[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 149 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44016-44017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12554]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-812]
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or
Above From the Republic of Korea; Notice of Amended Final Results
Pursuant to Court Decision
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 5, 2006, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the final remand redetermination made by the
Department of Commerce (the Department) pursuant to the CIT's third
remand of the final results of the 1997-1998 administrative review of
dynamic random access memory semiconductors of one megabit or above
(DRAMs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). See Hyundai Electronics
Industries Co., Ltd. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc. v. United
States and Micron Technology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (CIT 2006)
(Hyundai IV). Because all litigation in this matter has now concluded,
the Department is now issuing its amended final results in accordance
with the CIT's decision.
Effective Date: August 3, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Trentham or Tom Futtner, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6320 or 482-3814, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 44017]]
Background
On December 14, 1999, the Department published a notice of final
results of the antidumping duty administrative review of DRAMs from
Korea covering the period May 1, 1997 through April 30, 1998. See
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above
From the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 69694 (Dec. 14, 1999) (Final
Results). Subsequently, Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd.
(Hyundai) \1\ filed suit at the CIT contesting the Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After the 1997-1998 administrative review was completed,
respondent Hyundai acquired LG Semicon. Subsequent to the
acquisition the name of the combined company was changed to Hynix
Semiconductor, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Final Results, the Department determined that: (1) The use
of total adverse facts available (AFA) was warranted for LG Semicon
(LG) (see Final Results at 64 FR 69695); (2) Hyundai and LG's reported
research and development (R&D) expenses did not reflect the appropriate
R&D cost of the subject merchandise (see Final Results at 64 FR 69702);
and (3) the reduced R&D costs recognized by Hyundai and LG, through the
amortization and deferral of their R&D expenses, did not reasonably
reflect the R&D cost of the subject merchandise (see Final Results at
64 FR 69700).
On April 16, 2004, the Court remanded the Department's Final
Results, in Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co., Ltd., and Hyundai
Electronics America Inc. v. United States and Micron Technology, Inc.,
342 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (CIT 2004) (Hyundai I). In its remand, the Court
ordered the Department to: (1) Recalculate LG's dumping margin by
application of AFA to only a portion of its U.S. sales; (2) provide
additional information regarding the effect of non-subject merchandise
R&D on R&D for subject merchandise, or recalculate R&D costs on the
most product-specific basis possible; (3) provide specific evidence
showing how Hyundai and LG's actual R&D expenses for the period of
review are not reasonably accounted for in their amortized R&D costs,
or accept their amortization of R&D expenses, and (4) provide
additional information showing how R&D expenses that are currently
deferred by Hyundai and LG affect production or revenue for the instant
review period, or accept their deferral methodology.
In its first redetermination on remand, the Department: (1)
Recalculated LG's dumping margin using 89.10 percent as partial AFA;
(2) provided information to demonstrate that Hyundai and LG's
production of subject merchandise has benefitted from cross-
fertilization; (3) recalculated LG and Hyundai's R&D costs to allow for
amortization, and (4) expensed Hyundai and LG's deferred R&D costs in
the period incurred and explained why deferral of certain R&D expenses
does not reasonably reflect the R&D expenses related to the subject
merchandise.
In Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co., Ltd., and Hyundai
Electronics America Inc. v. United States and Micron Technology, Inc.,
395 F. Supp 2d 1231 (CIT 2005) (Hyundai II), the Court sustained the
Department's application of 89.10 percent as partial AFA, and its use
of amortized R&D expenses for calculating Hyundai and LG's respective
costs of production. The Court remanded the Department's cross-
fertilization determination with instructions to recalculate Hyundai
and LG's R&D expenses without application of the cross-fertilization
theory, and also remanded the Department's recognition of all of
Hyundai and LG's 1997 R&D expenses for antidumping duty purposes with
instructions to accept Hyundai's and LG's deferral methodology in
calculating R&D expenses for their respective costs of production.
In Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co., Ltd., and Hyundai
Electronics America Inc. v. United States and Micron Technology, Inc.,
414 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (CIT 2006) (Hyundai III), the Court ordered that
the Department's original findings rejecting LG and Hyundai's cost
amortization methodology, as stated in the Final Results, shall be
reinstated in accordance with Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. United
States, 424 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Hynix IV). However, the Court
denied the Department's motion that its original findings rejecting LG
and Hyundai's R&D deferral methodology, as stated in the Final Results,
be reinstated in accordance with Hynix IV.
On April 5, 2006, the CIT found that the Department complied with
the CIT's remand order in Hyundai III and sustained the Department's
remand redetermination. See Hyundai IV, 425 F. Supp.2d at 1321. On June
5, 2006, consistent with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F. 2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the CIT's
decision was ``not in harmony'' with the Department's Final Results.
See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above
From the Republic of Korea; Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony
with Final Results of Administrative Review, 71 FR 32305 (June 5,
2006). We are issuing amended final results to reflect the results of
the remand determinations because no party has further appealed and
there is now a final and conclusive decision in the court proceeding.
Amended Final Results of Review
We are amending the final results of the 1997-1998 administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on DRAMs from the Republic of
Korea for LG and Hyundai. The revised weighted-average dumping margin
for LG is 15.87 percent and the revised weighted-average dumping margin
for Hyundai is 3.76 percent.
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. In accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department's
regulations, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates by
dividing the dumping margins found on the subject merchandise examined
by the estimated entered value of such merchandise. Where the importer-
specific assess rates are above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject
merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these
amended final results of review.
These amended final results of administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 26, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-12554 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P