inland freight,

brokerage, handling, and banking

charges; international freight and

insurance; and U.S. inland freight,

brokerage, handling, insurance, and

banking charges.

Pursuant to section 772(d) (1) and (2)

of the Act, we also made deductions for

commissioners, credit, advertising,

cooperative, and royalty expenses;

inventory carrying costs and other direct

and indirect selling expenses. We also

deducted U.S. repacking costs. Finally,

we made an adjustment for CEP profit

in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of

the Act.

For the EP sales by Samsung, we

made deductions from the gross unit

price for the following expenses: foreign

inland freight, brokerage, handling, and

banking charges; international freight

and insurance; and U.S. inland freight,

brokerage, handling, and banking

charges.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared each

respondent’s aggregate volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

to the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of

the subject merchandise, in accordance

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

Each respondent’s aggregate volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product was greater than five percent of

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise. Accordingly, we

determined that its home market was

viable for each respondent.

Based on a cost allegation presented

in the petition, the Department found

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales by both respondents in their

home market were made at prices below

their respective costs of production

(‘‘COPs’’). As a result, the Department

initiated an investigation to determine

whether either respondent made home

market sales during the POI at prices

below its COP, within the meaning of

section 773(b) of the Act.

We calculated COP as the sum of each

respondent’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for SG&A and packing

costs, in accordance with section

773(b)(3) of the Act. We used the

respondents’ reported COP, adjusted as

discussed below, to compute quarterly

weighted-average COP of the POI. We

compared the weighted-average COPs to

home market sales of the foreign like

product as required under section

773(b) of the Act in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below COP. On a product-specific

basis, we compared COP to the home

market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, and

packing expenses.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined whether: (1)

Within an extended period of time, such

sales were made in substantial

quantities; and (2) such sales were made

at prices which permitted recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time

in the normal course of trade. Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of given product during the POI 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). To

determine whether prices were such as

to provide 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 above the weighted

average per unit cost of production for

the POI, in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(D). Where we found that a

substantial quantity of sales during the

POI were below cost and not at prices

that provided for recovery of costs

within a reasonable period of time, we

disregarded the below cost sales.

Where NV was calculated using prices

to unaffiliated customers, we made

appropriate adjustments to those prices.

First, we deducted home market inland

freight and home market packing costs.

Where there were differences in the

merchandise to be compared, we made

adjustments in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act to account for

those differences. Where appropriate,

we made circumstances-of-sale

adjustments in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. For purposes

of CEP sales comparisons, we deducted

home market indirect expenses up to

allowable levels. For purposes of CEP

and EP sales comparisons, we added

U.S. packing costs in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.

Where there was no above cost home

market sale for comparison, NV was

based on CV. In accordance with section
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices 51441

773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of each respondent’s

cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A,

profit, and U.S. packing costs. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of

the Act, we based SG&A 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.

Although we generally relied, in our

COP and CV calculation, on the data

submitted by respondents, we made

adjustments in the allocation of both

research and development (‘‘R&D’’) and

interest expense. Adjustments common

to both companies are detailed

immediately, below, followed by

company-specific comments.

For both companies, we allocated all

semiconductor R&D over all

semiconductor cost of goods sold. See

Decision Memorandum dated

September 23, 1997. We concluded that

R&D related to semiconductors benefits

all semiconductor products, and that

allocation of R&D on a product-specific

basis was not appropriate. In support of

our methodology, we have placed on the

record information regarding crossfertilization of semiconductor R&D.

In our Section D cost questionnaire,

we requested that respondents allocate

interest expense over the total cost of

goods sold. However, we subsequently

determined that this allocation

methodology does not appropriately

recognize the expenses related to capital

investment necessary for

semiconductors as compared to other

lines of business. Therefore, we

allocated net interest expense on the

basis of proportional fixed assets for

both companies. The Court of

International Trade has upheld the

Department’s methodology of allocating

interest expenses on the basis of

semiconductor fixed assets. See Micron

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 893 F.

Supp. 21, 30 (June 12, 1995).

Finally, we adjusted both

respondents’ depreciation expenses to

reflect their historical depreciation

methodologies. We based our

adjustments on the fact that, in 1996,

both Samsung and Hyundai chose not to

record certain accelerated depreciation

expenses that, according to their

financial statements, they had relied

upon in the previous year. In switching

to alternative methods for recognizing

depreciation expense, the companies

did not retroactively restate the bases of

their assets, but instead used the net

book value of the assets as of the date

of the change. Thus, the companies

failed to report depreciation expense in

a systematic and rational manner over

the useful lives of their assets. As a

result, disproportionately greater costs

were attributed to products

manufactured before the change than

subsequent to it. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Dynamic Random Access

Memory Semiconductors of One

Megabit and Above From the Republic

of Korea; 58 FR 15467.15479 (March 23,

1993).

In adjusting the depreciation expenses

by Samsung and Hyundai, we relied on

the same accelerated depreciation

methods used by the companies in

1995. The current record does not

contain information with respect to

what the appropriate depreciation

expenses would be after taking into

account the restated bases of the

companies’ assets. Our use of Samsung’s

and Hyundai’s historical depreciation

methods in adjusting reported

depreciation expense for COP and CV is

consistent with the statutory preference

for use of cost allocation methods that

have been historically relied upon by

respondents. See section 773(f)(i)(A) of

the Act and SAA at 834.

Hyundai

For those comparison products for

which there were sales above the COP,

we based NV on delivered prices to

home market customers. We made

deductions for inland freight, imputed

credit expenses and banking charges,

and home market direct and indirect

selling expenses. As indirect selling

expenses, we 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 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

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. In addition, where appropriate, we

made adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.57.

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses and banking charges.

We also 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 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

Samsung

For those comparisons for which

there were sales above the COP, we

based NV on delivered prices to home

market customers. We made deductions

for inland freight, imputed credit,

advertising, and royalty expenses, and

home market direct and indirect selling

expenses. As indirect selling expenses,

we including inventory carrying costs

and other indirect selling expenses, up

to the amount of indirect selling

expenses and commissions incurred on

U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2). In the case of letter-ofcredit sales, we added in the amount of

any duty-drawback.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) 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 rate for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

See Policy Bulletin 96–1: Currency

Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8,

1996).

Section 773A(b) directs the

Department to allow a 60-day

adjustment period when a currency has

undergone a sustained movement. A

sustained movement has occurred when

the weekly average of actual daily rates

exceeds the weekly average of

benchmark rates by more than five

percent for eight consecutive weeks. For

an explanation of this methodology, see

id. Such an adjustment period is

required only when a foreign currency

is appreciating against the U.S. dollar.

The use of an adjustment period was not

warranted in this case because the

Korean Won did not undergo a

sustained movement.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information used

in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of entries

of subject merchandise from Korea, as

defined in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’

section of this notice, with the

exception of subject merchandise that is

the product of Samsung. Suspension
51442 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices

1These companies are as follows: (1) Advanced

Microelectronics Products Inc. (Advanced

Microelectronics); (2) Alliance Semiconductor

Corp. (Alliance); (3) Asia Specific Technology

Limited; (4) Best Integrated Technology, Inc. (BIT);

(5) Chia Hsin Livestock Corp.; (6) E–CMOS

Technology Corporation; (7) Etron Technology, Inc.;

(8) G–Link Technology Corp.; (9) Holtek

Microelectronics Inc.; (10) Hualon Microelectronics

Corporation; (11) Integrated Silicon Solution

(Taiwan) Inc. (ISSI); (12) Kes Rood Technology

Taiwan Ltd.; (13) Lien Hsing Integrated Circuits

(Lien Hsing); (14) Macronix International Co., Ltd.;

(15) Mosel-Vitelic, Inc.; (16) Taiwan Memory

Technology, Inc.; (17) Taiwan Semiconductor

Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC); (18) Texas

Instruments-Acer Inc. (Texas Instruments); (19)

United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC); (20)

Utron Technology, Inc.; (21) Vanguard International

Semiconductor Corporation; and (22) Winbond

Electronics Corporation (Winbond).

will apply to products that are entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. For these entries, the Customs

Service will require a cash deposit or

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the normal

value exceeds the export price as shown

below. These suspension of liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

percent

margin

Samsung ..................................... 1 1.59

Hyundai ....................................... 3.38

LG Semicon 2 .............................. 2 55.36

All others ..................................... 3.38

1 De minimis.

2Facts Available Rate.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threatening

material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least six copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than December

29, 1997; and rebuttal briefs, no latter

than January 5, 1997. A list of

authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

The summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to give interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

January 7, 1998; time and room to be

determined; at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by February 5, 1998.

This determination is published pursuant

to sections 773(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: September 23, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–25942 Filed 9–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–827]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson or David Genovese,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–1776 or (202) 482–0498,

respectively.

The Applicable Statute

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

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

353 (April 1, 1996).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that static

random access memory semiconductors

(SRAMs) from Taiwan are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value (LTFV), as provided

in section 733 of the Act. The estimated

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section

of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

SRAMs from the Republic of Korea and

Taiwan (62 FR 13596, March 21, 1997)),

the following events have occurred:

During March and April 1997, the

Department obtained information from

the American Institute in Taiwan

identifying potential producers and/or

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States. Based on this

information, in April 1997, the

Department issued antidumping

questionnaires to 22 companies.1

Also in April 1997, the United States

International Trade Commission (ITC)

issued an affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case (see ITC

Investigation No. 731–TA–761–762).

In May 1997, the Department received

responses to Section A of the

questionnaire from 18 of the 22

companies. Three of the remaining

companies, Advanced Microelectronics,

BIT, and Texas-Instruments, did not

submit responses to Section A.

Therefore, we have assigned a margin to

these companies based on facts

available. (See the ‘‘Facts Available’’

section below, for further discussion.)

Regarding the fourth company, Lien

Hsing, we were notified by one of the

respondents in this investigation that it

had received the questionnaire

addressed to Lien Hsing, but that it was

unaware of the existence of this

company. Because Lien Hsing never

received the Department’s questionnaire

and we found no way in which to locate

and serve it with the questionnaire, no

adverse inference is warranted with

respect to it.

Based on the information received

from the 18 responding companies, in

May 1997, the Department determined

that it did not have the administrative

resources to investigate all known

producers and/or exporters of SRAMs