Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea; Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant to Court Decision, 44016-44017 [E6-12554]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44016
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Notices
LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT
ASSISTANCE FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 8, 2006 THROUGH JULY 28, 2006—Continued
Date petition
accepted
Firm
Address
Southern Bakeries, LLC ..........................
Dempster Industries, Inc .........................
2700 E. 3rd, Hope, AR 71801 ................
711 South 6th Street, Beatrice, NE
68310.
15 Industrial Road, Fairfield, NJ 07004 ..
#77 Route 349, P.O. Box 35, Gaines,
PA 16921.
1604 5th Avenue, P.O. Box 105, Central
City, NE 68826.
Scandia Packaging Machinery, Inc .........
The Gaines Company .............................
Covenant Doors and Millwork, Inc ..........
Any party having a substantial
interest in these proceedings may
request a public hearing on the matter.
A written request for a hearing must be
submitted to the Office of Chief
Counsel, Room 7005, Economic
Development Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington,
DC 20230, no later than ten (10)
calendar days following publication of
this notice. Please follow the procedures
set forth in Section 315.9 of EDA’s
interim final rule (70 FR 47002) for
procedures for requesting a public
hearing. The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance official program
number and title of the program under
which these petitions are submitted is
11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Barry Bird,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. E6–12533 Filed 8–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–24–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–549–502]
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Circular
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
From Thailand
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
Effective Date: August 3, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Myrna Lobo,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5255 or (202) 482–
2371, respectively.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
On April 7, 2006, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
7/27/06
7/27/06
Bakery products.
Pump and pumping equipment.
7/27/06
7/27/06
High-speed overwrapping system.
Fishing lures.
7/28/06
Pump and pumping equipment.
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on circular carbon steel welded pipes
and tubes from Thailand. See Circular
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
from Thailand: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 17810 (April 7, 2006).
The current deadline for the final results
of this review is August 7, 2006.
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Review
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act) requires
the Department to issue the final results
in an administrative review within 120
days after the date on which the
preliminary results were published.
However, if it is not practicable to
complete the review within this time
period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act
allows the Department to extend the
time limit for the final results to 180
days from the date of publication of the
preliminary results.
The Department finds that it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the original time frame due to
the complex nature of the case. As this
case involves complex issues related to
Saha Thai’s claim that its sales are made
at more than one level of trade, and the
Department must consider information
requested and received after the
issuance of the preliminary results,
completion of this review is not
practicable within the original time
limit of August 7, 2006. Consequently,
in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of
the Department’s regulations, the
Department is extending the time limit
for the completion of the final results of
the review until no later than September
7, 2006, which is within 180 days from
the publication of the preliminary
results.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Product
Dated: July 28, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12552 Filed 8–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–812]
Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors of One Megabit or
Above From the Republic of Korea;
Notice of Amended Final Results
Pursuant to Court Decision
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:
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Notices
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.
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
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 crossfertilization 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44017
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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–549–822]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from Thailand; Corrected Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 3, 2006.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 149 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44016-44017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
