United States—Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea
World Trade Organization, Appellate Body
WT/DS296/AB/R (July 20, 2005)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
The United States (defendant) Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission received a petition from Micron Technology, Inc., regarding possible subsidies provided by the Korean government. The investigation included Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The investigation revealed that the Korean government pressured or coerced Korean financial entities, other financial entities controlled by the Korean government, and private financial entities into supporting Hynix, which prevented its financial collapse. The Korean government directly expressed its support of a bailout program, granted higher credit limits to financial institutions loaning funds to Hynix, and sent representatives to attend meetings of the creditors to express support for resolutions. The United States determined that these activities constituted a subsidy and imposed a countervailing duty of 44.29 percent on imports from Hynix. Korea then filed a challenge with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Panel and alleged that the countervailing duties violated the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement. The panel found in favor of Korea, and the United States appealed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Panel.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.