Antidumping Suspension Agreement on Sugar From Mexico: Rescission of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 Administrative Reviews, 26914-26916 [2017-12115]

Download as PDF 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