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 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