68976 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

Amendment to Final Results

Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the

Tariff Act, we are now amending the

final results of administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof from

France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom, for the period May 1,

1993, through April 30, 1994. The

revised weighted-average margins are as

follows:

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

France: SKF ............................................................................................................................................................... 3.73 (1) 3 18.80

Germany:

FAG .................................................................................................................................................................... 12.93 13.57 3 2.00

SKF ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3.04 9.45 14.36

Italy: SKF ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.21 (2)

Japan:

Koyo Seiko ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 14.90 3 6.53 (1)

NTN .................................................................................................................................................................... 14.33 3 11.05 3 32.33

Sweden: SKF ............................................................................................................................................................. 1.93 3 0.00

Thailand: NMB/Pelmec .............................................................................................................................................. 0.23

United Kingdom:

Barden ................................................................................................................................................................ 1.06 (1)

FAG .................................................................................................................................................................... 3.31 (1)

NSK/RHP ............................................................................................................................................................ 7.14 7.12

(1) No shipments or sales subject to this review.

(2) Not subject to review.

(3) No change to the margin as a result of litigation.

Accordingly, the Department will

determine and the U.S. Customs Service

will assess appropriate antidumping

duties on entries of the subject

merchandise made by firms covered by

these reviews. Individual differences

between United States price and foreign

market value may vary from the

percentages listed above. For companies

covered by these amended results, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions to the U.S. Customs Service

after publication of these amended final

results of reviews.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 751(a) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–29257 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION

[A–580–812]

Dynamic Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit or

Above From the Republic of Korea:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On June 6, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (the

‘‘Department’’) published the

preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on dynamic random access memory

semiconductors of one megabit or above

(‘‘DRAMs’’) from the Republic of Korea.

The merchandise covered by this order

are DRAMs from the Republic of Korea.

The review covers two manufacturers,

Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd.

and Hyundai Electronics America

(collectively ‘‘Hyundai’’), and LG

Semicon Co., Ltd. and LG Semicon

America (collectively ‘‘LG’’), and four

exporters, G5 Corporation (‘‘G5’’), Kim’s

Marketing, Jewon Trading (‘‘Jewon’’),

and Wooyang Industry Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Wooyang’’). The period of review

(‘‘POR’’) is May 1, 1998, through April

30, 1999.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes in the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margins for

the reviewed firms are listed below in

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Conniff or Alexander Amdur, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1009 or 482–5346,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 19

CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

On June 6, 2000, the Department

published the preliminary results of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on DRAMs

from Korea. See Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors of One

Megabit or Above From the Republic of

Korea: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Notice of Intent Not to

Revoke Order in Part, 65 FR 35886 (June

6, 2000). We invited parties to comment

on our preliminary results of review. On

September 5, 2000, we received case

briefs from Micron Technology, Inc.

(‘‘Micron’’), the petitioner, Hyundai,

and LG. On September 12, 2000, we

received rebuttal briefs from Micron,

Hyundai, and LG. The petitioner

requested a public hearing on June 12,

2000, and a public hearing was held on

September 20, 2000. The Department

has conducted this administrative

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Effective January 1, 2000, the

Department revoked the antidumping

duty order on dynamic random access

memory semiconductors of one megabit

and above (‘‘DRAMs’’) from the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 68977

Republic of Korea, pursuant to section

751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.222(i)(1). See DRAMs from the

Republic of Korea; Final Results of Full

Sunset Review and Revocation of Order,

65 FR 5939 (October 5, 2000). Therefore,

we will not issue cash deposit

instructions to the U.S. Customs Service

(‘‘Customs’’) based on the results of this

review. We are conducting a truncated

administrative review for the May 1,

1999, through December 30, 1999

period. Since the revocation is currently

in effect, current and future imports of

DRAMs from Korea will be entered into

the United States without regard to

antidumping duties. We have instructed

Customs to liquidate all entries as of

January 1, 2000 without regard to

antidumping duties.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of DRAMs from Korea.

Included in the scope are assembled and

unassembled DRAMs. Assembled

DRAMs include all package types.

Unassembled DRAMs include processed

wafers, uncut die, and cut die.

Processed wafers produced in Korea,

but packaged or assembled into memory

modules in a third country, are included

in the scope; wafers produced in a third

country and assembled or packaged in

Korea are not included in the scope.

The scope of this review includes

memory modules. A memory module is

a collection of DRAMs, the sole function

of which is memory. Modules include

single in-line processing modules

(‘‘SIPs’’), single in-line memory modules

(‘‘SIMMs’’), or other collections of

DRAMs, whether unmounted or

mounted on a circuit board. Modules

that contain other parts that are needed

to support the function of memory are

covered. Only those modules which

contain additional items which alter the

function of the module to something

other than memory, such as video

graphics adapter (‘‘VGA’’) boards and

cards, are not included in the scope.

The scope of this review also includes

video random access memory

semiconductors (‘‘VRAMS’’), as well as

any future packaging and assembling of

DRAMs; and, removable memory

modules placed on motherboards, with

or without a central processing unit

(‘‘CPU’’), unless the importer of

motherboards certifies with the Customs

Service that neither it nor a party related

to it or under contract to it will remove

the modules from the motherboards

after importation. The scope of this

review does not include DRAMs or

memory modules that are reimported for

repair or replacement.

The DRAMS and modules subject to

this review are currently classifiable

under subheadings 8471.50.0085,

8471.91.8085, 8542.11.0024,

8542.11.8026, 8542.13.8034,

8471.50.4000, 8473.30.1000,

8542.11.0026, 8542.11.8034,

8471.50.8095, 8473.30.4000,

8542.11.0034, 8542.13.8005,

8471.91.0090, 8473.30.8000,

8542.11.8001, 8542.13.8024,

8471.91.4000, 8542.11.0001,

8542.11.8024 and 8542.13.8026 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

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

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

Department’s written description of the

scope of this review remains

dispositive.

Facts Available (‘‘FA’’)

In accordance with section 776(a) of

the Act, we have determined that the

use of adverse FA is warranted for G5,

Kim’s Marketing, Jewon, and Wooyang

for these final results of review.

1. Application of FA

Section 776(a) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested, significantly

impedes a proceeding under the

antidumping statute, or provides

information which cannot be verified,

the Department shall use, subject to

sections 782(d) and (e), facts otherwise

available in reaching the applicable

determination. In this review, as

described in detail below, the abovereferenced companies failed to provide

the necessary information in the form

and manner requested, and, in some

instances, the submitted information

could not be verified. Thus, pursuant to

section 776(a) of the Act, the

Department is required to apply, subject

to section 782(d), facts otherwise

available.

Section 782(d) of the Act provides

that, if the Department determines that

a response to a request for information

does not comply with the request, the

Department will inform the person

submitting the response of the nature of

the deficiency and shall, to the extent

practicable, provide that person the

opportunity to remedy or explain the

deficiency. If that person submits

further information that continues to be

unsatisfactory, or this information is not

submitted within the applicable time

limits, the Department may, subject to

section 782(e), disregard all or part of

the original and subsequent responses,

as appropriate.

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act,

notwithstanding the Department’s

determination that the submitted

information is ‘‘deficient’’ under section

782(d) of the Act, the Department shall

not decline to consider such

information if all of the following

requirements are satisfied: (1) The

information is submitted by the

established deadline; (2) the information

can be verified; (3) the information is

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as

a reliable basis for reaching the

applicable determination; (4) the

interested party has demonstrated that it

acted to the best of its ability; and (5)

the information can be used without

undue difficulties.

The Department has concluded that,

because G5, Kim’s Marketing, Jewon,

and Wooyang failed to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire, a

determination based on a total FA is

warranted for these companies. See the

Preliminary Results for a detailed

discussion of this analysis.

2. Selection of FA

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act authorizes the Department to

use an adverse inference if the

Department finds that an interested

party failed to cooperate by not acting

to the best of its ability to comply with

the request for information. See, e.g.,

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20

(October 16, 1997). In the Preliminary

Results, the Department determined that

by not responding to the Department’s

questionnaire, each of these four

companies did not act to the best of its

respective abilities, and therefore an

adverse inference is warranted in

applying facts available for these

companies.

For the final results, no interested

party comments were submitted

regarding this issue and we continue to

find that the failure of G5, Kim’s

Marketing, Jewon, and Wooyang to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire in this review

demonstrates that these entities failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of

their ability. Thus, consistent with the

Department’s practice in cases where a

respondent fails to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire, in selecting

FA for G5, Kim’s Marketing, Jewon, and

Wooyang in this review, an adverse

inference is warranted. Therefore, we

are assigning G5, Kim’s Marketing,

Jewon, and Wooyang an adverse FA rate

of 10.44 percent, the rate calculated for

Hyundai in a previous review and the

68978 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

highest margin from any segment of the

proceeding related to DRAMS from

Korea.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

administrative review are addressed in

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Holly

A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Import Administration, to

Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated November

3, 2000, which is hereby adopted by this

notice. A list of the issues which parties

have raised and to which we have

responded, all of which are in the

Decision Memorandum, is attached to

this notice as an Appendix. Parties can

find a complete discussion of all issues

raised in this review and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public memorandum which is on file in

the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of

the main Department building. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum can be accessed

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm.

The paper copy and electronic version

of the Decision Memorandum are

identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changes

in the margin calculations. These

changes are discussed in the relevant

sections of the ‘‘Decision

Memorandum.’’

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period April 1, 1998

through, May 30, 1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

LG ................................................. 1.18

Hyundai ......................................... 2.30

G5 ................................................. 10.44

Wooyang ....................................... 10.44

Jewon ........................................... 10.44

Kim’s Marketing ............................ 10.44

Assessment

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. Where the

importer-specific assessment rate is

above de minimis, we will instruct

Customs to assess antidumping duties

on that importer’s entries of subject

merchandise.

These final results of review shall be

the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by this review. For

duty-assessment purposes, we

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates by aggregating the dumping

margins calculated for all U.S. sales to

each importer and dividing this amount

by the total estimated entered value

reported for those sales. Hyundai and

LG, in accordance with the

Department’s questionnaire, estimated

the entered value of their respective

sales by calculating the average of the

entered value of each control number

for the POR. For all other respondents,

we based assessment rate on the facts

available margin percentage.

Notification

This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping

duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the

Act.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in Decision

Memorandum

Comments and Responses

1. Currency Conversions

2. Calculation of Foreign Currency

Transaction Gains

3. Offset to Foreign Currency Translation

Losses

4. Calculation of Foreign Currency

Translation Gains

5. Allocation of Foreign Currency Translation

Gains and Losses

6. Foreign Exchange Translation Losses in

Construction in Progress (‘‘CIP’’) Account

7. Offset for Long-Term Interest Income

8. Unspecified Foreign Exchange Gains and

Losses

9. Research and Development (‘‘R&D’’)

10. Cross-Fertilization of R&D

11. Use of Cost of Goods Sold (‘‘COGS’’) to

Calculate R&D Ratio

12. Calculation of LG’s R&D Ratio

13. Calculation of LG’s G&A Ratio

14. Increase in Useful Lives

15. Adjustment to Depreciation

16. Programming Error in LG’s Depreciation

Adjustment

17. Adjustment for Special Depreciation for

LG

18. Level of Trade (‘‘LOT’’)/Constructed

Export Price (‘‘CEP’’) Offset

19. LG’s Interest Expense

20. Calculation of CEP Profit for LG

21. Correction of LG’s Concordance Program

22. Overstatement of LG’s Duty Assessment

Rate

[FR Doc. 00–29256 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION

(A–484–801)

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From

Greece: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On May 15, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on electrolytic manganese dioxide from

Greece. The review covers one

producer/exporter, Tosoh Hellas, during

the period of review April 1, 1998,

through March 31, 1999.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We have made one

change in our calculations. The review

indicates the existence of no dumping

margins for Tosoh Hellas during this

period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hermes Pinilla or Richard Rimlinger,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement 3,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;