Sugar From Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 22795-22800 [2014-09363]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22795-22800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09363]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-845]


Sugar From Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: April 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Lindgren at (202) 482-3870 or 
Kaitlin Wojnar (202) 482-3857, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, 
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition

    On March 28, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received an antidumping duty (AD) petition \1\ concerning imports of 
sugar from Mexico filed in proper form on behalf of the American Sugar 
Coalition (ASC) and its individual members (collectively, 
Petitioners).\2\ Petitioners are domestic processors, millers, and 
refiners of sugar and growers of sugar cane and

[[Page 22796]]

sugarbeets. On April 2, April 8, and April 9, 2014, the Department 
requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of 
the Petition.\3\ Petitioners filed responses to these requests on April 
7, April 10, and April 14, 2014.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Sugar from Mexico,'' dated March 28, 2014 (Petition).
    \2\ Petitioners are ASC and its individual members: American 
Sugar Cane League, American Sugar Refining, Inc., American Sugarbeet 
Growers Association, Florida Sugar Cane League, Hawaiian Commercial 
and Sugar Company, Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc., Sugar Cane 
Growers Cooperative of Florida, and United States Beet Sugar 
Association.
    \3\ See Letter from the Department titled, ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Sugar from Mexico: 
Supplemental Questions,'' dated April 2, 2014; Letter from the 
Department titled, ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Sugar from Mexico: Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated April 2, 2014 (General Issues Questionnaire); 
Phone Call with Petitioners Ex Parte Memorandum, dated April 8, 
2014; Phone Call with Petitioners Ex Parte Memorandum, dated April 
9, 2014.
    \4\ See Letters from Petitioners titled, ``Sugar from Mexico; 
Response to General Issues Questionnaire,'' dated April 7, 2014 
(General Issues Supplement); ``Sugar from Mexico; Response to 
Supplemental Antidumping Questions,'' dated April 7, 2014; ``Sugar 
from Mexico; Response to Supplemental General Issues Questions,'' 
dated April 10, 2014 (Second General Issues Supplement); ``Sugar 
from Mexico; Response to Supplemental Antidumping Questions,'' dated 
April 10, 2014 (Second AD Supplement); and ``Sugar from Mexico; 
Response to Supplemental Scope Questions,'' dated April 14, 2014 
(Scope Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of sugar from Mexico 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such 
imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an 
industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably 
available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C), (E), (F) and (G) of the Act. The 
Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry 
support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that 
Petitioners are requesting. See the ``Determination of Industry Support 
for the Petition'' section below.

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on March 28, 2014, the period of 
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is sugar from Mexico. For 
a full description of the scope of the investigation, see the ``Scope 
of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix of this notice.

Comments on Scope of Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed 
scope in order to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would 
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic 
industry is seeking relief.\6\ As discussed in the Preamble to the 
regulations,\7\ we are setting aside a period for interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The period of scope comments 
is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to 
consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance 
of the preliminary determinations. All comments must be filed by 5:00 
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on May 7, 2014, which is twenty 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal 
comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 14, 2014. All such 
comments must be filed on the records of the AD investigation, as well 
as the concurrent CVD investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See General Issues Questionnaire; see also General Issues 
Supplement, at 3-8; Phone Call with Petitioners Ex Parte Memorandum, 
dated April 9, 2014; Second General Issues Supplement, at 1-4; and 
Scope Supplement.
    \7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).\8\ An electronically 
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date noted above. Documents excepted from the electronic 
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) 
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets United, Room 1870, 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the established deadline.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For general filing requirements, see 19 CFR 351.303.
    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b). For details regarding the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 
2011). Information regarding IA ACCESS assistance can be found at 
https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at 
https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic 
%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of sugar to be reported in 
response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will 
be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject 
merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of 
production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may 
be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to 
describe sugar, it may be that only a select few product 
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical 
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the 
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching 
products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important 
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics 
last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments 
on product characteristics by May 8, 2014. Rebuttal comments must be 
received by May 19, 2014.\10\ All comments and submissions to the 
Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Where the deadline falls on a weekend/holiday, the 
appropriate date is the next business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the

[[Page 22797]]

domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry 
expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, 
section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not 
establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more 
than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, 
the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other 
information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, 
as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) if there is a large number of 
producers in the industry, the Department may determine industry 
support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the 
industry.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. In investigations 
involving processed agricultural products, the statute allows the 
Department also to include growers or producers of the raw agricultural 
product within the definition of the industry.\11\ Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\12\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's 
determination is subject to limitations of time and information. 
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, 
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary 
to law.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See section 771(4)(E) of the Act. For a full discussion of 
this provision of the Act and the Department's analysis, see 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Sugar from 
Mexico (AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of 
Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petitions Covering Sugar from Mexico (Attachment II). This checklist 
is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and 
is on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed 
via IA ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 
Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.
    \12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \13\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we determined that sugar, as defined in the scope of the 
investigation, constitutes a single domestic like product and we 
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To 
establish industry support, Petitioners provided their production of 
the domestic like product in crop year 2012/2013,\15\ and compared this 
to the total production of the domestic like product for the entire 
domestic industry.\16\ We relied upon data Petitioners provided for 
purposes of measuring industry support.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Data on the domestic sugar industry are gathered and 
presented by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a 
crop year basis to reflect the annual cycle of planting, growing, 
harvesting, and processing sugar. The crop year begins on October 1 
and ends on September 30. Petitioners contend that data on a crop 
year basis more accurately reflects the production of sugar than 
would data presented on a calendar year basis. In addition, 
Petitioners note that all producers of sugar report their data to 
USDA on a crop year basis. See General Issues Supplement, at 12.
    \16\ See Exhibit Volume I, at Exhibit I-6; General Issues 
Supplement, at 9-16 and Exhibits II and III; and Second General 
Issues Supplement, at 4-6 and Attachments 1-3.
    \17\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2014, we received comments on industry support from 
the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA).\18\ We also received 
comments on industry support from Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 
\19\ and Camara Nacional de Las Industrias Azucarera Y Al Alcoholera 
(Camara) on April 11, 2014.\20\ Petitioners responded to the letters 
from GMA, ADM, and Camara on April 15, 2014.\21\ In consultations with 
the Department held with respect to the companion CVD case on imports 
of sugar from Mexico, the Government of Mexico raised the issue of 
industry support.\22\ On April 15, 2014, we received additional 
comments on industry support from the GMA.\23\ For further discussion 
of these comments, see the AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Letter from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 
dated April 11, 2014. We note that this letter is dated April 11, 
2014; however, it was received by the Department on April 10, 2014.
    \19\ See Letter from Archer Daniels Midland Company, dated April 
11, 2014.
    \20\ See Letter from Camara, dated April 11, 2014.
    \21\ See Letter from Petitioners, dated April 15, 2014.
    \22\ See Memorandum to the File from Vicki Flynn, dated April 
15, 2014, titled ``Placing Consultations Memorandum on the AD 
Record.''
    \23\ See Letter from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 
dated April 15, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, 
we determine that Petitioners met the statutory criteria for industry 
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic 
producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product.\24\ Based 
on information provided in the Petition, the domestic producers (or 
workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in sections 771(9)(C), (E), (F), or (G) of the Act and they 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD 
investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal

[[Page 22798]]

value (NV). In addition, Petitioners allege that subject imports exceed 
the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of 
the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Petition Narrative, at 31 and Exhibit Volume I, at 
Exhibit I-15; see also General Issues Supplement, at 17-18 and 
Exhibit VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depression 
or suppression, lost sales and revenues, forfeitures and USDA purchases 
that remove surpluses of domestically produced sugar from the market to 
stabilize prices, decline in payments to growers and farmers, and 
decline in financial performance.\28\ We have assessed the allegations 
and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material 
injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations 
are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Petition Narrative, at 3-4, 19-21, 28-55 and Exhibit 
Volume I, at Exhibits I-3, I-4, I-13 and I-15 through I-21; see also 
General Issues Supplement, at 15-19 and Exhibits I.A and VI through 
VIII; Second General Issues Supplement, at 5-7 and Attachment 3; and 
Scope Supplement, at 2 and Attachment 1.
    \29\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Sugar from 
Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate an investigation of imports of sugar from Mexico. The sources 
of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and 
NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.

Export Price

    Petitioners calculated export prices (EP) for estandar (a semi-
refined form of sugar) and fully refined sugar based on Mexican export 
statistics, which, unlike U.S. import statistics, distinguish between 
these two forms of sugar shipped to the United States.\30\ The ability 
to segregate estandar import data from the import data relating to 
fully-refined sugar is significant because imports of semi-refined 
sugar compete directly with U.S. raw sugar sales to refiners, whereas 
imports of refined sugar compete with U.S. refined sugar.\31\ To derive 
the ex-factory prices, Petitioners made deductions to the Mexican 
export prices for inland freight and handling costs between the mills 
and the trading companies that export to the United States.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Petition Narrative at 75 and Exhibit Volume II, at 
Exhibit II-11; see also AD Initiation Checklist.
    \31\ See Petition Narrative at 59-62.
    \32\ Id. at 75-76; see also AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Petitioners provided monthly average home market prices for both 
estandar and refined sugar in Mexico for the months of the POI. 
Petitioners obtained the home market price data from the Government of 
Mexico's Sistema Nacional de Informaci[oacute]n e Integraci[oacute]n de 
Mercados (SNIIM).\33\ To derive the ex-factory price, Petitioners 
deducted delivery costs for shipment from the mill to the wholesale 
market from the SNIIM wholesale market prices.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Petition Narrative at Table 5 (page 60), Table 6 (page 
62), and Exhibit Volume II, at Exhibits II-2E and II-4; see also AD 
Initiation Checklist.
    \34\ See Petition Narrative, at 67; see also AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation

    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales of sugar in the Mexican market were 
made at prices below the fully-absorbed cost of production (COP), 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. The 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not 
be specific to individual exporters or producers.\35\ The SAA states 
that ``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the 
aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers 
allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis 
for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.'' \36\ 
Further, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains 
the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect'' that below-cost sales occurred before initiating 
such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an interested 
party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, 
observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in 
question are at below-cost prices.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994), reprinted in 
1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3773.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. Petitioners 
calculated the COM for estandar and refined sugar based on publicly-
available data on sugar cane costs specific to Mexico and the 
production experience of five U.S. producers of raw and refined sugar, 
adjusted for known differences between the Mexico and U.S. industries 
during the prospective POI. We revised the calculation of the raw 
material cost to incorporate an offset for by-product income. To 
calculate the by-product offset rate, we relied on the fiscal year 
ended December 31, 2013 (FY 2013) financial data for four U.S. 
producers of raw sugar. The resulting by-product offset was used to 
reduce the raw material costs.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See AD Initiation Checklist at Attachments V and VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the SG&A rate, Petitioners relied on the FY 2013 
financial data for four U.S. producers of raw sugar. We note that it is 
the Department's preference to rely upon financial information from a 
producer in the country under investigation (i.e., Mexico) when 
calculating the SG&A rate. The SG&A rate used in the Petition was 
comparable with that expected from sugar producers in Mexico based on 
information contained in an article published in the Business 
Intelligence Journal. As such, we do not consider the SG&A rate 
calculated using the U.S. producers' financial data to be unreasonable. 
Petitioners conservatively did not add an amount for financial expenses 
or for packing expenses.
    To determine the COP of estandar sugar, Petitioners added together 
the COM and SG&A expenses calculated above. We revised the calculation 
of the COP of estandar sugar to incorporate the revised raw material 
costs calculated above.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the COP of refined sugar, Petitioners relied on the 
production experience of a U.S. producer of refined sugar. Petitioners 
added the additional cost of processing estandar sugar into refined 
sugar to the COP of estandar sugar calculated above. We revised the 
calculation of the COP of refined sugar to incorporate the revised raw 
material costs for estandar sugar calculated above.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like product 
in the home market to the calculated COP of the most comparable 
product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the

[[Page 22799]]

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation.

Normal Value Based on Above-Cost Home Market Prices

    Because some home market prices for refined sugar fell below COP, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, Petitioners based NV of 
refined sugar on the average of above-cost home market prices obtained 
from SNIIM and adjusted for delivery costs from the mill to the 
wholesale market.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Petition Narrative at 66-67 and 74-75; see also First 
AD Supplement, at Exhibits 3 and 5; AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Because all home market prices for estandar sugar fell below COP, 
pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, 
Petitioners calculated the NV of estandar sugar based on constructed 
value (CV). Petitioners calculated CV using the same COM and SG&A used 
to compute the COP of estandar sugar. To calculate the CV profit rate, 
Petitioners relied on the 2013 above-cost home market sales of refined 
sugar from the sales below cost allegation in the Petition. The rate 
was computed using the average profit (i.e., sales price minus COP) of 
the above-cost home market sales of refined sugar, divided by the COP 
of refined sugar. We revised the CV profit rate to incorporate the 
revised COP of refined sugar. This revised rate was then applied to the 
revised COP of estandar sugar as calculated above.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See AD Initiation Checklist at Attachments V and VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of sugar from Mexico are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on 
comparisons of EP to NV and EP to CV for Mexico, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for sugar 
from Mexico range from 30.00 to 64.31 percent.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Second AD Supplement at Exhibit 2; see also AD 
Initiation Checklist at Attachments V and VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on sugar from Mexico, 
we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the 
Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine 
whether imports of sugar from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with 
section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 
days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market 
economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the 
number of known exporters or producers for this investigation is large, 
the Department may select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of sugar from Mexico under all 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 
identified in Scope of the Investigation.\44\ We intend to release the 
CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties 
with access to information protected by APO within five days of 
publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Appendix of this notice for a listing of the HTSUS 
subheadings in the Scope of the Investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Petition identified 55 producers and/or exporters of sugar in 
Mexico.\45\ We intend to make our decision regarding respondent 
selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. The Department 
invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within 
seven days of publication of this Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Exhibit Volume I, at Exhibit I-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been 
provided to the Government of Mexico via IA ACCESS. To the extent 
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than May 12, 2014, 
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of sugar from 
Mexico are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a 
U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its 
regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions 
in AD and CVD proceedings. See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 
(September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may 
request an extension of time limits before any time limit 
established under Part 351 expires. This modification also requires 
that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone 
submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the 
Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of 
time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013) (Factual Information Final 
Rule), which modified two regulations related to AD and CVD 
proceedings: the definition of factual information (19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual 
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories 
of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized 
as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) 
evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any 
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also 
modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time 
limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all 
proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are 
applicable to this investigation. Please review the Factual Information 
Final Rule, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt prior to submitting factual information in these 
investigations.

[[Page 22800]]

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 
January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO 
Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to 
participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the 
requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\47\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that the Department issued a final rule 
with respect to certification requirements, effective August 16, 2013. 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials as well as their 
representatives. All segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on 
or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised 
certifications provided at the end of the Certifications Final 
Rule.\48\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \48\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Certification Final Rule); 
see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Certification 
Final Rule, available at the following: https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: April 17, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is sugar derived from 
sugar cane or sugar beets. Sucrose gives sugar its essential 
character. Sucrose is a nonreducing disaccharide composed of glucose 
and fructose linked via their anomeric carbons. The molecular 
formula for sucrose is C12H22011, 
the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) 
International Chemical Identifier (InChl) for sucrose is 1S/
C12H22O11/c13-l-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 within the scope of this investigation includes raw sugar 
(sugar with a sucrose content by weight in a dry state that 
corresponds to a polarimeter reading of less than 99.5 degrees) and 
estandar or standard sugar which is sometimes referred to as ``high 
polarity'' or ``semi-refined'' sugar (sugar with a sucrose content 
by weight in a dry state that corresponds to a polarimeter reading 
of 99.2 to 99.6 degrees). Sugar within the scope of this 
investigation includes refined sugar with a sucrose content by 
weight in a dry state that corresponds to a polarimeter reading of 
at least 99.9 degrees. Sugar within the scope of this investigation 
includes brown sugar, liquid sugar (sugar dissolved in water), 
organic raw sugar and organic refined sugar.
    Inedible molasses is not within the scope of this investigation. 
Specialty sugars, e.g., rock candy, fondant, sugar decorations, are 
not within the scope of this investigation. Processed food products 
that contain sugar, e.g., beverages, candy, cereals, are not within 
the scope of this investigation.
    Merchandise covered by this investigation is typically imported 
under the following headings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (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, 1701.99.1025, 1701.99.1050, 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 this investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2014-09363 Filed 4-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P