Antidumping Suspension Agreement on Sugar From Mexico: Rescission of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 Administrative Reviews, 26914-26916 [2017-12115]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26914
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 111 / Monday, June 12, 2017 / Notices
b. Differential Pricing
c. Value-Added Tax
d. Surrogate Values
VII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2017–12106 Filed 6–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
Review: Notice of NAFTA Panel
Decision
United States Section, NAFTA
Secretariat, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of NAFTA Panel
Decision in the matter of
Supercalendered Paper from Canada:
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination (Secretariat File Number:
USA–CDA–2015–1904–01).
AGENCY:
On April 13, 2017, the
Binational Panel issued its
Memorandum Opinion and Order in the
matter of Supercalendered Paper from
Canada: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination
(Final Determination). The Binational
Panel affirmed in part and remanded in
part the Final Determination by the
United States Department of Commerce
(Commerce) and copies of the NAFTA
Panel Decision are available from the
United States Section of the NAFTA
Secretariat.
SUMMARY:
Paul
E. Morris, United States Secretary,
NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides
a dispute settlement mechanism
involving trade remedy determinations
issued by the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada, and
the Government of Mexico. Following a
Request for Panel Review, a Binational
Panel is composed to review the trade
remedy determination being challenged
and issue a binding Panel Decision.
There are established NAFTA Rules of
Procedure for Article 1904 Binational
Panel Reviews (Rules) and the NAFTA
Panel Decision has been notified in
accordance with Rule 70. For the
complete Rules, please see https://
www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Textsof-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/
Article-1904.
Panel Decision: On April 13, 2017, the
Binational Panel issued its
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Jun 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Memorandum Opinion and Order
which affirmed in part and remanded in
part the Final Determination by
Commerce. The Binational Panel
concluded and ordered that Commerce’s
Final Determination is remanded for
further consideration consistent with
the Panel’s decision with respect to (1)
the use of Commerce’s ‘‘concurrent
subsidies’’ methodology to analyze the
provision of ‘‘hot idle’’ funding to Port
Hawkesbury Paper LLP (PHP) in a
transaction between private parties; (2)
Commerce’s conclusion that the
Government of Nova Scotia entrusted
and directed Nova Scotia Power, Inc. to
make a financial contribution by
providing electricity; (3) Commerce’s
conclusion that Nova Scotia Power, Inc.
provided electricity for less than
adequate remuneration, addressing both
its conclusion that a Tier 1 benchmark
was not available and its calculation of
a Tier 3 benchmark; (4) the use of
Commerce’s ‘‘concurrent subsidies
methodology’’ with respect to granting
of Forestry Infrastructure monies to New
Page Port Hawkesbury (NPPH) prior to
its acquisition by Pacific West
Commercial Corporation (PWCC); (5)
Commerce’s statement that the
administrative record contains no
evidence of a hostile takeover of Fibrek
by Resolute; (6) Commerce’s failure to
examine whether the grants to Resolute
under the Northern Industrial Electricity
Rate and Forestry Sector Prosperity
Funds programs were tied to the
production of a particular product or to
the production of an input product; and
(7) Commerce’s use of the same nonrecurring grant as the source for Adverse
Facts Available for both recurring and
non-recurring grants.
The Binational Panel ordered that to
the extent not rendered moot by
Commerce’s explanation on remand as
to why a Tier 1 benchmark for
measuring the adequacy of
remuneration of Port Hawkesbury’s
electricity was not available,
Commerce’s October 21, 2016 motion
for a voluntary remand to consider
whether Commerce should include a
separate component for return on equity
in its Tier 3 benchmark for measuring
the adequacy of remuneration of Port
Hawkesbury’s electricity is granted, and
the calculation of the benchmark for
such purchases is hereby remanded.
The Binational Panel further ordered
that the Final Determination in all other
respects is sustained and directed
Commerce to submit its redetermination
on remand within 75 days of the date
of issue of the NAFTA Panel Decision.
For the full Memorandum Opinion and
Order, please see https://www.nafta-sec-
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/
Decisions-and-Reports.
Dated: June 6, 2017.
Paul E. Morris,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2017–12039 Filed 6–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–845]
Antidumping Suspension Agreement
on Sugar From Mexico: Rescission of
2014–2015 and 2015–2016
Administrative Reviews
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 1, 2017, the
Department notified the producers/
exporters that were signatories to the
Agreement Suspending the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on
sugar from Mexico (the AD Agreement)
of its intent to terminate the AD
Agreement unless a new agreement was
reached on or before June 5, 2017. The
Department subsequently modified its
notice of intent to terminate the AD
Agreement, stating its continued intent
to terminate the AD Agreement unless
an amended agreement was reached on
or before June 6, 2017. Because the
Department intends to terminate the AD
Agreement, or, in the alternative, amend
the AD Agreement prior to the
expiration of the termination period, the
two ongoing administrative reviews of
the original AD Agreement are now
moot, and the Department is rescinding
both administrative reviews.
DATES: Effective June 5, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sally C. Gannon or David Cordell,
Enforcement & Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–0162 or
(202) 482–0408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
Investigation and Issuance of the AD
Agreement
On April 17, 2014, the Department
initiated an antidumping duty
investigation under section 732 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
to determine whether imports of sugar
from Mexico are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 111 / Monday, June 12, 2017 / Notices
fair value.1 On October 24, 2014, the
Department preliminarily determined
that sugar from Mexico is being, or is
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value, as provided in
section 733 of the Act.2
On December 19, 2014, the
Department and representatives of the
signatory producers/exporters
accounting for substantially all imports
of sugar from Mexico signed the AD
Agreement, under section 734(c) of the
Act, which suspended the AD
investigation.3 The basis for this action
was an agreement between the
Department and signatory producers/
exporters accounting for substantially
all imports of sugar from Mexico,
wherein each signatory producer/
exporter agreed to revise its prices to
eliminate completely the injurious
effects of exports of the subject
merchandise to the United States.
On January 8, 2015, Imperial Sugar
Company (Imperial) and AmCane Sugar
LLC (AmCane) each notified the
Department that they had petitioned the
International Trade Commission (ITC) to
conduct a review of the AD Agreement
under section 734(h) of the Act, to
determine whether the injurious effects
of the imports of the subject
merchandise are eliminated completely
by the AD Agreement. On March 19,
2015, in a unanimous vote, the ITC
found that the AD Agreement
eliminated completely the injurious
effects of imports of sugar from Mexico.4
As a result of the ITC’s determination,
the AD Agreement remained in effect,
and on March 27, 2015, the Department,
in accordance with section 734(h)(3) of
the Act, instructed U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the
suspension of liquidation of all entries
of sugar from Mexico and refund all
cash deposits.
Notwithstanding issuance of the AD
Agreement, pursuant to requests by
domestic interested parties, the
Department continued its investigation
and made an affirmative final
determination of sales at less than fair
value.5 In its Final Determination, the
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
1 See
Sugar from Mexico: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 FR 22795
(April 24, 2014).
2 See Sugar from Mexico: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR 65189
(November 3, 2014).
3 See Agreement Suspending the Antidumping
Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico, 79 FR
78039 (December 29, 2014) (AD Agreement).
4 See Sugar from Mexico; Determinations, 80 FR
16426 (March 27, 2015).
5 See Sugar From Mexico: Continuation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Investigations, 80 FR 25278 (May 4, 2015); Sugar
From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Jun 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Department calculated weighted-average
dumping margins of 40.48 percent for
Fondo de Empresas Expropiadas del
Sector Azucarero (FEESA), 42.14
percent for Ingenio Tala S.A. de C.V.
and certain affiliated sugar mills of
Grupo Azucarero Mexico S.A. de C.V.
(collectively, the GAM Group), and
40.74 percent for all other Mexican
producers/exporters. The Department
stated, in its Final Determination, that it
would ‘‘not instruct CBP to suspend
liquidation or collect cash deposits
calculated herein unless the AD
Suspension Agreement is terminated
and the Department issues an
antidumping duty order,’’ and, in that
case, it would ‘‘instruct CBP to suspend
liquidation and require a cash deposit
equal to the weighted-average amount
by which normal value exceeds U.S.
price,’’ and adjusted for export
subsidies.6 The ITC subsequently made
an affirmative determination of material
injury to an industry in the United
States by reason of imports of sugar
from Mexico.7
Reviews
On February 9, 2016, at the request of
the American Sugar Coalition and its
Members (ASC),8 Imperial, and
AmCane, the Department initiated an
administrative review of the AD
Agreement for the period of review from
December 19, 2014 through November
30, 2015 9 to examine, the status of, and
compliance with, the AD Agreement,10
as well as whether suspension of the
investigation is in the ‘‘public interest,’’
including the availability of supplies of
sugar in the U.S. market, and whether
‘‘effective monitoring’’ is practicable.11
On December 5, 2016, the Department
published the preliminary results of its
administrative review of the AD
Agreement.12 In its Preliminary Results,
the Department determined that there is
some indication that certain individual
transactions of subject merchandise may
Than Fair Value, 80 FR 57341 (September 23, 2015)
(Final Determination).
6 Final Determination, 80 FR at 57342.
7 See Sugar From Mexico, 80 FR 70833
(November 16, 2015) (Final ITC Determination).
8 The members of the American Sugar Coalition
are: American Sugar Cane League, American
Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Sugar
Refining, Inc., Florida Sugar Cane League, Rio
Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc., Sugar Cane
Growers Cooperative of Florida, and the United
States Beet Sugar Association.
9 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR
6832 (February 9, 2016) (2014–2015 Administrative
Review).
10 See section 751(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
11 See section V of the AD Agreement.
12 See Antidumping Duty Suspension Agreement
on Sugar From Mexico; Administrative Review, 81
FR 87541 (December 5, 2016) (Preliminary Results).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26915
not be in compliance with the terms of
the AD Agreement, and further, that the
AD Agreement may no longer be
meeting all of the statutory
requirements, as set forth in sections
734(c) and (d) of the Act.
On February 13, 2017, at the request
of interested parties ASC, Imperial, and
Zucarmex S.A. de C.V. (Zucarmex), the
Department initiated an administrative
review of the AD Agreement for the
period December 1, 2015 through
November 30, 2016.13
On May 1, 2017, the Department
notified the signatory producers/
exporters of its intent to terminate the
AD Agreement, pursuant to Section X.B
of the AD Agreement, unless the parties
reached agreement upon resolution of
the outstanding issues with the current
agreement on or before June 5, 2017.14
On June 5, 2017, the Department
notified the signatory producers/
exporters that it was extending the
period within which to reach an
agreement until June 6, 2017.15
Scope of AD Agreement
The product subject to the AD
Agreement is raw and refined sugar of
all polarimeter readings derived from
sugar cane or sugar beets. The covered
merchandise is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) at subheadings:
1701.12.1000, 1701.12.5000,
1701.13.1000, 1701.13.5000,
1701.14.1000, 1701.14.5000,
1701.91.1000, 1701.91.3000,
1701.99.1010, 1701.99.1025,
1701.99.1050, 1701.99.5010,
1701.99.5025, 1701.99.5050, and
1702.90.4000.
See Appendix I for the full
description of merchandise covered by
the AD Agreement.
Period of Administrative Reviews
The POR of the first administrative
review is December 19, 2014 through
November 30, 2015 and the POR of the
second administrative review is
December 1, 2015 through November
30, 2016.
Rescission of Administrative Reviews
The Department has indicated its
intent to terminate the AD Agreement,
13 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR
10457 (February 13, 2017) (2015–2016
Administrative Review).
14 See Letter from Ronald Lorentzen to Juan
Cortina Gallardo et al., ‘‘Agreement Suspending the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from
Mexico’’ (May 1, 2017) (May 1, 2017 notice).
15 See Letter from Ronald Lorentzen to Juan
Cortina Gallardo et al., ‘‘Agreement Suspending the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from
Mexico’’ (June 5, 2017) (June 5, 2017 notice).
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
26916
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 111 / Monday, June 12, 2017 / Notices
unless an amended agreement can be
reached.16 Accordingly, the questions of
the status of, and compliance, with the
AD Agreement, whether suspension of
the AD Agreement is in the ‘‘public
interest,’’ including the availability of
supplies of sugar in the U.S. market, and
whether ‘‘effective monitoring’’ is
practicable have been rendered moot
because either the AD Agreement will
be amended and suspension of the
investigation will be continued with the
Department’s issuance of a final
amendment to the AD Agreement, or the
AD Agreement will be terminated,
according to the Department’s May 1,
2017, notice of intent to terminate, as
modified by its June 5, 2017 letter.17
Therefore, the Department is rescinding
the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016
administrative reviews of the AD
Agreement.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
734(f), 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 6, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Service (CAS) Number of sucrose is 57–50–
1.
Sugar described in the previous paragraph
includes products of all polarimeter readings
described in various forms, such as raw
sugar, estandar or standard sugar, high
polarity or semi-refined sugar, special white
sugar, refined sugar, brown sugar, edible
molasses, desugaring molasses, organic raw
sugar, and organic refined sugar. Other sugar
products, such as powdered sugar, colored
sugar, flavored sugar, and liquids and syrups
that contain 95 percent or more sugar by dry
weight are also within the scope of the order.
The scope of the order does not include (1)
sugar imported under the Refined Sugar ReExport Programs of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture; 18 (2) sugar products produced
in Mexico that contain 95 percent or more
sugar by dry weight that originated outside
of Mexico; (3) inedible molasses (other than
inedible desugaring molasses noted above);
(4) beverages; (5) candy; (6) certain specialty
sugars; and (7) processed food products that
contain sugar (e.g., cereals). Specialty sugars
excluded from the scope of the order are
limited to the following: caramelized slab
sugar candy, pearl sugar, rock candy, dragees
for cooking and baking, fondant, golden
syrup, and sugar decorations.
Merchandise covered by the AD Agreement
is typically imported under the following
headings of the HTSUS: 1701.12.1000,
1701.12.5000, 1701.13.1000, 1701.13.5000,
1701.14.1000, 1701.14.5000, 1701.91.1000,
1701.91.3000, 1701.99.1010, 1701.99.1025,
1701.99.1050, 1701.99.5010, 1701.99.5025,
1701.99.5050, and 1702.90.4000. The tariff
classification is provided for convenience
and customs purposes; however, the written
description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–12115 Filed 6–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
18 This exclusion applies to sugar imported under
the Refined Sugar Re-Export Program, the SugarContaining Products Re-Export Program, and the
Polyhydric Alcohol Program administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
1 See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary
Results, of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2015–2016, 82 FR 12190 (March 1, 2017)
(Preliminary Results).
2 See Letter from the petitioners to the
Department, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from India—
Petitioners’ Case Brief,’’ (Petitioners’ CB) dated
March 31, 2017; see also, Letter from Ambica to the
Department, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from India:
Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated April 7, 2017 (Ambica’s RB).
3 See the Memorandum from Gary Taverman,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary
for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Stainless Steel Bar from India; 2015–2016,’’ dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by this
notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
[A–533–810]
The product covered by the AD Agreement
is raw and refined sugar of all polarimeter
readings derived from sugar cane or sugar
beets. The chemical sucrose gives sugar its
essential character. Sucrose is a nonreducing
disaccharide composed of glucose and
fructose linked by a glycosidic bond via their
anomeric carbons. The molecular formula for
sucrose is C12H22O11; the International Union
of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)
International Chemical Identifier (InChl) for
sucrose is 1S/C12H22O11/c13-1-46(16)8(18)9(19)11(21-4)23-12(315)10(20)7(17)5(2-14)22-12/h4-11,13-20H,13H2/t4-,5-,6-,7-,8+,9-,10+,11-,12+/m1/s1; the
InChl Key for sucrose is
CZMRCDWAGMRECN–UGDNZRGBSA–N;
the U.S. National Institutes of Health
PubChem Compound Identifier (CID) for
sucrose is 5988; and the Chemical Abstracts
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2015–2016
17:28 Jun 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
is SSB. SSB subject to the order is
currently classifiable under subheadings
7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00,
7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of the Order is dispositive. A full
description of the scope of the order is
contained in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.3
AGENCY:
Appendix I: Scope of the AD Agreement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Background
Following the Preliminary Results,1
we received a timely filed case brief
from Carpenter Technology Corporation,
Crucible Industries LLC, Electralloy, a
Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., North
American Stainless, Universal Stainless
& Alloy Products, Inc., and Valbruna
Slater Stainless, Inc. (the petitioners)
and a timely filed rebuttal brief from
Ambica.2
Analysis of Comments
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties in this review
are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted
by this notice. A list of the issues raised
is attached to this notice as Appendix I.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum
International Trade Administration
16 See May 1, 2017 letter, as modified by the June
5, 2017 letter.
17 Id.
Limited (Ambica), and Bhansali Bright
Bars Pvt. Ltd. (Bhansali). We determine
that Bhansali had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR
and that Ambica did have an entry of
subject merchandise during the POR.
DATES: Effective June 12, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1293.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 1, 2017, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar (SSB) from India. The period
of review (POR) is February 1, 2015,
through January 31, 2016. This review
covers two producers or exporters of the
subject merchandise: Ambica Steels
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26914-26916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12115]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-845]
Antidumping Suspension Agreement on Sugar From Mexico: Rescission
of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 1, 2017, the Department notified the producers/
exporters that were signatories to the Agreement Suspending the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on sugar from Mexico (the AD Agreement)
of its intent to terminate the AD Agreement unless a new agreement was
reached on or before June 5, 2017. The Department subsequently modified
its notice of intent to terminate the AD Agreement, stating its
continued intent to terminate the AD Agreement unless an amended
agreement was reached on or before June 6, 2017. Because the Department
intends to terminate the AD Agreement, or, in the alternative, amend
the AD Agreement prior to the expiration of the termination period, the
two ongoing administrative reviews of the original AD Agreement are now
moot, and the Department is rescinding both administrative reviews.
DATES: Effective June 5, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon or David Cordell,
Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230, telephone: (202) 482-0162 or (202) 482-0408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Investigation and Issuance of the AD Agreement
On April 17, 2014, the Department initiated an antidumping duty
investigation under section 732 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), to determine whether imports of sugar from Mexico are being,
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
[[Page 26915]]
fair value.\1\ On October 24, 2014, the Department preliminarily
determined that sugar from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in
the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733
of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Sugar from Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 79 FR 22795 (April 24, 2014).
\2\ See Sugar from Mexico: Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR
65189 (November 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2014, the Department and representatives of the
signatory producers/exporters accounting for substantially all imports
of sugar from Mexico signed the AD Agreement, under section 734(c) of
the Act, which suspended the AD investigation.\3\ The basis for this
action was an agreement between the Department and signatory producers/
exporters accounting for substantially all imports of sugar from
Mexico, wherein each signatory producer/exporter agreed to revise its
prices to eliminate completely the injurious effects of exports of the
subject merchandise to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation
on Sugar from Mexico, 79 FR 78039 (December 29, 2014) (AD
Agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2015, Imperial Sugar Company (Imperial) and AmCane
Sugar LLC (AmCane) each notified the Department that they had
petitioned the International Trade Commission (ITC) to conduct a review
of the AD Agreement under section 734(h) of the Act, to determine
whether the injurious effects of the imports of the subject merchandise
are eliminated completely by the AD Agreement. On March 19, 2015, in a
unanimous vote, the ITC found that the AD Agreement eliminated
completely the injurious effects of imports of sugar from Mexico.\4\ As
a result of the ITC's determination, the AD Agreement remained in
effect, and on March 27, 2015, the Department, in accordance with
section 734(h)(3) of the Act, instructed U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to terminate the suspension of liquidation of all
entries of sugar from Mexico and refund all cash deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Sugar from Mexico; Determinations, 80 FR 16426 (March
27, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding issuance of the AD Agreement, pursuant to requests
by domestic interested parties, the Department continued its
investigation and made an affirmative final determination of sales at
less than fair value.\5\ In its Final Determination, the Department
calculated weighted-average dumping margins of 40.48 percent for Fondo
de Empresas Expropiadas del Sector Azucarero (FEESA), 42.14 percent for
Ingenio Tala S.A. de C.V. and certain affiliated sugar mills of Grupo
Azucarero Mexico S.A. de C.V. (collectively, the GAM Group), and 40.74
percent for all other Mexican producers/exporters. The Department
stated, in its Final Determination, that it would ``not instruct CBP to
suspend liquidation or collect cash deposits calculated herein unless
the AD Suspension Agreement is terminated and the Department issues an
antidumping duty order,'' and, in that case, it would ``instruct CBP to
suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-
average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price,'' and adjusted
for export subsidies.\6\ The ITC subsequently made an affirmative
determination of material injury to an industry in the United States by
reason of imports of sugar from Mexico.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Sugar From Mexico: Continuation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Investigations, 80 FR 25278 (May 4, 2015); Sugar
From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
80 FR 57341 (September 23, 2015) (Final Determination).
\6\ Final Determination, 80 FR at 57342.
\7\ See Sugar From Mexico, 80 FR 70833 (November 16, 2015)
(Final ITC Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviews
On February 9, 2016, at the request of the American Sugar Coalition
and its Members (ASC),\8\ Imperial, and AmCane, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the AD Agreement for the period
of review from December 19, 2014 through November 30, 2015 \9\ to
examine, the status of, and compliance with, the AD Agreement,\10\ as
well as whether suspension of the investigation is in the ``public
interest,'' including the availability of supplies of sugar in the U.S.
market, and whether ``effective monitoring'' is practicable.\11\ On
December 5, 2016, the Department published the preliminary results of
its administrative review of the AD Agreement.\12\ In its Preliminary
Results, the Department determined that there is some indication that
certain individual transactions of subject merchandise may not be in
compliance with the terms of the AD Agreement, and further, that the AD
Agreement may no longer be meeting all of the statutory requirements,
as set forth in sections 734(c) and (d) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The members of the American Sugar Coalition are: American
Sugar Cane League, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, American
Sugar Refining, Inc., Florida Sugar Cane League, Rio Grande Valley
Sugar Growers, Inc., Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, and
the United States Beet Sugar Association.
\9\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 6832 (February 9, 2016) (2014-2015
Administrative Review).
\10\ See section 751(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
\11\ See section V of the AD Agreement.
\12\ See Antidumping Duty Suspension Agreement on Sugar From
Mexico; Administrative Review, 81 FR 87541 (December 5, 2016)
(Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 2017, at the request of interested parties ASC,
Imperial, and Zucarmex S.A. de C.V. (Zucarmex), the Department
initiated an administrative review of the AD Agreement for the period
December 1, 2015 through November 30, 2016.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 10457 (February 13, 2017) (2015-2016
Administrative Review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 1, 2017, the Department notified the signatory producers/
exporters of its intent to terminate the AD Agreement, pursuant to
Section X.B of the AD Agreement, unless the parties reached agreement
upon resolution of the outstanding issues with the current agreement on
or before June 5, 2017.\14\ On June 5, 2017, the Department notified
the signatory producers/exporters that it was extending the period
within which to reach an agreement until June 6, 2017.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Letter from Ronald Lorentzen to Juan Cortina Gallardo
et al., ``Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on
Sugar from Mexico'' (May 1, 2017) (May 1, 2017 notice).
\15\ See Letter from Ronald Lorentzen to Juan Cortina Gallardo
et al., ``Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on
Sugar from Mexico'' (June 5, 2017) (June 5, 2017 notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of AD Agreement
The product subject to the AD Agreement is raw and refined sugar of
all polarimeter readings derived from sugar cane or sugar beets. The
covered merchandise is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 1701.12.1000, 1701.12.5000,
1701.13.1000, 1701.13.5000, 1701.14.1000, 1701.14.5000, 1701.91.1000,
1701.91.3000, 1701.99.1010, 1701.99.1025, 1701.99.1050, 1701.99.5010,
1701.99.5025, 1701.99.5050, and 1702.90.4000.
See Appendix I for the full description of merchandise covered by
the AD Agreement.
Period of Administrative Reviews
The POR of the first administrative review is December 19, 2014
through November 30, 2015 and the POR of the second administrative
review is December 1, 2015 through November 30, 2016.
Rescission of Administrative Reviews
The Department has indicated its intent to terminate the AD
Agreement,
[[Page 26916]]
unless an amended agreement can be reached.\16\ Accordingly, the
questions of the status of, and compliance, with the AD Agreement,
whether suspension of the AD Agreement is in the ``public interest,''
including the availability of supplies of sugar in the U.S. market, and
whether ``effective monitoring'' is practicable have been rendered moot
because either the AD Agreement will be amended and suspension of the
investigation will be continued with the Department's issuance of a
final amendment to the AD Agreement, or the AD Agreement will be
terminated, according to the Department's May 1, 2017, notice of intent
to terminate, as modified by its June 5, 2017 letter.\17\ Therefore,
the Department is rescinding the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 administrative
reviews of the AD Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See May 1, 2017 letter, as modified by the June 5, 2017
letter.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 734(f), 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 6, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I: Scope of the AD Agreement
The product covered by the AD Agreement is raw and refined sugar
of all polarimeter readings derived from sugar cane or sugar beets.
The chemical sucrose gives sugar its essential character. Sucrose is
a nonreducing disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked
by a glycosidic bond via their anomeric carbons. The molecular
formula for sucrose is C12H22O11;
the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)
International Chemical Identifier (InChl) for sucrose is 1S/
C12H22O11/c13-1-4-6(16)8(18)9(19)11(21-4)23-12(3-15)10(20)7(17)5(2-
14)22-12/h4-11,13-20H,1-3H2/t4-,5-,6-,7-,8+,9-,10+,11-,12+/m1/s1;
the InChl Key for sucrose is CZMRCDWAGMRECN-UGDNZRGBSA-N; the U.S.
National Institutes of Health PubChem Compound Identifier (CID) for
sucrose is 5988; and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Number of
sucrose is 57-50-1.
Sugar described in the previous paragraph includes products of
all polarimeter readings described in various forms, such as raw
sugar, estandar or standard sugar, high polarity or semi-refined
sugar, special white sugar, refined sugar, brown sugar, edible
molasses, desugaring molasses, organic raw sugar, and organic
refined sugar. Other sugar products, such as powdered sugar, colored
sugar, flavored sugar, and liquids and syrups that contain 95
percent or more sugar by dry weight are also within the scope of the
order.
The scope of the order does not include (1) sugar imported under
the Refined Sugar Re-Export Programs of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture; \18\ (2) sugar products produced in Mexico that contain
95 percent or more sugar by dry weight that originated outside of
Mexico; (3) inedible molasses (other than inedible desugaring
molasses noted above); (4) beverages; (5) candy; (6) certain
specialty sugars; and (7) processed food products that contain sugar
(e.g., cereals). Specialty sugars excluded from the scope of the
order are limited to the following: caramelized slab sugar candy,
pearl sugar, rock candy, dragees for cooking and baking, fondant,
golden syrup, and sugar decorations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ This exclusion applies to sugar imported under the Refined
Sugar Re-Export Program, the Sugar-Containing Products Re-Export
Program, and the Polyhydric Alcohol Program administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merchandise covered by the AD Agreement is typically imported
under the following headings of the HTSUS: 1701.12.1000,
1701.12.5000, 1701.13.1000, 1701.13.5000, 1701.14.1000,
1701.14.5000, 1701.91.1000, 1701.91.3000, 1701.99.1010,
1701.99.1025, 1701.99.1050, 1701.99.5010, 1701.99.5025,
1701.99.5050, and 1702.90.4000. The tariff classification is
provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-12115 Filed 6-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
