Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Alliance Semiconductor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ram Seetharaman who wrote (7704)	6/9/2000 4:33:00 PM
From: Peter H. Mack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9582

"I will be surprised if ALSC doesn't touch $ 40 this year!" Ram... you are conservative I wouldnt be surprised if it touched $40 (by Aug 1st)when results from this qtr have been announced.. They have been running Net Sales sequential gain of 20%. Seems to me that the business side evaluation will move up a bit, and of course UMC won't sit still either. pete

To: Ram Seetharaman who wrote (7704)	6/13/2000 1:40:00 AM
From: DJBEINO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9582

FROM 10Q: In February 1997, Micron Technology, Inc. filed an antidumping petition with the United States International Trade Commission ("ITC") and United States Department of Commerce ("DOC"), alleging that static random access memories ("SRAMs") fabricated in Taiwan were being sold in the United States at less than fair value, and that the United States industry producing SRAMs was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of SRAMs fabricated in Taiwan. After a final affirmative DOC determination of dumping and a final affirmative ITC determination of injury, DOC issued an antidumping duty order in April 1998. Under that order, the Company's imports into the United States on or after approximately April 16,1998 of SRAMs fabricated in Taiwan are subject to a cash deposit in the amount of 50.15% (the "Antidumping Margin") of the entered value of such SRAMs. (The Company posted a bond in the amount of 59.06% (the preliminary margin) with respect to its importation, between approximately October 1997 and April 1998, of SRAMs fabricated in Taiwan.) In May 1998, the Company and others filed an appeal in the United States Court of International Trade (the "CIT"), challenging the determination by the ITC that imports of Taiwan-fabricated SRAMs were causing material injury to the U.S. industry. On June 30, 1999 the CIT issued a decision remanding the ITC's affirmative material injury determination to the ITC for reconsideration. The ITC's remand determination reaffirmed its original determination and is currently being considered by the CIT. The decision of the CIT can be further appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Company cannot predict either the timing or the eventual results of the appeal. Until a final judgment is entered in the appeal, no final duties will be assessed on the Company's entries of SRAMs from Taiwan covered by the DOC antidumping duty order. If the appeal is successful, the antidumping order will be terminated and cash deposits will be refunded with interest. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the Company's entries of Taiwan-fabricated SRAMs from October 1, 1997 through March 31, 1999 will be liquidated at the deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. On subsequent entries of Taiwan-fabricated SRAMs, the Company will continue to make cash deposits in the amount of 50.15% of the entered value. In April 2000, the Company will have an opportunity to request a review of its sales of Taiwan-fabricated SRAMs from April 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000 (the "Review Period"). If it does so, the amount of antidumping duties, if any, owed on imports from April 1999 through March 2000 will remain undetermined until the conclusion of the review in early 2001. If the DOC found, based upon analysis of the Company's sales during the Review Period, that antidumping duties either should not be imposed or should be imposed at a lower rate than the Antidumping Margin, the difference between the cash deposits made by the Company, and the deposits that would have been made had the lower rate (or no rate, as the case may be) been in effect, would be returned to the Company, plus interest. If, on the other hand, the DOC found that higher margins were appropriate, the Company would have to pay difference between the cash deposits paid by the Company and the deposits that would have been made had the higher rate been in effect. A material portion of the SRAMs designed and sold by the Company are fabricated in Taiwan, and the cash deposit requirement and possibility of assessment of antidumping duties could materially adversely affect the Company's ability to sell Taiwan-fabricated SRAMs in the United States and have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results and financial condition. At December 31, 1999, the Company had posted a bond secured by a letter of credit in the amount of approximately $1.7 million and made cash deposits in the amount of $1.7 million relating to the Company's importation of Taiwan-manufactured SRAMs. Click on the following hyperlink to view this filing: freeedgar.com