12794 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices

Period to be reviewed

Akai Impex, Ltd.

Mukand, Ltd.

India: Stainless Steel Bar, A–533–810 .............................................................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97

Mukand, Ltd.

Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited

Japan: Mechanical Transfer Presses, A–588–810 ............................................................................................................ 2/1/96–1/31/97

Aida Engineering, Ltd.

Hitachi Zosen Corporation

Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries

Japan: Melamine, A–588–056 ........................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97

Taiyo Ink Manufacturing Co.

Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd.

The People’s Republic of China: Axes/Adzes,* A–570–803 ............................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation

Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation

Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Company

The People’s Republic of China: Bars/Wedges,* A–570–803 .......................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation

Liaoning Limeng Group Limited Company

Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation

Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Company

Zibo Tool Factory

The People’s Republic of China: Hammers/Sledges,* A–570–803 .................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation

Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation

Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Company

The People’s Republic of China: Picks/Mattocks,* A–570–803 ........................................................................................ 2/1/96–1/31/97

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation

Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation

Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Company

*All other exporters of hand tools from the People’s Republic of China are conditionally covered by this review.

The People’s Republic of China: Manganese Metal,* A–570–840 ................................................................................... 6/14/95–1/31/97

China National Electronics Import & Export Hunan Company

China Hunan International Economic Development (Group) Corporation

China Metallurgical I/E Hunan Corp./Hunan Nonferrous Metal

I/E Association Corp.

Minmetals Precious & Rare Mineral Import & Export Corporation

*All other exporters of manganese metal from the People’s Republic of China are conditionally covered by this

review.

The People’s Republic of China: Paint Brushes,* A–570–501 ......................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97

Hebei Animal By-Products I/E Corp.

Hunan Provincial Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corporation

*All other exporters of paint brushes from the People’s Republic of China are conditionally covered by this review.

The People’s Republic of China: Certain Cased Pencils, A–570–827 ............................................................................. 12/1/95–11/30/96

Shanghai Foreign Trade Corporation*

*Shanghai Foreign Trade Corporation was inadvertently identified as subject to administrative review request

(January 17, 1997, (62 FR 2647). As all other exporters of certain cased pencils from the PRC, this company

is conditionally covered by this review.

COUNTERVAILING DUTY PROCEEDINGS

None.

If requested within 30 days of the date

of publication of this notice, the

Department will determine whether

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by an exporter or producer subject to

any of these reviews if the subject

merchandise is sold in the United States

through an importer which is affiliated

with such exporter or producer.

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b) and

355.34(b).

These initiations and this notice are

in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

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

and 355.22(c)(1).

Dated: March 11, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–6684 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–580–812]

Dynamic Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit or

Above from the Republic of Korea;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Notice

of Intent Not to Revoke Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

and notice of intent not to revoke order.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices 12795

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

two respondents and one U.S. producer,

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on dynamic

random access memory semiconductors

of one megabit or above from the

Republic of Korea. The review covers

two manufacturers/exporters of the

subject merchandise to the United

States for the period of May 1, 1995

through April 30, 1996.

As a result of the review, the

Department has preliminarily

determined that no dumping margins

exist for both respondents. We intend

not to revoke the order on DRAMs from

Korea.

If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service not to assess

antidumping duties. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas F. Futtner, AD/CVD

Enforcement Office 4, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

On May 10, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 27250) the antidumping duty order

on dynamic random access memory

semiconductors (DRAMs) from the

Republic of Korea. On May 8, 1996, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of this

antidumping duty order for the period

of May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996

(61 FR 20791). We received timely

requests for review from two

manufacturers/exporters of subject

merchandise to the United States:

Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co.

(Hyundai), and LG Semicon Co., Ltd.

(LGS, formerly Goldstar Electron Co.,

Ltd.). The petitioner, Micron

Technologies Inc., requested an

administrative review of these same two

Korean manufacturers of DRAMs. On

June 25, 1996, the Department initiated

a review of the above Korean

manufacturers (61 FR 32771). The

period of review (POR) for all

respondents was May 1, 1995, through

April 30, 1996. The Department is

conducting this review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

In addition, on June 25, 1996, we

automatically initiated an investigation

to determine if Hyundai and LGS made

sales of subject merchandise below the

cost of production (COP) during the

POR based upon the fact that we

disregarded sales found to have been

made below the COP in the original

less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, which was the most

recent period for which final results

were available when this review was

initiated.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of DRAMs of one megabit or

above from the Republic of Korea

(Korea). Included in the scope are

assembled and unassembled DRAMs of

one megabit and above. Assembled

DRAMs include all package types.

Unassembled DRAMs include processed

wafers, uncut die and cut die. Processed

wafers produced in Korea, but

packaged, or assembled into memory

modules in a third country, are included

in the scope; wafers produced in a third

country and assembled or packaged in

Korea are not included in the scope.

The scope of this review includes

memory modules. A memory module is

a collection of DRAMs, the sole function

of which is memory. Modules include

single in-line processing modules (SIPs),

single in-line memory modules

(SIMMs), or other collections of DRAMs,

whether unmounted or mounted on a

circuit board. Modules that contain

other parts that are needed to support

the function of memory are covered.

Only those modules which contain

additional items which alter the

function of the module to something

other than memory, such as video

graphics adapter (VGA) boards and

cards, are not included in the scope.

The scope of this review also includes

video random access memory

semiconductors (VRAMS), as well as

any future packaging and assembling of

DRAMs.

The scope of this review also includes

removable memory modules placed on

motherboards, with or without a central

processing unit (CPU), unless the

importer of motherboards certifies with

the Customs Service that neither it, nor

a party related to it or under contract to

it, will remove the modules from the

motherboards after importation. The

scope of this review does not include

DRAMs or memory modules that are

reimported for repair or replacement.

The DRAMs subject to this review are

classifiable under subheadings

8542.11.0001, 8542.11.0024,

8542.11.0026, and 8542.11.0034 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Also included

in the scope are those removable Korean

DRAMs contained on or within

products classifiable under subheadings

8471.91.0000 and 8473.30.4000 of the

HTSUS. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

review remains dispositive. The POR is

May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996.

Intent Not To Revoke

Both respondents submitted requests,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(b), to

revoke the order covering DRAMs from

Korea.

A threshold question here concerns

the Department’s responsibility in

rendering a preliminary determination

on revocation. The Department’s

regulations provide that in a

preliminary determination on

revocation, the Department ‘‘will * * *

include [its decision] whether there is a

reasonable basis to believe that the

requirements for revocation or

termination are met.’’ 19 CFR

353.25(c)(2)(iii). In the respondents’’

view, the ‘‘reasonable basis’’ standard

has been met once certain evidence on

the record arguably supports a finding

that a ‘‘reasonable basis’’ exists to

believe that the requirements for

revocation have been met. We disagree

with this approach and believe that the

Department is obligated to issue a

preliminary determination which

provides parties with its preliminary

view, on the basis of all of the

information on the record at that time,

of whether the revocation requirements

have been met. This provides the parties

notice of the Department’s initial views

on revocation and affords them the

opportunity to present arguments either

supporting or opposing the

Department’s preliminary

determination. See memorandum from

Thomas G. Ehr to Robert S. LaRussa,
12796 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices

February 24, 1997. Thus, the question

here is whether, on the basis of all of the

evidence of record, the Department’s

requirements for revocation have been

preliminarily met.

Under the Department’s regulations,

the Department may revoke an order in

part if the Secretary concludes that,

among other things: (1) ‘‘one or more

producers or resellers covered by the

order have sold the merchandise at not

less than fair value for a period of at

least three consecutive years’; (2) ‘‘[i]t is

not likely that those persons will in the

future sell the merchandise at less than

fair value * * *’’; and (3) ‘‘the

producers or resellers agree in writing to

the immediate reinstatement of the

order as long as any producer or reseller

is subject to the order, if the Secretary

concludes that the producer or reseller,

subsequent to the revocation, sold the

merchandise at less than fair value.’’ 19

CFR 353.25(a)(1).

In this case, the first and third criteria

for revocation have preliminarily been

met. The Department has found that the

two respondents, LGS and Hyundai, did

not sell at less than normal value in the

first and second reviews under this

order. Also, in this review, LGS and

Hyundai have preliminarily been found

not to have made less than normal value

sales. Further, both respondents have

certified to immediate reinstatement of

the order pursuant to the third criterion

noted above. Accordingly, the key

question here is whether the second

revocation criteria—the ‘‘no likelihood’’

standard—has been met. In considering

this issue, it is important to note that the

standard for revocation is not whether

the Department finds that there is a

likelihood of future dumping. Rather,

the standard is whether the Department

has found that ‘‘no likelihood’’ of future

dumping exists.

On the ‘‘no likelihood’’ issue, the

Department has a considerable factual

record before it. At the request of the

parties, the Department established a

process for the submission of factual

information on the issue of whether no

likelihood of future dumping exists.

Both the petitioner and respondents

have now made several submissions of

information relevant to the likelihood

issue, including various in-depth

economic analyses. Accordingly, the

Department has a full record before it on

which to make a preliminary

determination on this issue.

As discussed below, on the basis of

this record, we preliminarily find that

the evidence of record does not support

a conclusion at this time that there is no

likelihood of future dumping by the

Korean respondents. Therefore, on this

basis, we have preliminarily determined

not to revoke the Korean DRAM order.

As this ruling is preliminary, all parties

will have a full opportunity to present

relevant arguments on the likelihood

issue through briefs and a hearing, if

one is requested.

As a threshold matter, the

respondents argue that the Department’s

preliminary finding that LGS and

Hyundai have not made less than

normal value sales for three consecutive

years is dispositive of the ‘‘no

likelihood’’ issue. We note that the

presence of no dumping for three years

is germane to whether there is no

likelihood that future dumping will

occur. Indeed, in most cases, this is the

only evidence on the record on the

‘‘likelihood’’ issue at the time of the

Department’s preliminary determination

and, therefore, it often becomes

determinative of whether the

Department issues a notice of intent to

revoke. In this case, however, as noted

above, the Department has a much fuller

record on this issue, with a wide range

of economic information and analysis

on other factors pertaining to

revocation. The Department can, and

has, considered other factors in its ‘‘no

likelihood’’ analysis, such as

‘‘conditions and trends in the domestic

and home market industries, currency

movements, and the ability of the

foreign entity to compete in the U.S.

marketplace without LTFV sales.’’ See

Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and

Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 61

FR 49727 (September 23, 1996) (‘‘Brass

Sheet and Strip’).

In this case, the Department has

preliminarily examined the relevant

market circumstances on the basis of the

submissions of the parties and publicly

available information. On the basis of

this examination, we have preliminary

found the following: (1) The DRAM

market is in a year-long downturn, with

steep price declines in the DRAM

market beginning in January 1996 and

continued price declines forecasted; (2)

the downturn has resulted in declines of

sales and revenues in the DRAM market,

growth in DRAM inventories, and the

existence of significant DRAM

oversupply; (3) the Korean respondents

and other DRAM producers have

continued to increase DRAM production

during the downturn (which may

further depress prices during such an

oversupply period); (4) the Korean

respondents will likely continue to

maintain a substantial presence in the

U.S. market during various phases of the

business cycle (including periods of

significant price decline) in light of

substantial Korean capacity and large

U.S. demand; and (5) based on the

information on the record, Korean

pricing in the United States appears,

according to price trends, to be at or

near normal value, indicating that only

a slight downward movement in U.S.

price will likely result in dumping

margins.

More specifically, DRAM prices

declined severely starting in late 1995,

and this decline in prices continued

well into 1996, after the conclusion of

the current POR (i.e., April 30, 1996).

For example, according to publicly

available data, the average U.S. price for

a 16 megabyte (MB) DRAM fell from

approximately $18.00 in May 1996 to

approximately $7.00 in December 1996.

Similarly, the average U.S. price for a 4

MB DRAM fell from approximately

$5.25 in May 1996 to a low of

approximately $2.00 in December 1996.

This represents a 61 percent decline in

prices between the end of the third

period of review (April 30, 1996) and

December 1996. DRAM prices are still

unstable and continue to fall. Since

DRAMs are a commodity product, it is

reasonable to expect that Korean

producers will have to match prevailing

market prices in the United States.

As prices have fallen, Korean DRAM

producers have continued to increase

DRAM production. Publicly available

information indicates that Korea’s three

major integrated circuit companies

(Hyundai, LGS, and Samsung

Electronics Co. Ltd.) will increase their

DRAM output by almost 30 percent in

1997, despite poor chip forecasts and

increased production in Japan and

Taiwan. Although the Korean producers

have announced gradual production

cutbacks, there is no evidence that these

cutbacks have occurred. While some

industry projections forecast increased

demand, the existing DRAM oversupply

is likely to cause prices to remain low

or fall lower in the future.

Given these circumstances, we

preliminarily find that it would be

difficult for the Korean respondents to

remain competitive without selling

DRAMs at less than normal value. The

history of the DRAM industry is one of

dumping in periods of significant

downturn. Various foreign producers

were found to have dumped in the mid1980s (see Dynamic Random Access

Memory Devices from Japan, 51 FR

15943 (April 29, 1986)), and the Korean

respondents in this case were found to

have dumped during the period of

downturn in 1991–1992 during the

LTFV investigation. While Korean

respondents did not dump in the three

consecutive review periods, most of this

period was marked by an expanding

DRAM market. DRAMs prices stabilized
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices 12797

in mid-1992, and the industry

experienced growth until late 1995. This

third review period ended in April

1996, and there has been a continuing

decline in global prices since that time.

Further, we note that the price decline

in 1996 was more severe than in prior

downturns. These market trends

indicate that respondents may have

dumped in the post April 1996 period

(i.e., a period of continuing industry

downturn) in the absence of the order.

A comparison of U.S. market prices to

Korean costs and projections of Korean

costs indicates that Korean pricing

would be likely to be at or below normal

value in the absence of the order. For

these reasons, we preliminarily find that

there is no basis to conclude that there

is no likelihood of future dumping by

LGS and Hyundai. Therefore, we

preliminarily intend not to revoke the

antidumping order on DRAMS from

Korea.

We welcome the views of all

interested parties on this issue. In

particular, we welcome the views of the

parties on the extent to which, in

current and projected market

circumstances, the order is constraining

LGS and Hyundai from dumping and

the degree to which dumping would be

likely to occur in the absence of the

order.

United States Price

In calculating U.S. price, the

Department used constructed export

price (CEP), as defined in section 772(b)

of the Act, when the merchandise was

first sold to an unaffiliated U.S.

purchaser after importation.

We calculated CEP based on packed,

ex-U.S. warehouse prices to unrelated

customers in the United States. We

made deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for discounts,

rebates, foreign brokerage and handling,

foreign inland insurance, air freight, air

insurance, U.S. duties and direct and

indirect selling expenses to the extent

that they are associated with economic

activity in the United States (these

included U.S. credit expenses, warranty

expenses, royalty payments, U.S.

commissions, advertising and

promotion expenses, and U.S. indirect

selling expenses, including inventory

carrying costs, incurred by respondents’’

U.S. subsidiary) in accordance with

sections 772(c)(2) and 772(d)(1) of the

Act. We added duty drawback, where

applicable, pursuant to section

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

section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we reduced

the United States price by the amount

of profit to derive the CEP.

For DRAMs that were further

manufactured into memory modules

after importation, we deducted all value

added in the United States, pursuant to

section 772(e) of the Act. The value

added consists of the costs of the

materials, fabrication, and general

expenses associated with the portion of

the merchandise further manufactured

in the United States. In determining the

costs incurred to produce the memory

module, we included materials,

fabrication, and general expenses,

including selling expenses and interest

expenses, associated with the portion of

the merchandise further manufactured

in the United States, as well as a

proportional amount of profit or loss

attributable to the value added. Profit or

loss was calculated by deducting from

the sales price of the memory module

all production and selling costs incurred

by the company for the memory

module. The total profit or loss was then

allocated proportionately to all

components of cost. Only the profit or

loss attributable to the value added was

deducted. No other adjustments were

claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales of

DRAMs in the home market to serve as

a viable basis for calculating NV, we

compared respondents’ volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because

the aggregate volume of home market

sales of the foreign like products for all

respondents was greater than five

percent of the respective aggregate

volume of U.S. sales for the subject

merchandise, we determined that the

home market provides a viable basis for

calculating NV for all respondents, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act.

Because LGS made some home market

sales to related parties during the POR,

we tested these sales to ensure that, on

average, the related party sales were at

‘‘arms-length.’’ To conduct this test, we

compared the gross unit prices of sales

to related and unrelated customers net

of all movement charges, direct and

indirect selling expenses, value-added

tax and packing. Based on the results of

that test, we discarded from LGS’ home

market database all sales made to a

related party where that related party

failed the ‘‘arm’s-length’’ test.

We disregarded many of Hyundai’s

and LGS’ sales found to have been made

below the COP during the original LTFV

investigation, the most recent period for

which final results were available at the

time of the initiation of this review.

Accordingly, the Department, pursuant

to section 773(b) of the Act, initiated

COP investigations of both respondents

for purposes of this administrative

review.

We calculated COP based on the sum

of the costs of materials and fabrication

employed in producing the foreign like

product, plus selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A), and

the cost of all expenses incidental to

placing the foreign like product in

condition packed ready for shipment, in

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the

Act. We relied on the home market sales

and COP information provided by

respondents in the questionnaire

responses.

In accordance with section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, in order to determine

whether to disregard home market sales

made at prices below the COP, we

examined whether, within an extended

period of time, such sales were made in

substantial quantities, and whether such

sales were made at prices which permit

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

home market sales of a given model

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that model because the below-cost sales

were not made in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more

of home market sales of a given model

were at prices less than the COP, we

disregarded the below-cost sales

because we determined that the belowcost sales were made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ and at prices that would not

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. If

we disregarded all contemporaneous

sales of a comparison model pursuant to

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we based

normal value on constructed value (CV).

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on

respondents’ cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

subject merchandise, SG&A and profit

incurred and realized in connection

with the production and sale of the

foreign like product, and U.S. packing

costs. We used the costs of materials,

fabrication, and G&A as reported in the

CV portion of the questionnaire

response. We used the U.S. packing

costs as reported in the U.S. sales

portion of respondents’ questionnaire

responses. We based selling expenses

and profit on the information reported

in the home market sales portion of

respondents’ questionnaire responses.

See Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement
12798 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices

of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344,

1349 (January 19, 1996). For selling

expenses, we used the average of abovecost per-unit HM selling expenses

weighted by the total quantity of home

market sales. For actual profit, we first

calculated the difference between the

home market sales value and home

market COP, and divided the difference

by the home market COP. We then

multiplied this percentage by the COP

for each U.S. model to derive an actual

profit.

For both respondents, the Department

relied on the submitted COP and CV

information. There were no adjustments

to respondents’ reported COP and CV

data.

For price-to-price comparisons, we

based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product is first sold for

consumption in the exporting country,

in the usual commercial quantities and

in the ordinary course of trade, and to

the extent practicable, at the same level

of trade, as defined by section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We compared

the U.S. prices of individual

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage price of sales of the foreign like

product. We calculated NV based on

delivered prices to unrelated customers

and, where appropriate, to related

customers in the home market. In

calculating NV, we made adjustments,

where appropriate, for inland freight,

inland insurance, discounts, rebates,

and Korean brokerage and handling

charges.

Both respondents only had CEP sales

during the POR. For comparisons to CEP

sales, we made deductions to NV, where

appropriate, for home market credit

expenses, advertising expenses, royalty

expenses, and bank charges in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act, due to differences in circumstances

of sale. We also reduced NV by packing

costs incurred in the home market, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i)

of the Act. In addition, we increased NV

for U.S. packing costs, in accordance

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

also made further adjustments, when

applicable, to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.57 of the Department’s

regulations. Finally, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we

made an adjustment for differences in

the circumstances of sale to account for

any direct selling expenses associated

with U.S. sales not deducted under the

provisions of section 772(d)(1) of the

Act.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

As set forth in section 773(a)(2)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, at 829–831, to the

extent practicable, the Department will

calculate NV based on sales at the same

level of trade as the U.S. sale. When the

Department is unable to find sale(s) in

the comparison market at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the

Department may compare sales in the

U.S. and foreign markets at a different

level of trade.

In order to determine whether sales in

the comparison market are at a different

level of trade than the export price or

CEP, we examined whether the

comparison sales were at different

stages in the marketing process than the

export price or CEP. We made this

determination on the basis of a review

of the distribution system in the

comparison market, including selling

functions, class of customer, and the

level of selling expenses for each type

of sale. Different stages of marketing

necessarily involve differences in

selling functions, but differences in

selling functions, even substantial ones,

are not alone sufficient to establish a

difference in the level of trade.

Similarly, while customer categories

such as ‘‘distributor’’ and ‘‘wholesaler’’

may be useful in identifying different

levels of trade, they are insufficient in

themselves to establish that there is a

difference in the level of trade. See

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Canada:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

51891, 51896 (October 4, 1996).

Secondly, the differences must affect

price comparability as evidenced by a

pattern of consistent price differences

between sales at the different levels of

trade in the market in which normal

value is determined. When constructed

export price is applicable, section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes the

procedures for making a constructed

export price offset when: (1) NV is at a

different level of trade, and (2) the data

available do not provide an appropriate

basis for a level of trade adjustment.

Also, in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B), to qualify for a CEP offset,

the level of trade in the home market

must constitute a more advanced stage

of distribution than the level of trade of

the CEP sales.

In order to identify levels of trade, the

Department must review information

concerning marketing stages and selling

functions of the manufacturer/exporter.

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 parent corporation to the

domestic customer. These direct sales

were made by both respondents to

original equipment manufacturers

(OEMs) and to distributors. In addition,

all sales, whether made to OEM

customers or to distributors, included

the same marketing stage and selling

functions. For the U.S. market, all sales

for both respondents were reported as

CEP sales. The level of trade of the U.S.

sales is determined for the sale to the

affiliated importer rather than the resale

to the unaffiliated customer. We

examined the marketing stage and

selling functions performed by the

Korean companies for U.S. CEP sales

and preliminarily determine that they

are at a different level of trade from the

Korean companies’ home market sales

because the Korean companies engaged

in a different marketing stage and had

fewer selling functions for the adjusted

CEP sales than for their home market

sales. For instance, the Korean

companies did not engage in any

general promotion, marketing activities,

or price negotiations for U.S. sales.

Because we compared CEP sales to

home market sales at a 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 but the level of trade in the

HM is a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP sales, a CEP offset is appropriate.

Both respondents claimed a CEP offset.

We applied the CEP offset to normal

value or constructed value, as

appropriate. The level of trade

methodology employed by the

Department in these preliminary results

of review is based on the facts particular

to this review. The Department will

continue to examine its policy for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices 12799

making level of trade comparisons and

adjustments for its final results of

review.

Because both respondents made sales

at differing levels of trade in the home

market and in the United States, and

because we determined it was not

possible to quantify the price

differences resulting from the differing

levels of trade, we made a CEP offset to

NV for both respondents pursuant to

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP

offset consisted of an amount equal to

the lesser of the weighted-average U.S.

indirect selling expenses and U.S.

commissions or home market indirect

selling expenses. No other adjustments

were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margins exist for the POR:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

Hyundai Electronic Industries,

Inc .......................................... 0.01

LG Semicon Co., Ltd ................ 0.02

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between United

States price and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of DRAMs from Korea entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after publication

date of the final results of these

administrative reviews, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rates for Hyundai and LGS,

because their weighted-average margins

were de minimis, will be zero percent;

(2) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in the

original LTFV investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received a company-specific

rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a previous

review, or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of the most recent review,

or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if

neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous reviews, the cash deposit

rate will be 3.85 percent, the ‘‘allothers’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Interested parties may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice, and may

request a hearing within ten days of the

date of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held as early as

convenient for the parties but not later

than 44 days after the date of

publication or the first work day

thereafter. Case briefs or other written

comments from interested parties may

be submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments,

limited to issues in the case briefs, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 10, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–6679 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Export Trade Certificate of Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of revocation of Export

Trade Certificate of Review No. 85–

00004.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce

issued an export trade certificate of

review to Trust International Services

Company, Inc. Because this certificate

holder has failed to file an annual report

as required by law, the Secretary is

revoking the certificate. This notice

summarizes the notification letter sent

to Trust International Services

Company, Inc.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Dawn Busby, Director, Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, 202/482–5l3l.

This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (’’the Act’’) (Pub. L. 97–290, 15

U.S.C. 4011–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue export

trade certificates of review. The

regulations implementing Title III (’’the

Regulations’’) are found at 15 CFR part

325 (1996). Pursuant to this authority, a

certificate of review was issued on May

9, 1985 to Trust International Services

Company, Inc.

A certificate holder is required by law

to submit to the Department of

Commerce annual reports that update

financial and other information relating

to business activities covered by its

certificate (Section 308 of the Act, 15

U.S.C. 4018, § 235.14 (a) of the

Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14 (a)). The

annual report is due within 45 days

after the anniversary date of the

issuance of the certificate of review

(§ 325.14 (b) of the regulations, 15 CFR

325.14 (b)). Failure to submit a complete

annual report may be the basis for

revocation (§§ 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) of

the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a) (3)

and 325.14(c)).

On April 29, 1996, the Department of

Commerce sent to Trust International

Services Company, Inc. a letter

containing annual report questions with

a reminder that its annual report was

due on June 23, 1996. Additional

reminders were sent on October 28,

1996 and on January 3, 1997. The

Department has received no written

response from Trust International

Services Company, Inc. to any of these

letters.

On February 4, 1997, and in

accordance with § 325.10 (c) (2) of the

Regulations, (15 CFR 325.10 (c) (2)), the

Department of Commerce sent a letter

by certified mail to notify Trust

International Services Company, Inc.

that the Department was formally

initiating the process to revoke its

certificate for failure to file an annual