Hyundai Electronics Co. v. United States, (1999)

Extract

---

Hyundai Electronics Co. v. United States, (1999)

PAGE: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, JUDGE

HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND

HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

and

LG SEMICON CO., LTD. AND

LG SEMICON AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Cons. Ct. No. 97-08-01409

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant-Intervenor.

[Plaintiffs' Motions for Judgment on the Agency Record, contesting a U.S. Department of Commerce decision not to revoke an antidumping duty order, are denied.]

Dated: May 19, 1999

Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy LLP (Lawrence R. Walders) for plaintiffs Hyundai Electronics Co., Ltd., and Hyundai

PAGE: 2

Electronics America, Inc.

Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, LLP (Michael P. House, Raymond Paretzky, and R. Will Planert), for plaintiffs LG Semicon Co., Ltd., and LG Semicon America, Inc.

David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Kenneth S. Kessler); Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce (Duane W. Layton), of counsel, for defendant.

Hale & Dorr, LLP (Gilbert B. Kaplan, Michael D. Esch, Paul W. Jameson, and Cris R. Revaz), for defendant-intervenor Micron Technology, Inc.

OPINION GOLDBERG, Judge: In this action, the Court reviews a decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") not to revoke an outstanding antidumping ("AD") order on dynamic random access memory semiconductors ("DRAMs") from Korea. Plaintiffs, LG Semicon Co., Ltd. and LG Semicon America, Inc. (collectively "LG Semicon"), and Hyundai Electronics Co., Ltd. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc. (collectively "Hyundai"), are Korean producers of the subject merchandise and seek relief from Commerce's action under USCIT Rule 56.2. During the underlying administrative proceeding, plaintiffs separately asserted that the regulatory requirements for revocation had been met, and

PAGE: 3

requested that Commerce revoke the outstanding AD order. Commerce rejected each invitation in its Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea, 62 Fed. Reg. 39,809 (July 24, 1997) ("Final Results"). Plaintiffs contest this determination as both contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence.

The Court exercises jurisdiction to review the motions for judgment on the agency record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1994). The Court sustains the Final Results.

I.

BACKGROUND Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron"), a U.S. manufacturer of DRAM semiconductors, filed a petition with Commerce in April, 1992, alleging that Korean producers were selling DRAMs in the United States at less than fair value. Following an antidumping investigation, Commerce published an AD order on DRAMs from Korea in May, 1993. See 58 Fed. Reg. 27,520 (May 10, 1993).

In the first anniversary month of the AD order, plaintiffs and Micron both requested an administrative review. Commerce found de minimis dumping margins for both plaintiffs in this

PAGE: 4

review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review of DRAMs from the Republic of Korea, 61 Fed. Reg. 20,216 (May 6, 1996).1 In the second anniversary month, the parties requested another administrative review, and Commerce again found de minimis dumping marg...

See the full content of this document

---