22520 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

1We note that the Initiation Notice specified a

period of review of February 1, 2000, through

February 6, 2001. This period of review was

extended beyond the dates initially requested by

the respondents to include the 6 days remaining

prior to the revocation of this dumping order,

which became effective February 6, 2001. See

January 2001 Sunset Reviews: Final Result and

Revocation, 63 FR 17524 (April 2, 2001).

Applicable Statute

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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s

(‘‘Department’s’’) regulations refer to 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On February 27, 2001, Minmetals

Precious & Rare Minerals Import and

Export (‘‘Minmetals’’) and CEIEC-Hunan

Company (Electronics) (‘‘CEIECHunan’’), producers/exporters of

manganese metal from the People’s

Republic of China, requested an

administrative review of the subject

merchandise for the period February 1,

2000 through January 31, 2001. On

February 28, 2001, London &

Scandinavian Metallurgical Co., Ltd.

and Shieldalloy Metallurgical

Corporation (together referred to as

‘‘LSM/SMC’’), likewise requested an

administrative review of the subject

merchandise for the period February 1,

2000 through January 31, 2001. In

accordance with 19 CFR

351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department

published the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order. See Initiation

of Antidumping and Countervailing

Administrative Reviews and Requests

for Revocations In Part, 66 FR 16037

(March 22, 2001) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).1

On January April 17, 2001, LSM/SMC

withdrew their request for review. On

April 24, 2001, Minmetals and CEIECHunan withdrew their request for

review.

The Department’s regulations, at 19

CFR 351.213(d)(1), provide that the

Department will rescind an

administrative review if the party that

requested the review withdraws the

request within 90 days of the date of

publication of the notice of initiation of

the requested review. Since all parties

requesting review withdrew their

requests for an administrative review

within the 90-day deadline, the

Department is rescinding this

administrative review.

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(a)(3). Timely

written notification of the return or

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.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended.

Dated: April 27, 2001.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11307 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–827]

Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by

various interested parties, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on static

random access memory semiconductors

from Taiwan. This review covers the

U.S. sales and/or entries of four

manufacturers/exporters. In addition,

we are rescinding this review with

respect to one company. The period of

review is April 1, 1999, through March

31, 2000.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value by each of the companies

subject to this review. If these

preliminary results are adopted in the

final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who wish to submit comments

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument: (1) A

statement of the issue; and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina

Itkin, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 2, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–0656.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(2), in April 2000, the

following two producers/exporters of

SRAMs requested an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on SRAMs from Taiwan: Galvantech,

Inc. (Galvantech), and GSI Technology,

Inc. (GSI Technology). In addition, the

petitioner, Micron Technology, Inc.,

requested an administrative review of

GSI Technology, as well as G-Link

Technology (G-Link), Integrated Silicon

Solution Inc. (ISSI), and Winbond

Electronics Corporation (Winbond).

In May 2000, the Department initiated

an administrative review for each of

these companies (65 FR 35320 (June 2,

2000)) and issued questionnaires to

them.

On June 16, 2000, the Department

extended the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results until April 30,

2001. See Static Random Access

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan:

Notice of Extension of Time Limits for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 65 FR 38809 (June 22, 2000).

In December 2000, we received

responses to sections A through C of the

questionnaire (i.e., the sections relating

to general information, home market

sales, and U.S. sales) from each of the

respondents. In addition, we also

received responses to section D of the

questionnaire (i.e., the section relating

to cost of production (COP)/constructed

value (CV)) from all companies except

Galvantech.

On January 9, 2001, the petitioner

alleged that Galvantech was selling at

prices below the COP in its home

market. Based on an analysis of this

allegation, the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether

Galvantech made home market sales

during the period of review (POR) at

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices 22521

prices below the COP within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

Consequently, we required Galvantech

to submit a response to section D of the

questionnaire.

In January 2001, we issued a

supplemental questionnaire to G-Link.

We received a response to this

questionnaire in February 2001.

In February 2001, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to GSI

Technology and Winbond. We received

responses to these questionnaires in

March 2001.

On February 5, 2001, Galvantech

withdrew its request for an

administrative review. Accordingly, we

are rescinding this review with respect

to Galvantech. For further discussion,

see the ‘‘Partial Rescission of Review’’

section of this notice, below.

In March 2001, we issued a

supplemental questionnaire to ISSI. We

received a response to this

questionnaire in April 2001.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are synchronous, asynchronous, and

specialty SRAMs from Taiwan, whether

assembled or unassembled. Assembled

SRAMs include all package types.

Unassembled SRAMs include processed

wafers or die, uncut die and cut die.

Processed wafers produced in Taiwan,

but packaged, or assembled into

memory modules in a third country, are

included in the scope; processed wafers

produced in a third country and

assembled or packaged in Taiwan are

not included in the scope. The scope of

this review includes modules

containing SRAMs. Such modules

include single in-line processing

modules, single in-line memory

modules, dual in-line memory modules,

memory cards, or other collections of

SRAMs, whether unmounted or

mounted on a circuit board. The scope

of this review does not include SRAMs

that are physically integrated with other

components of a motherboard in such a

manner as to constitute one inseparable

amalgam (i.e., SRAMs soldered onto

motherboards). The SRAMs within the

scope of this review are currently

classifiable under subheadings

8542.13.8037 through 8542.13.8049,

8473.30.10 through 8473.30.90,

8542.13.8005, and 8542.14.8004 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR is April 1, 1999, through

March 31, 2000.

Partial Rescission of Review

As noted above, on February 5, 2001,

Galvantech withdrew its request for an

administrative review. No other

interested party requested a review of

sales of merchandise produced or

exported by Galvantech during the POR.

Although Galvantech asked to withdraw

its review request after the 90-day time

limit specified in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),

the review had not yet progressed

beyond a point where it would have

been unreasonable to allow Galvantech

to withdraw its request for review.

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1) and consistent with our

practice, we are rescinding our review

with respect to Galvantech. For further

discussion, see the February 8, 2001,

memorandum from the Team to Louis

Apple, entitled ‘‘Request by Cypress

Semiconductor Corporation to

Withdraw its Request for an

Administrative Review in the 1999–

2000 Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review on Static Random Access

Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan.’’

Duty Absorption

On June 26, 2000, the petitioner

requested that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed during the POR by

the respondents. Section 751(a)(4) of the

Act provides for the Department, if

requested, to determine during an

administrative review initiated two or

four years after the publication of the

order, whether antidumping duties have

been absorbed by a foreign producer or

exporter, if the subject merchandise is

sold in the United States through an

affiliated importer. Because each

respondent sold to unaffiliated

customers in the United States through

an importer that is affiliated, and

because this review was initiated two

years after the publication of the order,

we will make a duty absorption

determination in this segment of the

proceeding within the meaning of

section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

On July 11, 2000, the Department

requested evidence from each

respondent to demonstrate that U.S.

purchasers will pay any ultimately

assessed duties charged to them. The

Department requested that this

information be provided no later than

December 11, 2000. No respondent

provided such evidence. Consequently,

we have preliminarily determined that

duty absorption by all respondents has

occurred in this administrative review.

As our analysis of the dumping margins

may be modified in our final results, if

interested parties wish to submit

evidence that the unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States will pay

any ultimately assessed duty charged to

affiliated importers, they must do so no

later than 15 days after publication of

these preliminary results. Any such

information will be considered by the

Department if we determine in our final

results that there are dumping margins

on the respondents’ U.S. sales.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of SRAMs

from Taiwan to the United States were

made at less than normal value (NV), we

compared the constructed export price

(CEP) to the NV for each respondent as

specified in the ‘‘Constructed Export

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of

this notice, below.

When making comparisons in

accordance with section 771(16) of the

Act, we considered all products sold in

the foreign market as described in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this

notice, above, that were in the ordinary

course of trade. Where there were no

sales of identical merchandise in the

foreign market made in the ordinary

course of trade to compare to U.S. sales

in the same quarter, we compared U.S.

sales to sales of the most similar foreign

like product made in the ordinary

course of trade within the quarter, or to

CV, as appropriate.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade as the CEP. The NV

level of trade is that of the starting-price

sales in the comparison market or, when

NV is based on CV, that of the sales

from which we derive selling, general

and administrative expenses (SG&A)

and profit. For CEP, the U.S. level of

trade is the level of the constructed sale

from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than CEP sales,

we examine stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated customer.

If the comparison-market sales are at a

different level of trade and the

difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between the sales on

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the

export transaction, we make a level-oftrade adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

22522 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

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

offset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).

G-Link claimed that it made home

market sales at only one level of trade,

while GSI Technology, ISSI, and

Winbond claimed that they made home

market sales at two levels of trade (i.e.,

to original equipment manufacturers

(OEMs) and distributors). We examined

the selling activities at each reported

marketing stage for each respondent and

found that there was no substantive

difference in the selling functions

performed at any of these alleged stages.

Consequently, we determine that only

one level of trade exists with respect to

sales made by these companies to all

home market customers.

In order to determine whether NV was

established at a level of trade which

constituted a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP, we compared the selling functions

performed for home market sales with

those performed with respect to the CEP

transaction, which excludes economic

activities occurring in the United States,

pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.

Based on this comparison, we found

that G-Link performed essentially the

same selling functions in its sales offices

in Taiwan for home market and U.S.

sales. Therefore, G-Link’s home market

sales were not at a more advanced stage

of marketing and distribution than the

constructed U.S. level of trade, which

represents an F.O.B. foreign port price

after the deduction of expenses

associated with U.S. selling activities.

Because we find that no difference in

level of trade exits between markets, we

have not granted a CEP offset to G-Link.

Regarding GSI Technology, we found

that this respondent generally

performed all selling functions for

certain home market sales at its head

office in the United States, while it

performed additional selling functions

for its remaining home market sales

through an affiliated party in Taiwan.

We also found that this respondent

performed all of the selling functions

related to its U.S. sales at its U.S. office.

These selling functions are associated

with those expenses which we deduct

from the CEP starting price, as specified

in section 772(d) of the Act. Therefore,

we find that GSI Technology’s sales in

the home market were at a more

advanced stage of marketing and

distribution (i.e., more remote from the

factory) than the constructed U.S. level

of trade.

Similarly, we found that ISSI

performed a number of selling functions

and services related to home market

sales at its sales office in the United

States, in addition to the selling

functions performed with respect to

these sales by the affiliated entity in

Taiwan. We also found that this

respondent performed the majority of

the selling functions related to its U.S.

sales at its U.S. office. These selling

functions are associated with those

expenses which we deduct from the

CEP starting price, as specified in

section 772(d) of the Act. Therefore, we

find that ISSI’s sales in the home market

were at a more advanced stage of

marketing and distribution (i.e., more

remote from the factory) than the

constructed U.S. level of trade.

Finally, regarding Winbond, we found

that this company performed most of

the selling functions and services

related to U.S. sales at its sales office in

the United States. These selling

functions are associated with those

expenses which we deduct from the

CEP starting price, as specified in

section 772(d) of the Act. Therefore, we

find that Winbond’s sales in the home

market were at a more advanced stage

of marketing and distribution (i.e., more

remote from the factory) than the

constructed U.S. level of trade.

Because GSI Technology, ISSI, and

Winbond sell at only one level of trade

in the home market, we find that the

difference in the levels of trade between

the home and U.S. markets cannot be

quantified. Because the difference in the

levels of trade cannot be quantified, but

the home market is at a more advanced

level of trade, we have granted a CEP

offset to GSI Technology, ISSI, and

Winbond. For a detailed explanation of

our analysis for all four respondents, see

the memorandum from the Team to

Louis Apple, entitled ‘‘Concurrence

Memorandum for the Preliminary

Results of the 1999–2000 Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review on Static

Random Access Memory

Semiconductors from Taiwan,’’ dated

April 30, 2001.

Constructed Export Price

In accordance with section 772(b) of

the Act, we used CEP methodology

because all sales took place after

importation into the United States.

A. G-Link

We calculated CEP based on the

starting price to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions for

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling expenses, international

freight, foreign inland insurance, marine

insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S.

merchandise processing fees, U.S.

warehousing, and U.S. freight expenses,

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A)

of the Act.

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for

commissions, credit expenses and U.S.

indirect selling expenses, including U.S.

inventory carrying costs, in accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit to arrive

at the CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by G-Link and its affiliate on their sales

of the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

B. GSI Technology

We based CEP on the starting price to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

for discounts. We also made deductions

for foreign inland freight, foreign

warehousing, international freight,

marine insurance, U.S. merchandise

processing fees, U.S. inland freight, U.S.

customs duties, and U.S. warehousing

expenses, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for credit

expenses, commissions, warranty

expenses, and U.S. indirect selling

expenses, including U.S. inventory

carrying costs and other indirect selling

expenses, in accordance with section

772(d)(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit to arrive

at CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by GSI Technology and its affiliate on

their sales of the subject merchandise in

the United States and the foreign like

product in the home market and the

profit associated with those sales.

C. ISSI

We based CEP on the starting price to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

for billing adjustments and discounts.

However, we disallowed the negative

discounts reported by ISSI because it

has not demonstrated that these credits

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices 22523

related to POR sales. We also made

deductions for foreign inland freight,

foreign warehousing, foreign brokerage

and handling, international freight,

marine insurance, U.S. inland freight,

U.S. merchandise processing fees, U.S.

harbor maintenance fees, and U.S.

warehousing expenses, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for credit

expenses, commissions, repacking

expenses, and U.S. indirect selling

expenses, including U.S. inventory

carrying costs and other indirect selling

expenses, in accordance with section

772(d)(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit to arrive

at the CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by ISSI and its affiliate on their sales of

the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

D. Winbond

We based CEP on the starting price to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. In accordance with

section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we

added an amount for uncollected import

duties in Taiwan. Where appropriate,

we made deductions for foreign inland

freight, foreign warehousing, foreign

brokerage and handling expenses,

inland insurance, international freight,

marine insurance, U.S. merchandise

processing fees, and U.S. warehousing

expenses, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for

commissions, credit expenses, and U.S.

indirect selling expenses, including U.S.

inventory carrying costs and other

indirect selling expenses, in accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit to arrive

at the CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by Winbond and its affiliate on their

sales of the subject merchandise in the

United States and the foreign like

product in the home market and the

profit associated with those sales.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

foreign market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is greater than five

percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.

sales), we compared the volume of each

respondent’s home market sales of the

foreign like product to the volume of

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b).

Based on this comparison, we

determined that each of the respondents

had a viable home market during the

POR. Consequently, we based NV on

home market sales for each respondent.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act, there were reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that each

respondent had made home market

sales at prices below their COPs in this

review. In the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation, the Department

disregarded below-cost sales for ISSI

made in the home market. (See Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Static Random Access

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,

63 FR 8909, 8913 (Feb. 23, 1998).) Also,

in the most recently completed

administrative review, the Department

disregarded below-cost sales for G–Link,

GSI Technology, and Winbond (ISSI

was not reviewed). (See Static Random

Access Memory Semiconductors From

Taiwan; Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 55005

(Sep. 12, 2000).) As a result, the

Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether each respondent

made home market sales during the POR

at prices below their COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product in each quarter of the POR,

plus amounts for general and

administrative expenses and financing

costs, in accordance with section

773(b)(3) of the Act.

We compared the weighted-average

quarterly COP figures to home market

prices 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

their respective COPs. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

foreign market prices, less any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, rebates, selling expenses, and

packing expenses.

In determining whether to disregard

foreign market sales made at prices

below the COP, we examined whether

such sales were made: 1) in substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time; and 2) at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time in the normal

course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of

the Act.

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

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

a respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices below the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’

Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices below the COP, we found

that sales of that model were made in

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an

extended period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the

Act. To determine whether prices

provided for recovery of costs within a

reasonable period of time, we tested

whether the prices which were below

the per-unit cost of production at the

time of the sale were also below the

weighted-average per-unit cost of

production for the POR, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D). If they were,

we disregarded the below-cost sales in

determining NV. We did not disregard

any below-cost sales for GSI

Technology.

We found that, for certain models of

SRAMs, more than 20 percent of each

respondent’s foreign market sales within

an extended period of time were at

prices below the COP. Further, the

prices did not provide for the recovery

of costs within a reasonable period of

time. We therefore disregarded the

below-cost sales and used the remaining

sales as the basis for determining NV, in

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act. For those U.S. sales of SRAMs for

which there were no comparable home

market sales in the ordinary course of

trade, we compared CEP to CV, in

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act.

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A (including

financing expenses), profit, and U.S.

packing costs. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based

SG&A, financing expenses, and profit on

the amounts incurred and realized by

each respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade

for consumption in the foreign country.

Company-specific calculations are

discussed below.

A. G–Link

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the starting price

to unaffiliated customers. We made

deductions from the starting price for

foreign inland freight and foreign inland

insurance, where appropriate, pursuant

to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

22524 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act, we also made deductions for

home market credit expenses.

Where applicable, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any

commission paid on a U.S. sale by

reducing the NV by home market

indirect selling expenses, up to the

amount of the U.S. commission.

For all price-to-price comparisons, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs, in

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

Act. Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

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

CFR 351.411.

Where NV was based on CV, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

foreign market direct selling expenses,

in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Where applicable, we offset any

commission paid on a U.S. sale by

reducing the NV by the amount of home

market indirect selling expenses, up to

the amount of the U.S. commission.

B. GSI Technology

We based NV on the starting price to

unaffiliated customers. We made

deductions from the starting price for

foreign warehousing, where appropriate,

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the

Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Act, we also made deductions for

home market credit expenses and

commissions.

We deducted home market indirect

selling expenses, including inventory

carrying costs, advertising expenses,

and other indirect selling expenses, up

to the amount of indirect selling

expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act. Where applicable, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we

offset any commission paid on a U.S.

sale by reducing the NV by any home

market indirect selling expenses

remaining after the deduction for the

CEP offset, up to the amount of the U.S.

commission.

For all price-to-price comparisons, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs, in

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

Act. Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

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

CFR 351.411.

Where NV was based on CV, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

home market direct selling expenses

and commissions, in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of

the Act. In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a

CEP offset adjustment, calculated as

noted above. Where applicable, we

offset any commission paid on a U.S.

sale by reducing the NV by any home

market selling expenses remaining after

the deduction of the CEP offset, up to

the amount of the U.S. commission.

C. ISSI

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the starting price

to unaffiliated customers, less rebates,

where appropriate. We made deductions

from the starting price, where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight

and foreign inland insurance, pursuant

to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act, we also made deductions for

home market credit expenses, bank

charges, and industrial park

administration fees, where appropriate.

We deducted home market indirect

selling expenses, including inventory

carrying costs and other indirect selling

expenses, up to the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales,

in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B)

of the Act. Where applicable, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we

offset any commission paid on a U.S.

sale by reducing the NV by any home

market selling expenses remaining after

the deduction for the CEP offset, up to

the amount of the U.S. commission.

In addition, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

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

appropriate, we made adjustments to

the NV to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with

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

CFR 351.411.

Where NV was based on CV, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

home market direct selling expenses, in

accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B)

of the Act, we granted a CEP offset

adjustment, calculated as explained

above. Where applicable, we offset any

commission paid on a U.S. sale by

reducing the NV by any home market

indirect selling expenses remaining after

the deduction for the CEP offset, up to

the amount of the U.S. commission.

D. Winbond

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the starting price

to unaffiliated customers, less billing

adjustments, early payment discounts,

and quality discounts, where

appropriate. We made deductions from

the starting price for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling,

and foreign inland insurance, pursuant

to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act, we also made deductions for

home market credit expenses and trade

development fees, where appropriate.

We deducted home market indirect

selling expenses, including inventory

carrying costs and other indirect selling

expenses, up to the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales,

in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B)

of the Act. Where applicable, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we

offset any commission paid on a U.S.

sale by reducing the NV by any home

market selling expenses remaining after

the deduction for the CEP offset, up to

the amount of the U.S. commission.

In addition, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

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

appropriate, we made adjustments to

NV to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with

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

CFR 351.411.

Where NV was based on CV, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

foreign market direct selling expenses,

in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B)

of the Act, we granted a CEP offset

adjustment, calculated as explained

above. Where applicable, we offset any

commission paid on a U.S. sale by

reducing the NV by any home market

indirect selling expenses remaining after

the deduction for the CEP offset, up to

the amount of the U.S. commission.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars in accordance with section

773A(a) of the Act, based on the

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

benchmark for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices 22525

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

G-Link Technology ................... 10.68

GSI Technology, Inc ................. 4.22

Integrated Silicon Solution Inc .. 16.25

Winbond Electronics Corp ........ 0.58

The Department will disclose to

parties the calculations performed in

connection with these preliminary

results within five days of the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing within 30

days of the publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held two days after

the date rebuttal briefs are filed.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

not later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs,

within 120 days of the publication of

these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of each importer’s

sales during the POR. These rates will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

particular importers made during the

POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),

we will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries for any importer for

whom the assessment rate is de minimis

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of SRAMs from Taiwan

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

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

The cash deposit rates for G-Link, GSI

Technology, ISSI, and Winbond will be

the rates established in the final results

of this review, except if the rate is less

than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.106, the cash deposit will be zero;

(2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 41.75

percent, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T.

Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11310 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A–489–807)

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing

Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner and two producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain steel

concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey.

This review covers four manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States. This is the third

period of review, covering April 1, 1999,

through March 31, 2000.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value by the companies subject

to this review. If these preliminary

results are adopted in the final results

of this review, we will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who wish to submit comments

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument: (1) a

statement of the issue; and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina

Itkin, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone:(202)

482–0656.

Applicable Statue and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (2000).

Background

On April 12, 2000, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on certain steel

concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from

Turkey (65 FR 19736).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(2), in April 2000, the

Department received requests from Diler

Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S.,

Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret

A.S. and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.

(collectively ‘‘Diler’’) and ICDAS Celik

Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S.

(ICDAS) to conduct an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on rebar from Turkey. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on May 1,

2000, the Department also received a

request for an administrative review