U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4467 May 2014

Washington, DC 20436

Sugar from Mexico

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-513 and 731-TA-1249 (Preliminary)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Irving A. Williamson, Chairman 

Dean A. Pinkert 

David S. Johanson 

Meredith M. Broadbent 

F. Scott Kieff 

Rhonda K. Schmidtlein

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Amy Sherman, Investigator 

Michael Szustakowski, Investigator 

Douglas Newman, Industry Analyst 

James Fetzer, Economist 

Charles Yost, Accountant 

Russell Duncan, Statistician 

Darlene Smith, Statistical Assistant 

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney 

Elizabeth Haines, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4467 May 2014

Sugar from Mexico

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-513 and 731-TA-1249 (Preliminary)

  

CONTENTS

Page

i

Determinations............................................................................................................................... 1

Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3

Part I: Introduction................................................................................................................ I‐1

Background................................................................................................................................ I‐1

Statutory criteria and organization of the report..................................................................... I‐2

Statutory criteria ................................................................................................................... I‐2

Organization of report........................................................................................................... I‐3

Market summary....................................................................................................................... I‐3

Summary data and data sources............................................................................................... I‐4

Previous and related investigations.......................................................................................... I‐4

Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV........................................................ I‐6

Alleged subsidies................................................................................................................... I‐6

Alleged sales at LTFV ............................................................................................................. I‐7

The subject merchandise .......................................................................................................... I‐7

Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I‐7

The product............................................................................................................................... I‐8

Description and applications................................................................................................. I‐8

Manufacturing processes.................................................................................................... I‐10

Tariff treatment....................................................................................................................... I‐12

Tariff‐rate quotas on U.S. imports....................................................................................... I‐13

U.S. sugar program.................................................................................................................. I‐17

History ................................................................................................................................. I‐17

1996‐2002............................................................................................................................ I‐17

2002–2008........................................................................................................................... I‐18

2008–Present....................................................................................................................... I‐21

Domestic like product issues................................................................................................... I‐23

Raw sugar and refined sugar............................................................................................... I‐24

Beet sugar and cane sugar .................................................................................................. I‐25
  

CONTENTS

Page

ii

Part I: Introduction‐‐Continued

HFCS and sugar.................................................................................................................... I‐25

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market............................................................ II‐1

U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... II‐1

Channels of distribution........................................................................................................... II‐1

Geographic distribution ........................................................................................................... II‐1

Supply and demand considerations......................................................................................... II‐3

U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ II‐3

U.S. demand ......................................................................................................................... II‐5

Substitutability issues............................................................................................................... II‐7

Lead times ............................................................................................................................ II‐7

Factors affecting purchasing decisions................................................................................. II‐7

Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported sugar ............................................................. II‐8

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment....................................... III‐1

U.S. sugar beet and sugarcane growers.................................................................................. III‐1

Sugar beet growers.............................................................................................................. III‐1

Sugarcane growers.............................................................................................................. III‐2

Production of sugar beets and sugarcane........................................................................... III‐2

U.S. sugarcane millers, cane refiners, and sugar beet processors.......................................... III‐4

U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization............................................................... III‐10

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports......................................................................... III‐13

U.S. producers’ inventories................................................................................................... III‐15

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases................................................................................ III‐15

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity .......................................................................... III‐17

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ................................IV‐1

U.S. importers..........................................................................................................................IV‐1

U.S. imports............................................................................................................................. IV‐3

Negligibility.............................................................................................................................. IV‐8
  

CONTENTS

Page

i

Determinations............................................................................................................................... 1

Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3

Part I: Introduction................................................................................................................ I‐1

Background................................................................................................................................ I‐1

Statutory criteria and organization of the report..................................................................... I‐2

Statutory criteria ................................................................................................................... I‐2

Organization of report........................................................................................................... I‐3

Market summary....................................................................................................................... I‐3

Summary data and data sources............................................................................................... I‐4

Previous and related investigations.......................................................................................... I‐4

Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV........................................................ I‐6

Alleged subsidies................................................................................................................... I‐6

Alleged sales at LTFV ............................................................................................................. I‐7

The subject merchandise .......................................................................................................... I‐7

Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I‐7

The product............................................................................................................................... I‐8

Description and applications................................................................................................. I‐8

Manufacturing processes.................................................................................................... I‐10

Tariff treatment....................................................................................................................... I‐12

Tariff‐rate quotas on U.S. imports....................................................................................... I‐13

U.S. sugar program.................................................................................................................. I‐17

History ................................................................................................................................. I‐17

1996‐2002............................................................................................................................ I‐17

2002–2008........................................................................................................................... I‐18

2008–Present....................................................................................................................... I‐21

Domestic like product issues................................................................................................... I‐23

Raw sugar and refined sugar............................................................................................... I‐24

Beet sugar and cane sugar .................................................................................................. I‐25
  

CONTENTS

Page

ii

Part I: Introduction‐‐Continued

HFCS and sugar.................................................................................................................... I‐25

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market............................................................ II‐1

U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... II‐1

Channels of distribution........................................................................................................... II‐1

Geographic distribution ........................................................................................................... II‐1

Supply and demand considerations......................................................................................... II‐3

U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ II‐3

U.S. demand ......................................................................................................................... II‐5

Substitutability issues............................................................................................................... II‐7

Lead times ............................................................................................................................ II‐7

Factors affecting purchasing decisions................................................................................. II‐7

Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported sugar ............................................................. II‐8

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment....................................... III‐1

U.S. sugar beet and sugarcane growers.................................................................................. III‐1

Sugar beet growers.............................................................................................................. III‐1

Sugarcane growers.............................................................................................................. III‐2

Production of sugar beets and sugarcane........................................................................... III‐2

U.S. sugarcane millers, cane refiners, and sugar beet processors.......................................... III‐4

U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization............................................................... III‐10

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports......................................................................... III‐13

U.S. producers’ inventories................................................................................................... III‐15

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases................................................................................ III‐15

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity .......................................................................... III‐17

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ................................IV‐1

U.S. importers..........................................................................................................................IV‐1

U.S. imports............................................................................................................................. IV‐3

Negligibility.............................................................................................................................. IV‐8
  

CONTENTS

Page

iii

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares‐‐Continued

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares.....................................................................IV‐8

Part V: Pricing data...............................................................................................................V‐1

Factors affecting prices............................................................................................................V‐1

Raw material costs ...............................................................................................................V‐1

U.S. inland transportation costs...........................................................................................V‐1

Pricing practices .......................................................................................................................V‐1

Pricing methods....................................................................................................................V‐1

Sales terms and discounts....................................................................................................V‐1

Price data..................................................................................................................................V‐2

Price trends.........................................................................................................................V‐13

Price comparisons ..............................................................................................................V‐13

Lost sales and lost revenue ....................................................................................................V‐15

Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers....................................................................VI‐1

Background..............................................................................................................................VI‐1

Operations on sugar................................................................................................................VI‐1

Variance analysis.................................................................................................................VI‐9

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses..........................................VI‐12

Assets and return on investment..........................................................................................VI‐14

Capital and investment .........................................................................................................VI‐16

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries..........................VII‐1

The industry in Mexico...........................................................................................................VII‐3

Introduction........................................................................................................................VII‐3

Operations on sugar...........................................................................................................VII‐5

Mexican producers’ capacity, production, and shipments................................................VII‐7

Mexican export markets...................................................................................................VII‐10

U.S. inventories of imported merchandise ..........................................................................VII‐11

U.S. importers’ outstanding orders......................................................................................VII‐11
  

CONTENTS

Page

iv

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries‐‐Continued

Trade remedy measures in third‐country markets..............................................................VII‐12

Information on nonsubject countries..................................................................................VII‐12

The global sugar market...................................................................................................VII‐13

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices.................................................................................................... A‐1

B. List of conference witnesses............................................................................................. B‐1

C. Summary data................................................................................................................... C‐1

D. Results of operations of millers, processors, and refiners................................................D‐1

E. Capital and investment..................................................................................................... E‐1

Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not

be published and therefore has been deleted.  Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
3

Views of the Commission

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there

is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports of sugar from Mexico that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value

(“LTFV”) and allegedly subsidized by the Government of Mexico (“GOM”).1

I. The Legal Standard for Preliminary Determinations  

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations

requires the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the

preliminary determinations, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is

materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry is

materially retarded, by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.2  In applying this

standard, the Commission weighs the evidence before it and determines whether “(1) the

record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is no material injury or

threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will arise in a final

investigation.”3

II. Background

The petitions in these investigations were filed on March 28, 2014 by the American

Sugar Coalition and its members, which include sugarcane farmers, millers, and refiners, and

sugar beet growers and processors.4  Petitioners appeared at the staff conference and

submitted a postconference brief.  

Several respondent entities participated in these investigations.  Participating in the

conference and filing postconference briefs were the Sweetener Users Association, consisting

of importers of subject merchandise (the “Sweetener Users Respondents”); Camera Nacional

de Las Industrias Azcarera Y Alcoholera, consisting of Mexican producers and exporters of

subject merchandise (the “Mexican Sugar Chamber”); CSC Sugar, LLC (“CSC”), a domestic

                                                        1 Commissioner Schmidtlein did not participate in these investigations. 2 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994,

1001‐04 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354‐55 (1996).  No party

argues that the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded by the allegedly

unfairly traded imports.

3 American Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d

1535, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 4 Confidential Report (“CR”)/ Public Report (“PR”) at I‐1.  The members of the American Sugar

Coalition are American Sugar Cane League, Thibodaux, LA; American Sugarbeet Growers Association,

Washington, DC; American Sugar Refining, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL; Florida Sugar Cane League,

Washington, DC; Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company, Puunene, HI; Rio Grande Valley Sugar

Growers, Inc., Santa Rosa, TX; Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Belle Glade, FL; and United

States Beet Sugar Association, Washington, DC.  Id.
4

producer of liquid sugar and invert sugar syrup (“invert syrup”) and importer of subject

merchandise; and Archer Daniels Midland Company (“ADM”), a domestic producer of liquid

sugar and invert syrup.5  Filing postconference briefs without participating in the conference

were Diazteca Company, an importer of subject merchandise (“Diazteca”), and the GOM.  

U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of 24 firms that accounted

for the vast majority of sugar production during October 2010 through December 2013,

including nine sugarcane millers, two firms that both mill and refine sugarcane, four sugarcane

refiners, seven sugar beet processors, and two firms that primarily produce liquid sugar.6

  U.S.

import data are based on official Commerce import statistics and on questionnaire responses

from 19 U.S. importers, believed to have accounted for 82.0 percent of total subject imports

and *** percent of imports from nonsubject countries.7

  Mexican industry data are based on

the questionnaire responses of 16 producers of subject merchandise that accounted for

approximately 97 percent of subject imports and 90 percent of sugar production in Mexico

during the period of investigation, which encompasses crop year (“CY”) 2010/11, CY2011/12,

CY2012/13, and October‐December of CY2012/13 and CY2013/14.8

III. Domestic Like Product

In determining whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United

States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of the

subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the

“industry.”9  Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), defines

the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or

those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”10  In turn, the Tariff Act defines

“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.”11

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a

factual determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or

                                                        5 Invert syrup is a liquid mixture of equal parts of glucose and fructose resulting from the

hydrolysis of sucrose.  ADM’s Responses to Staff Questions at 1.  Invert syrup can be used as a

preservative for lowering water activity, can help depress freezing point, and can help minimize

crystallization in a variety of applications.  Id.   Invert syrup also serves as a humectant that is used to

help maintain moistness in bakery products.  Id.

6 CR at I‐4‐5; PR at I‐4; PR/CR at Table III‐3. 7 CR/PR at I‐4.

8 CR at VII‐7; PR at VII‐5‐6.  The U.S. crop year for sugar begins on October 1 and ends on September

30 of the following year.  CR/PR at I‐4 n.5.    9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).
5

“most similar in characteristics and uses” on a case‐by‐case basis.12 13  No single factor is

dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the

facts of a particular investigation.14  The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among

possible like products and disregards minor variations.15  Although the Commission must accept

Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized

and/or sold at less than fair value,16 the Commission determines what domestic product is like

the imported articles Commerce has identified.17  The Commission may, where appropriate,

                                                       12 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department

of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT

450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d,

938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular

record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”).  The Commission generally considers a number of

factors including the following:  (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels

of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing

facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price.  See

Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

13 In a semi‐finished products analysis, the Commission examines the following: (1) the significance

and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream into the downstream articles; (2) whether

the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses;

(3) differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles; (4)

whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles; and (5)

differences in the costs or value of the vertically differentiated articles.  See, e.g., Glycine from India,

Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1111‐1113 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3921 at 7 (May 2007);

Artists' Canvas from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1091 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 3853 at 6 (May 2006); Live

Swine from Canada, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1076 (Final), US1TC Pub. 3766 at 8 n.40 (Apr. 2005); Certain Frozen

Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1012 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3533 at 7 (Aug. 2002). 14 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (1979).

15 See, e.g., Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐49; see also S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at

90‐91 (Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a

narrow fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the

conclusion that the product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like

product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected

by the imports under consideration.”).

16 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. App’x 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not

modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v.

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,

492 U.S. 919 (1989). 17 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may

find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo,

501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product}

determination.”); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748‐52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining

six like products in investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds).
6

include domestic articles in the domestic like product in addition to those described in the

scope.18

A. Scope Definition

In its notices of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the

scope of the investigations as follows:

The merchandise 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.

                                                       18 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from China and Israel, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐403 and 731‐TA‐895‐96 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3467 at 8 n.34 (Nov. 2001); Torrington, 747 F. Supp.  at 748‐49 (holding that the Commission

is not legally required to limit the domestic like product to the product advocated by the petitioner, co‐

extensive with the scope).
7

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.19

The products covered by these investigations include sugar derived from sugarcane and

sugar beets from Mexico, which is chemically classified as sucrose, a naturally‐occurring

carbohydrate.20  These sugar products include “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).21  Raw cane sugar is used exclusively as a raw

material input in the production of refined sugar,22 and is not commercially produced in

Mexico.23  Estandar can be used either as a raw material input in the production of refined

sugar or as an input in the production of certain food and beverage products.24  Subject

producers reported that 64.2 percent of their export shipments to the United States in

CY2012/13 were of sugar with a polarity of 97.0 degrees or greater intended for further

refinement, which would include estandar.25        

Also included in the scope of the investigations are “refined” sugar with a sucrose

content by weight in a dry state that corresponds to a polarimeter reading of at least 99.9

degrees; brown sugar; liquid sugar (sugar dissolved in water); organic raw sugar; and organic

refined sugar.26  These sugar products are used as a caloric sweetening agent in food and

beverages, including bakery products, cereals, confections, sauces, cured meats, and dairy and

ice cream applications.27  Inedible molasses is not within the scope of these investigations.  

Certain “specialty” sugars (e.g., rock candy, fondant, and sugar decorations) and processed food

                                                       19 Sugar from Mexico: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 79 Fed. Reg. 22790 (Apr. 24,

2014); Sugar from Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 Fed. Reg. 22795 (Apr. 24,

2014).      20 CR at I‐10‐11; PR at I‐8‐9.  The only subject merchandise not chemically classified as sucrose are

fructose‐sugar blends.  CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9. 21 CR at I‐10‐11; PR at I‐8‐9.    22 CR at I‐11‐12; PR at I‐9.

23 CR at VII‐4; PR at VII‐3.

24 See Conference Tr. at 81, 124 (O’Malley), 125 (Greenwald), 126 (O’Malley), 128 (Berg), 212‐13

(Cortina), 214, 221 (Armero); see also CR/PR at Tables III‐6, VII‐4.

25 CR/PR at Table VII‐4.    26 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9.

27 CR at I‐12; PR at I‐10.
8

products that contain sugar (e.g., beverages, candy, and cereals) are also not within the scope

of these investigations.28

B. Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Argument.  Petitioners seek a single domestic like product encompassing

the types of sugar described in the scope definition.  They argue that the Commission’s semi‐

finished product analysis supports the inclusion of raw sugar in the same domestic like product

as refined sugar.29  They further argue that the Commission should define a single domestic like

product that includes cane and beet sugar because there is no clear dividing line separating the

two products.30  Finally, they argue that the Commission should not include high fructose corn

syrup (“HFCS”), a product outside the scope definition, within the domestic like product

because there is a clear dividing line separating sugar from HFCS.31      

Respondents’ Argument.  Diazteca argues that the Commission should define separate

like products corresponding to raw cane sugar, refined cane sugar, and refined beet sugar.32  

The GOM argues that the Commission should include HFCS within the domestic like product

definition.33  The Mexican Sugar Chamber and the Sweetener Users Respondents do not

challenge the domestic like product definition advocated by petitioners for purposes of the

preliminary phase of the investigations, but reserve the right to challenge the definition in any

final phase investigations.34      

C. Analysis

Based on the following analysis, we define a single domestic like product consisting of all

sugar within the scope of the investigations.

1. Whether the Commission Should Define Separate Like Products

Corresponding to Raw and Refined Sugar

We first address the argument advanced by Diazteca that raw cane sugar should be a

distinct domestic like product from refined sugar.35  Because this issue involves products at

different stages of processing, we analyze it using the Commission’s semi‐finished products like

product analysis.  We include raw and refined sugar within the same domestic like product

definition based on the following analysis.  

                                                       28 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9.

29 Petition at 20.    30 Petition at 21‐22.

31 Petition at 22‐23.

32 Diazteca Postconference Brief at 2‐5.

33 GOM’s Postconference Brief at paras. 27‐31, 37.    34 Mexican Sugar Chamber’s Postconference Brief at 2; Sweetener Users’ Postconference Brief at 5‐6.    35 There is no raw beet sugar because sugar beets are processed into refined sugar through a

continuous process.  CR at I‐14; PR at I‐11.
9

Dedication for Use.  All raw cane sugar is sold to refineries for use as an input in the

production of refined cane sugar.36   

Separate Markets.  There is no known separate market for raw cane sugar.  All raw cane

sugar is sold to refiners. 37    

Differences in Physical Characteristics and Functions of the Upstream and Downstream

Articles.  There are similarities and differences between raw cane sugar and refined cane sugar

in terms of their physical characteristics and functions.  Raw cane sugar is an intermediate

product normally composed of 90 to 99 percent sucrose.38  Because it is considered unfit for

human consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, all domestically produced raw

cane sugar is sold to cane refineries, which further process the raw cane sugar to remove

impurities and produce refined sugar.39  Refined sugar is composed of 99.9 percent sucrose and

is primarily used for human consumption.40  Thus, refined cane sugar is simply raw cane sugar

that has been further processed to remove most impurities, so as to produce sugar that is fit for

human consumption.

Differences in Value.  During the period of investigation, the ratio of the average unit

value of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of raw cane sugar to the average unit value of

the industry’s U.S. shipments of refined cane sugar ranged from *** percent to *** percent.41  

With respect to the value added by cane refiners, their ratio of conversion costs to cost of

goods sold (“COGS”) ranged from *** to *** percent during the period of investigation.42  The

cane refiners’ ratio of conversion costs plus selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”)

expenses to the sum of COGS and SG&A ranged from *** to *** percent during the period.43   

Extent of Processes Used to Transform Raw Sugar into Refined Sugar.  Sugar refineries

utilize a multi‐step process in capital‐intensive facilities to transform raw cane sugar into

refined cane sugar.44  First, raw sugar is combined with molasses and water to produce

“magma.”45  Next, magma is processed in high‐speed centrifuges to separate impurities.46  The

resulting crystals are strained and separated from impurities through “carbonatation” to yield

                                                       36 CR at I‐11‐12, I‐14, III‐6; PR at I‐9, I‐11, III‐5.

37 CR at I‐11‐12, I‐14, III‐6; PR at I‐9, I‐11, III‐5.

38 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9.

39 CR at I‐11‐12; PR at I‐9.

40 CR at I‐10‐11, I‐13; PR at I‐8‐9. 41 Calculated by staff using the domestic producers’ questionnaire responses of cane millers and

refiners, at questions II‐8 and II‐9.

42 Staff Table Supp A.1, EDIS Document No. 533418.  Domestic value added as a share of the average

unit value of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of refined sugar made from Mexican inputs was ***

percent in CY2012/13.  Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐19.  Domestic value added

to subject imported inputs was only *** percent in CY2010/11 and *** percent in CY2011/12, however.  

Id.   

43 Staff Table Supp A.1, EDIS Document No. 533418. 44 See CR at I‐14‐15; PR at I‐11; Conference Tr. at 65 (O’Malley) (“{A} cane refinery . . . is a major

manufacturing plant.  That is extremely capital‐intensive.”).

45 CR at I‐14; PR at I‐11.

46 CR at I‐14; PR at I‐11.
10

“liquor.”47  The liquor is then passed through presses and filters, which absorb most remaining

impurities.  Finally, the sugar is recrystallized, with all remaining moisture evaporated, before

being sorted, packed, and stored.48       

Conclusion.  The record evidence pertaining to the Commission’s semi‐finished product

factors supports the inclusion of raw and refined cane sugar within the same domestic like

product definition.  Raw sugar is dedicated to refined sugar production, with no separate

market for raw sugar; both raw and refined sugar consist of sucrose, with physical differences

determined by the degree of processing; and the value added through raw cane sugar refining

appears moderate, although the process is complex and capital‐intensive.  We therefore

include both raw and refined cane sugar in the same domestic like product.

2. Whether the Commission Should Define Separate Like Products

Corresponding to Refined Cane Sugar and Refined Beet Sugar   

We next address Diazteca’s argument that the Commission should define beet sugar

and cane sugar as separate like products.  The record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations indicates that there is no clear dividing line between refined cane sugar and

refined beet sugar in terms of the Commission’s traditional six like product factors, as discussed

below.

Physical Characteristics and Uses.  Refined cane sugar and refined beet sugar are

physically identical, and used in the same applications.49           

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes and Employees.  Refined cane sugar and

refined beet sugar are produced in different facilities using different employees, but using

similar production processes.50  The production of refined cane sugar takes place in two

separate facilities.  First, sugarcane is processed by sugarcane mills into raw cane sugar, which

is 90 to 99 percent pure sucrose and unfit for human consumption.51  Raw cane sugar is then

sold or transferred to cane refineries for further processing into refined cane sugar, which is

99.99 percent pure sucrose and fit for human consumption.52   

The production of refined beet sugar is a continuous process that takes place within a

single manufacturing facility. 53  Beet processors first slice sugar beets into thin strips and add

water to extract sucrose, and then remove impurities from the resulting raw juice.54  After

sucrose has been extracted from the sugar beets, the basic manufacturing steps undertaken by

beet processors are similar to the combined operations of sugarcane mills and refineries. 55  

                                                       47 CR at I‐14; PR at I‐11.

48 CR at I‐14; PR at I‐11.

49 See CR at I‐11‐13; PR at I‐9 (“The sucrose from sugar beets and sugarcane are identical to one

another.”); Conference Tr. at 61‐62 (Snyder).   50 CR at I‐13‐14; PR at I‐11.

51 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9.

52 CR at I‐14; PR at I‐10.

53 CR at I‐13‐14; PR at I‐11.

54 CR at I‐14‐15; PR at I‐11. 55 CR at I‐13‐14; PR at I‐11.
11

Channels of Distribution.  According to petitioners, refined cane sugar and refined beet

sugar are distributed through the same channels of distribution,56 and there is no information

on the record suggesting otherwise.    

Interchangeability.  Refined cane sugar and refined beet sugar are used interchangeably

in most, but not all, applications.57  According to the President and CEO of Domino Foods, a

domestic cane sugar producer, “{m}any of the large industrial customers source . . . their

refined sugar from both beet and cane, and that product is comingled on a regular basis.”58  On

the other hand, a witness for CSC, a domestic producer of liquid sugar and invert syrup, stated

that some customers refuse to buy beet sugar because of concerns about genetically modified

organisms (“GMO”), although the trend is not “a major wave,” and that serving such customers

posed a challenge because his company comingles beet sugar and cane sugar used in the

production of liquid sugar.59  A witness for Just Born, a domestic candy manufacturer, stated

that his company uses cane sugar because beet sugar “doesn’t react well with some of our

products.”60  

Producer and Customer Perceptions.  Customers and producers generally perceive cane

and beet sugar to be the same product.61  As indicated above, there is evidence that some

customers may prefer cane sugar to beet sugar due to concerns such as the GMO origin of most

beet sugar.62  Nevertheless, the record shows that beet sugar accounts for a substantial

majority of domestic refined sugar production, indicating that beet sugar remains widely

accepted in the U.S. market.63

Price.  According to petitioners, refined cane sugar and refined beet sugar typically sell

for the same price,64 and there is no information on the record suggesting otherwise.   

Conclusion.  Refined cane sugar and refined beet sugar are similar with respect to

physical characteristics and uses, interchangeability, channels of distribution, producer and

customer perceptions, and price.  Although refined cane sugar and refined beet sugar are

produced in separate facilities with separate employees, the processes used to produce them

are similar.  Given the preponderance of similarities between refined cane sugar and refined

beet sugar, we include both types of sugar in the same domestic like product.

                                                       56 Petition at 22; CR at II‐2; PR at II‐1. 57 Petition at 22; CR at I‐12; PR at I‐9.    58 Conference Tr. at 62 (O’Malley).

59 Conference Tr. at 211 (Farmer).

60 Conference Tr. at 212 (Jones).

61 Petition at 22.   62 CR at I‐35; PR at I‐25; Conference Tr. at 211 (Farmer); Diazteca’s Postconference Brief at 4‐5.  

Approximately 90 percent of sugar beets are GMO.  CR at I‐35; PR at I‐25.    63 CR/PR at Table IV‐6.

64 Petition at 22.   
12

3. Whether the Commission Should Define the Domestic Like Product to

Include HFCS

Finally, we address the GOM’s argument that the Commission should define the

domestic like product to include HFCS, a product outside the scope.65  Although we must accept

the determination of Commerce as to the scope of the imported merchandise,66 the

Commission may, where appropriate, include articles in the domestic like product that are in

addition to those described in the scope.67  The record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations indicates that there is a clear dividing line between sugar within the scope of the

investigations and HFCS, as explained below.

Physical Characteristics and Uses.  Sugar and HCFS have the same use, which is to

sweeten food and beverages.68  They also have some common physical characteristics, in that

both contain glucose and fructose.69  Nevertheless, the glucose and fructose in sugar are

chemically joined by a covalent bond to form sucrose, whereas HFCS is composed of glucose

and fructose in a free state.70  Moreover, sugar comes in crystalline and liquid forms, whereas

HFCS has a high moisture content, cannot be crystalized, and has a lower freezing point than

sugar, which makes it less suitable for use in ice cream.71  Consequently, sugar is used in a wider

range of applications than HFCS, including confectionery, bakery, dairy, canned food, and dry

cereal products.72  By contrast, HFCS is used primarily in soft drinks, in which HFCS’s greater

stability and longer shelf life are advantageous, and also in certain soft baked products.73                

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes and Employees.  Sugar and HFCS are

produced in separate manufacturing facilities using different production processes and

                                                       65 We are unpersuaded by the GOM’s argument that the Commission must include HFCS in the

domestic like product because a WTO dispute resolution panel allegedly found HFCS and sugar to be like

products in a dispute concerning Mexican taxes on soft drinks.  GOM’s Postconference Brief at paras. 32,

37.  In the dispute, the WTO dispute resolution panel found that “as sweeteners for soft drinks and

syrups, cane sugar and HFCS are in a close competitive relationship and that they undoubtedly can be

considered as ‘like products’ under Article III:4” of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”)

1994.  Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS208/R (7 October 2005), at

para. 8.106 (emphasis added).  The scope of the present investigations covers all sugar, and not just

sugar used in the production of soft drinks and syrups.  Moreover, the WTO panel was construing Article

III:4 of GATT 1994, which concerns taxation and not the imposition of trade remedies.    66 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, Slip. Op. 01‐1421 (Fed. Cir. April 25, 2005) at 9 (“The ITC may not

modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”).

67 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from China and Israel, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐403 and 731‐TA‐895‐96 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3467 (Nov. 2001) at 8, n. 34; Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F.Supp. 744, 748‐9 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that the Commission is not legally required to

limit its like product to the like product advocated by the petitioner, co‐extensive with the scope).

68 See Petition at 22; GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 28; Conference Tr. at 131 (Greenwald).

69 See Petition at 22; GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 28; Conference Tr. at 131 (Greenwald).

70 See Petition at 22; GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 28.   71 CR at I‐11; PR at I‐9; Petition at 23.

72 CR at I‐13; PR at I‐11.

73 Petition at 23; GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 30.
13

employees.  The production of sugar entails the extraction and refining of sugar from sugar

beets and cane by cane millers, cane refiners, and beet processors.74  By contrast, the

production of HFCS from corn entails chemical reactions induced by enzymes in a chemical

plant.75   

Channels of Distribution.  Almost all HFCS and a majority of domestically produced

sugar, 65.0 percent in CY2012/13, are shipped to industrial users.76  However, a significant

share of domestically produced sugar, 35.0 percent in CY2012/13, is shipped to distributors,

grocery chains, restaurants and restaurant chains, and refiners and melt houses.77   

Interchangeability.  Although sugar and HFCS can be used interchangeably in certain

applications, such as soft drinks and certain soft baked products,78 they are generally used in

different applications, as a practical matter.  Most HFCS consumed in the United States is used

in the production of soft drinks, due to its lower cost and superior stability and shelf life as

compared to sugar.79  The record of the preliminary phase investigations indicates that sugar is

used in a broader range of applications, including confectionery, bakery, dairy, canned food,

and dry cereal products, in which its physical properties are preferred.80          

Producer and Customer Perceptions.  The record indicates that producers and customers

perceive sugar and HFCS as different products with distinct product attributes.  In the 1980s,

the domestic soft drink industry substituted HFCS for sugar in the production of its products, in

order to capitalize on the lower cost of HFCS.81  The fact that most other end users of

sweeteners have not switched from sugar to HFCS to a significant extent suggests that they

regard sugar as the more appropriate sweetener for their applications.82

Price.  The spot price for HFCS has historically been lower than the spot price for sugar.83  

The spot price for HFCS‐42 was 21.66 cents per pound, dry weight, in fiscal year 2011, 23.77

cents per pound in fiscal year 2012, and 27.64 cents per pound in fiscal year 2013.84  By

contrast, the average unit value of the industry’s U.S. commercial shipments of refined sugar

was 38.9 cents per pound in CY2010/11, 41.8 cents per pound in CY2011/12, and 36.1 cents per

pound in CY2012/13.85

                                                       74 See CR at I‐13‐16; PR at I‐10‐12. 75 Petition at 23; GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 27.

76 Petition at 23; GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 30 (“Customers for HFCS are primarily soft

drink producers who purchase HFCS is bulk amounts and in liquid form.”); CR/PR at Table II‐1. 77 CR/PR at Table II‐1.

78 CR at II‐8; PR at II‐6; Conference Tr. at 190 (Cuddy); Petition at 23; GOM’s Postconference Brief at

para. 30.

79 Petition at 23; GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 30; CR at II‐9; PR at II‐6.

80 CR at I‐12; PR at I‐10; Petition at 23.

81 Petition at 37; GOM’s Postconference Brief at paras. 30‐31.

82 Conference Tr. at 132 (O’Malley).

83 CR at I‐37; PR at I‐26.

84 CR at I‐37; PR at I‐26.

85 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐8 (dividing unit value in dollars per short ton

by 2,000 pounds per short ton).
14

Conclusion.  The record in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicates that

there are more differences than similarities between sugar and HFCS, indicating that a clear

dividing line exists between the two products.  Although sugar and HFCS share general physical

characteristics and uses, certain key physical differences between sugar and HFCS cause each

product to be favored for specific applications, thereby limiting their practical

interchangeability.  They are produced in separate manufacturing facilities using different

employees and production processes.  That customers and producers perceive sugar and HFCS

to be different products is reflected in the fact that only soft drink producers have fully

switched from sugar to HFCS, despite the historically lower price of HFCS than sugar.  Because

of the evidence that there is a clear dividing line separating sugar from HFCS, we do not include

HFCS in the domestic like product.  Instead, we define a single domestic like product that is

coextensive with the scope of the investigations.86

IV. Domestic Industry  

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic

like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes

a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”87  In defining the domestic

industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all

domestic production of the like product, whether toll‐produced, captively consumed, or sold in

the domestic merchant market.  

A. Sufficient Production‐Related Activities

In deciding whether a firm qualifies as a domestic producer of the domestic like product,

the Commission generally analyzes the overall nature of a firm’s U.S. production‐related

activities, although production‐related activity at minimum levels could be insufficient to

constitute domestic production.88  Petitioners argue that certain domestic producers known as

“melt houses,” which produce liquid sugar by adding water to subject imported estandar and

refined sugar, should be excluded from the domestic industry because they do not engage in

                                                        86 We remind parties intending to raise like product issues in any final phase investigations to include

in their comments on the draft questionnaires specific requests for the collection of data from domestic

producers of the like products they advocate.  Parties should also explain their position on the

appropriate domestic like product or products the Commission should define.

87 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

88 The Commission generally considers six factors:  (1) source and extent of the firm’s capital

investment; (2) technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities; (3) value added to the product

in the United States; (4) employment levels; (5) quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States;

and (6) any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the like

product.  No single factor is determinative and the Commission may consider any other factors it deems

relevant in light of the specific facts of any investigation.  Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from

China and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1092‐93 (Final), USITC Pub. 3862 at 8‐11 (July 2006).
15

sufficient production‐related activities to be considered domestic producers.89  Respondents

CSC and ADM, which are the only responding domestic entities that primarily produce liquid

sugar and invert syrup,90 deny that their operations represent “melt houses,” and argue that

they engage in sufficient production‐related activities to be considered domestic producers.91  

Based on the following analysis of the six factors the Commission generally considers in

assessing a firm’s production‐related activities, we find that CSC engages in sufficient

production‐related activities to be considered a domestic producer, but not ADM.

1. CSC

Source and extent of capital investment.  CSC has invested $*** in its refining

operations, consisting of five refineries, over the past six years.92  CSC’s refineries use carbon,

ion exchange resin, diatomaceous earth, and press filtration to purify raw sugar into refined

liquid sugar and invert syrup.93  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) has determined

that CSC qualifies as a domestic sugar refiner for purposes of the U.S. Refined Sugar Re‐Export

Program.94

Technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities.  CSC claims that its highly

technical process for processing raw sugar into refined sugar products, including proprietary

equipment that CSC designed and built, must be operated by employees with a high degree of

technical proficiency.95  Furthermore, its refinery operations were designed in consultation with

a senior refinery chemist with over 30 years of industry experience.96

Value added to the product in the United States.  CSC’s ratio of conversion costs to COGS

was between *** and *** percent during the period of investigation.97  Its ratio of conversion

costs plus SG&A expenses to the sum of COGS and SG&A was between *** and *** percent.98

Employment levels.  CSC has *** employees in its sugar refining operations, including

both production workers and managers.99

                                                       89 Petition at 28‐29; Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 12‐13.    90 Petitioners argue that melt houses do not engage in sufficient production‐related activities to be

included in the domestic industry.  Petition at 28‐29; Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 12‐13.  The

GOM claims that melt houses should be included in the domestic industry because they add substantial

value to the final product.  GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 63.  Because the only producers of

liquid sugar and invert syrup that provided information on their operations were CSC and ADM, we do

not opine on whether melt houses categorically engage in sufficient production‐related activities to be

included in the domestic industry.  See Calcium Hypochlorite from China, Inv. No. 701‐TA‐510 and 731‐

TA‐1245 (Preliminary), USITC Pub.  4452 (Feb. 2014) at 10.  We intend to seek information from melt

houses in any final phase investigations.    91 See CSC’s Postconference Brief at 2‐13; ADM’s Responses to Staff Questions at 1, 4‐5.    92 CR at III‐8; PR at III‐5‐6.

93 CR at III‐8; PR at III‐5.

94 CSC’s Postconference Brief at 6‐7.

95 CSC’s Postconference Brief at 10.

96 CSC’s Postconference Brief at 10.

97 CR at III‐7; PR at III‐6.

98 CR at III‐7; PR at III‐6.
16

Quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States.  In CY2012/13, *** percent of

CSC’s production of liquid sugar and invert syrup was produced using ***.100  CSC also sources

other inputs used in the production of its refined sugar products domestically, including ***.101       

Any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the

like product.  The design and testing of CSC’s proprietary production equipment ***.102  In

addition, CSC reports that its domestic refinery operations have required ***.103  

Conclusion.  The record indicates that CSC is a domestic sugar refiner, capable of

processing raw sugar unfit for human consumption into refined liquid sugar and invert syrup.  

Indeed, the USDA has certified CSC as a domestic refiner, and permitted it to participate in a re‐

export program limited to domestic sugar refineries.  Moreover, CSC’s sugar refining operations

have required significant capital investment, require a significant level of technical expertise to

operate and maintain, and employ a substantial number of workers.  Although CSC sources

most of the inputs for its refined sugar production from Mexico, and adds *** value to the

finished product, on balance, we find that CSC engages in sufficient production‐related

activities to be included in the domestic industry.        

2. ADM

Source and extent of capital investment.  ADM has invested more than $*** in what it

considers “sweetener stations,” which convert domestically produced refined sugar into liquid

sugar and invert syrup.104   

Technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities.  Although ADM claims that its

sweetener stations require significant technical expertise, most of the expertise required

appears to be in areas other than the production of liquid sugar and invert syrup.  For example,

ADM claims that its sweetener stations require personnel with expertise in plant maintenance,

logistics, quality, food safety, and environmental regulations.105  The expertise required to

produce liquid and invert syrup in ADM’s sweetener stations appears limited to an

understanding of sucrose melt systems.106     

Value added to the product in the United States.  ADM’s ratio of conversion costs to

COGS was between *** and *** percent during the period of investigation.107  Its ratio of

conversion costs plus SG&A expenses to the sum of COGS and SG&A was between *** and ***

percent.108

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

99 CSC’s Postconference Brief at 11.

100 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐14; CSC’s Postconference Brief at 11‐12.    101 CSC’s Postconference Brief at 11.

102 CSC’s Postconference Brief at 12.

103 CSC’s Postconference Brief at 12‐13.

104 CR at III‐8; PR at III‐6; ADM’s Responses to Staff Questions at 2.

105 ADM’s Responses to Staff Questions at 4‐5.

106 ADM’s Responses to Staff Questions at 4.

107 CR at III‐9; PR at III‐6.

108 CR at III‐9; PR at III‐6.
17

Employment levels.  ADM had *** employees at its sweetener stations in 2013.109

Quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States.  ADM uses only domestic

refined sugar to produce liquid sugar and invert syrup.110

Any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the

like product.  ADM did not identify any such costs and activities.

Conclusion.  Although ADM describes its liquid and invert syrup operations as

“sweetener stations,” they resemble the “melt houses” described by petitioners.111  ADM

processes refined sugar, already fit for human consumption, into liquid sugar and invert syrup

by melting the sugar and adding water.112  On the one hand, ADM’s capital investment in its

sweetener stations has been substantial, they employ an appreciable number of workers, and

they consume domestically sourced refined sugar.  On the other hand, ADM’s sweetener

stations do not appear to require a significant level of technical expertise and they add only

minor value to the refined sugar that is processed.  On balance, we find that ADM does not

engage in sufficient production‐related activities to be deemed a domestic producer.    

B. Grower/Processor Issues

In cases involving processed agricultural products, section 771(4)(E) of the Tariff Act

authorizes the Commission to include growers of a raw agricultural input within the domestic

industry producing the processed agricultural product if:  

(a) the processed agricultural product is produced from the raw product through a

single continuous line of production,113 and  

(b) there is a substantial coincidence of economic interest between the growers and

producers of the processed product based upon the relevant economic factors.114 115

                                                       109 ADM’s Responses to Staff Questions at 5.

110 ADM’s Responses to Staff Questions at 5. 111 See Conference Tr. at 232 (Armero) (“I think Chris Cuddy from ADM, his plants are what you could

describe as a melt station because he takes food grade refined sugar and makes food grade liquid

sugar.”). 112 ADM’s Responses to Commissioner Questions at 2, Attachment.  ADM indicates that some of its

sweetener stations use Novasep Applexion processing equipment, which can process raw sugar with a

polarity of 97.5 to 99.8 percent into refined liquid sugar and invert syrup through filtration,

decolorization, and demineralization processes.  See id. at Attachment.  We note that ADM’s sweetener

stations would have no need for such processes because their input is refined sugar, not raw sugar.       113 The statute provides that the processed product shall be considered to be processed from the raw

product in a single, continuous line of production if:

(a) the raw agricultural product is substantially or completely devoted to the production of the

processed agricultural product; and

(b) the processed agricultural product is produced substantially or completely from the raw product.

19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(ii).   114 In addressing coincidence of economic interest under the second prong of the test, the

Commission may, in its discretion, consider price, added market value, or other economic

interrelationships. Further:

(Continued...)
18

Petitioners argue that cane growers and beet farmers satisfy the two‐part test under the

grower/processor provision for being included in the domestic industry.116  The GOM argues

that neither the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Antidumping Agreement (“ADA”) nor the

WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“ASCM”) permit the Commission

to include growers in the domestic industry.117  

The record indicates that the two requirements of the grower/processor provision are

satisfied here.  First, there is a continuous line of production from sugarcane growers to millers

and refiners, and from beet growers to processors, because sugarcane and sugar beets are

substantially devoted to raw and refined sugar production, with no other commercially

significant uses,118 and raw and refined sugar is produced entirely from sugar beets and

sugarcane.119   

Second, there is a coincidence of economic interest between growers, on the one hand,

and sugar millers, processors, and refiners, on the other, because a substantial proportion of

sugar is milled, processed, and refined through cooperative arrangements.120  All or virtually all

beet growers belong to co‐ops, and co‐ops that process beet sugar accounted for over half of

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

(a) if price is taken into account, the Commission shall consider the degree of correlation between

the price of the raw agricultural product and the price of the processed agricultural product; and

(b) if added market value is taken into account, the Commission shall consider whether the value of

the raw agricultural product constitutes a significant percentage of the value of the processed

agricultural product.  19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(iii).

115 We note that while Section 771(4)(E) of the Tariff Act authorizes the Commission to include

growers of a raw agricultural input within the domestic industry producing the processed agricultural

product if the statutory criteria are met, the statute uses the term “may be considered” rather than

“shall be considered.”  We invite the parties to provide their views in any prehearing briefs in any final

phase investigations as to the implications of this statutory language.    116 Petition at 25. 117 GOM’s Postconference Brief at paras. 47, 50.  The GOM argues that Article 4.1 of the ADA and

Article 16.1 of the ASCM require investigating authorities to define the domestic industry as producers

as a whole of the domestic like product.  Because sugarcane and sugar beets are not “like” scope

merchandise, they claim, the Commission may not include cane farmers and beet growers within the

domestic industry definition.  As an initial matter, the Commission is required to apply U.S. law, not the

ADA and ASCM.  19 U.S.C. § 3512(a)(1).  The GOM’s contention that cane farmers and beet growers are

separate and distinct from producers of the domestic like product also overlooks that growers of

sugarcane and sugar beets are predominantly members of agricultural cooperative associations (“co‐

ops”), which are vertically‐integrated domestic producers of the like product.  CR/PR at VI‐1; see also CR

at III‐2, III‐4 (73 of 93 responding cane farmers and beet growers reported belonging to co‐ops), VI‐4 n.5,

VI‐8 & n.6 (two of ten responding millers belonged to co‐ops); PR at III‐1, VI‐4 n.5, VI‐5 n.6.  In addition,

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. has vertically integrated milling and refining operations and ***.  CR

at III‐6, VI‐8 n.6; PR at III‐4, VI‐5 n.6.

118 CR at III‐2‐3; PR at III‐1‐2.

119 CR at I‐12; PR at I‐9.

120 CR at III‐4; PR at III‐3.  Petitioners claim that all refined beet sugar is now processed by co‐ops.  

Petition at 25.
19

domestic refined sugar production.121  A substantial proportion of cane farmers also belong to

co‐ops that produce raw sugar.122  Because co‐ops return all revenues from the sale of raw or

refined sugar, minus costs, to growers, there is a significant coincidence of economic interest

between growers and cane millers, cane refiners, or beet processors belonging to the same co‐

op.123  Accordingly, we define the domestic industry to include sugarcane and beet growers as

well as cane millers, cane refiners, and beet processors.   

C. Related Parties

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be

excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to Section 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act.  This

provision allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the

domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise

or which are themselves importers.124  Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s

discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation.125

Petitioners argue that the Commission should exclude CSC from the domestic industry

as a related party because its primary interest is in the importation of subject merchandise and

                                                       121 CR/PR at Tables IV‐6 (beet sugar accounted for 56.5 percent of domestic refined sugar production

in CY2012/3), VI‐1 n.1 (all or virtually all beet farmers belong to co‐ops). 122 See CR at III‐2, III‐4 (73 of 93 responding cane farmers and beet growers reported belonging to co‐

ops), VI‐1 (“Growers of sugarcane and sugar beets are predominantly members of agricultural

cooperative associations.”), VI‐4 n.5, VI‐8 (two of ten responding sugarcane millers are co‐ops); PR at

III‐1, III‐3, VI‐1, VI‐4 n.5, VI‐5.  In addition, ***.  CR at VI‐8 n.6; PR at VI‐5 n.6.     123 See CR at VI‐4 n.5; PR at VI‐4 n.5.  Co‐ops are voluntary associations of beet growers and

processors and cane growers and millers.  Id.  Several beet growers reported owning shares in their co‐

ops, which entitles them to produce one acre of beets per share.  Id.  Within co‐ops, beet growers

provide their crop to related processors for the production of refined sugar and cane growers provide

their crop to related millers for the production of raw cane sugar.  Id.  The related processors and millers

provide an initial payment to growers, representing about 65 percent of the projected revenues from

sales of the finished product minus projected processing costs, followed by subsequent payments based

on realized prices minus actual processing costs.  Id.    124 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without

opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331‐32 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp.

1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987).

125 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances

exist to exclude a related party include the following:

(1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer;

(2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e.,

whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to

enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market; and

(3) the position of the related producer vis‐à‐vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or

exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry.  See, e.g., Torrington Co. v.

United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168.
20

the conversion of subject imported raw and refined sugar into liquid sugar and invert syrup.126  

Petitioners also argue that no domestic cane refiner should be excluded from the domestic

industry as a related party, even though several domestic refiners import and purchase subject

merchandise for use in the production of refined sugar, in order to operate their refineries at

efficient rates of capacity utilization.127  The Mexican Sugar Chamber argues that CSC does not

qualify as a related party because it is not related to any Mexican producer or exporter of

subject merchandise.128   

In these preliminary phase investigations, the record shows that five domestic

producers qualify as related parties because they imported subject merchandise during the

period of investigation: ***.129  We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude

any related party from the domestic industry, for the following reasons.

First, the record indicates that the related parties imported subject merchandise from

Mexico primarily for processing into refined sugar in their domestic production facilities, and

not for resale.130  Their domestic refineries are highly capital‐intensive131 and added substantial

value to subject imports used as an input in the domestic production of refined sugar.  The ratio

of conversion costs to COGS for domestic cane refiners as a whole ranged from *** to ***

percent during the period of investigation.132  The cane refiners’ ratio of conversion costs plus

SG&A expenses to the sum of COGS and SG&A ranged from *** to *** percent during the

period.133  Consequently, even refiners with what ordinarily would be considered high ratios of

imports to production are devoting substantial resources to U.S. production of the domestic

like product.134  

                                                       126 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 14.

127 Petition at 25.

128 Mexican Sugar Chamber’s Postconference Brief at 7.  We note that domestic producers that

import subject merchandise also qualify as related parties under the statute.  19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).    129 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Tables III‐11, 13‐16.  *** each purchased relatively

small quantities of subject merchandise during the period of investigation.  Id. at Tables III‐10, 12, 17‐18.  

We find that none of these producers qualifies as a related party because there is no evidence that any

were responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s purchases and the importer’s purchases

were substantial.      130 CR at III‐22‐23; PR at III‐15; Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Tables III‐11, 13‐16.

131 Conference Tr. at 65 (O’Malley) (“{A} cane refinery . . . is a major manufacturing facility.  That is

extremely capital intensive.”), 232 (Armero) (estimating the cost of a sugar refinery at $150 million).

132 Staff Table Supp A.1, EDIS Document No. 533418.  Domestic value added as a share of the average

unit value of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of refined sugar made from Mexican inputs was ***

percent in CY2012/13.  Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐19.  Domestic value added

to subject imported inputs was only *** percent in CY2010/11 and *** percent in CY2011/12, however.  

Id.   

133 Staff Table Supp A.1, EDIS Document No. 533418.

134 The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production during the CY2010/11 to 2012/13 period ranged

from *** to *** percent for ***, *** to *** percent for ***, *** to *** percent for ***, *** to ***

percent for ***, and *** to *** percent for ***.  Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Tables III‐

11, 13‐16.  The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production in interim CY2013/14 was *** percent for

***, *** percent for ***, *** percent for ***, *** percent for ***, and *** percent for ***.  Id.
21

Furthermore, the record shows that domestic cane refiners as a whole must import raw

and semi‐refined cane sugar as an input for their production of refined sugar to operate their

refineries at an efficient rate of capacity utilization, because the volume of domestic raw sugar

production is insufficient for this purpose.135  During the period of investigation, all sugarcane

harvested domestically was processed by millers into raw sugar for use by domestic cane

refiners, and yet imported inputs were used to produce 19.5 to 25.1 percent of domestic

refined sugar during the CY2010/11‐CY2012/13 period.136  Had imported inputs been

unavailable, the capacity utilization of domestic cane refineries would have been significantly

lower, which would have increased their unit costs.137  For this reason, the need for the related

parties to import inputs from Mexico and elsewhere does not significantly detract from their

primary interest in domestic production.           

Most related parties support or take no position on the petitions.  Specifically, ***

support the petition and *** take no position.138  Only *** opposes the petition. 139

Additionally, there is no evidence that domestic refiners that imported subject

merchandise derived a significant financial benefit from doing so.  The financial performance of

related parties was similar to that of other domestic producers.140

                                                       135 Petition at 25.    136 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐6.  Because only cane refiners utilize

imported inputs, the percentage of refined cane sugar produced from imported inputs would be much

higher.

137 Conference Tr. at 73 (O’Malley) (“{O}ur refineries ideally run on a continuous basis . . . .”), 218

(Farmer).

138 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐4.

139 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐4.

140 See CR/PR at Table D‐2.  The financial performance of *** generally lagged the financial

performance of domestic refiners and processors as a whole during the period of investigation.  

Domestic refiners and processors as a whole reported operating income as a share of net sales of 8.7

percent in CY2010/11, 7.8 percent in CY2011/12, 7.5 percent in CY2012/13, 6.7 percent in interim

CY2012/13, and 1.5 percent in interim CY2013/14.  Id.  By contrast, *** reported operating income as a

share of net sales of *** percent in CY2010/11, *** percent in CY2011/12, *** percent in CY2012/13,

*** percent in interim CY2012/13, and *** percent in interim CY2013/14.  Id.  *** reported operating

income as a share of net sales of *** percent in CY2010/11, *** percent in CY2011/12, *** percent in

CY2012/13, *** percent in interim CY2012/13, and *** percent in interim CY2013/14.  Id.  *** reported

operating income as a share of net sales of *** percent in CY2010/11, *** percent in CY2011/12, ***

percent in CY2012/13, *** percent in interim CY2012/13, and *** percent in interim CY2013/14.  Id.  

*** reported operating income as a share of net sales of *** percent in CY2010/11, *** percent in

CY2011/12, *** percent in CY2012/13, *** percent in interim CY2012/13, and *** percent in interim

CY2013/14.  Id.  Although *** outperformed domestic producers as a whole in interim CY2013/14, their

financial performance during the interim period was similar to that of ***, which reported an operating

profit margin of *** percent in interim CY2013/14.  Id.      

*** generally outperformed domestic refiners and processors as a whole during the period of

investigation, reporting operating income as a share of net sales of *** percent in CY2010/11, ***

percent in CY2011/12, *** percent in CY2012/13, *** percent in interim CY2012/13, and *** percent in

interim CY2013/14.  Id.   Nevertheless, *** was not an outlier in terms of its financial performance

(Continued...)
22

Finally, exclusion of *** would distort industry data because it accounted for ***

percent of refined sugar production during the period of investigation.141  Although *** are

much smaller, their inclusion in the domestic industry would not distort industry data because

there is no evidence that they benefitted financially from their importation of subject

merchandise.  

For all the foregoing reasons, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to

exclude any related party from the domestic industry.  In sum, we define the domestic industry

as all producers of sugar within the scope of the investigations, including cane farmers and beet

growers, but not including ***.  

Reasonable Indication of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports142 V.   

A. Legal Standard

In the preliminary phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the

Commission determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United

States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under

investigation.143  In making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of

subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on

domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production

operations.144  The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential,

immaterial, or unimportant.”145  In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that the

domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.146  No single factor

is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle

and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”147

                                                                                                                                                                               

(...Continued)

because *** were more profitable during the CY2010/11‐CY2012/13 period and *** reported a similar

level of profitability in interim CY2013/14.  Id.  Furthermore, *** ratio of subject imports to domestic

production was ***, ranging from *** percent to *** percent during the period of investigation.  

Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐13.   141 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐4.

142 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations.  Based on official

USDA statistics, subject imports from Mexico accounted for 74.4 percent of all imports of sugar during

the most recent 12‐month period preceding the filing of the petition.  CR at IV‐9; PR at IV‐8.    143 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a). 144 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).  The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are

relevant to the determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... {a}nd explain in full its relevance

to the determination.”  19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

145 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

146 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 147 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).
23

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether there is a

reasonable indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured by reason of” unfairly

traded imports,148 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the

injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.149  In identifying

a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the

Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price

effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic

industry.  This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports

are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not

merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.150

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which

may also be having adverse effects on the domestic industry.  Such economic factors might

include nonsubject imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition

among domestic producers; or management decisions by domestic producers.  The legislative

history explains that the Commission must examine factors other than subject imports to

ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports, thereby

inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material

injury threshold.151  In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate

                                                       148 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

149 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484‐85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does

not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’d 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1996).

150 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, has observed that “{a}s

long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than

fair value meets the causation requirement.”  Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir.

2003).  This was re‐affirmed in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir.

2008), in which the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed.

Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by

reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm

caused by LTFV goods.’”  See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir.

2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

151 SAA, H.R. Rep. 103‐316, Vol. I at 851‐52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to

ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75

(1979) (the Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other

than less‐than‐fair‐value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being

experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which

demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is

attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized

imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption,

trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers,

developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”);

accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.
24

the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.152  Nor does

the “by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of

injury or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors,

such as nonsubject imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.153  It is

clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative

determination.154

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject

imports “does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way”

as long as “the injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject

imports” and the Commission “ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to

the subject imports.”155 156  Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various

                                                       152 SAA at 851‐52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury

caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n , 266 F.3d at 1345. (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... .  

Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other

sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha

de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not

required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make

“bright‐line distinctions” between the effects of subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood

Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐414 and 731‐TA‐928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100‐01 (Dec.

2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is found not to have or threaten to have

injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’ then there is nothing to

further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722 (the statute

“does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape countervailing duties by finding some

tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the harmful effects on

domestic market prices.”).

153 S. Rep. 96‐249 at 74‐75; H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47.

154 See Nippon, 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material‐injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial‐factor showing.  That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or

principal cause of injury.”).

155 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877‐78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an

affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’

subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that

determination ... {and has} broad discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United

States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75.   156 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three paragraphs.  He points

out that the Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal Steel, held that the Commission is

required, in certain circumstances when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular

kind of analysis of non‐subject imports, albeit without reliance upon presumptions or rigid formulas.  

Mittal Steel explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded,

price competitive, non‐subject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not

fulfill its obligation to consider an important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider

whether non‐subject or non‐LTFV imports would have replaced LTFV subject imports

during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the domestic industry.  

(Continued...)
25

Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”157

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved

cases in which the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant

volumes of price‐competitive nonsubject imports.  The Commission interpreted the Federal

Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology

following its finding of material injury in cases involving commodity products and a significant

market presence of price‐competitive nonsubject imports.158  The additional

“replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have replaced subject

imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry.  The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from

Trinidad and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and

makes clear that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional

test nor any one specific methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have

“evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,’” and

requires that the Commission not attribute injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to

subject imports.159  Accordingly, we do not consider ourselves required to apply the

replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases

involving commodity products where price‐competitive nonsubject imports are a significant

factor in the U.S. market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with

adequate explanation, to non‐attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.160

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

444 F.3d at 1369.  Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during

the period of investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of

its conclusion with respect to that factor.   

542 F.3d at 878.    157 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542

F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining

whether a domestic injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

158 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875‐79.

159 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875‐79 & n.2

(recognizing the Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non‐

attribution analysis).

160 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to

present published information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to

producers in nonsubject countries that accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject

merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject import suppliers).  In order to provide a more

complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these requests typically seek information on

capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the major source countries

that export to the United States.  The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or requested

information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.
26

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial

evidence standard.161  Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because

of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.162

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a

reasonable indication of material injury by reason of subject imports.

1. The U.S. Government Sugar Program

The U.S. government regulates the U.S. sugar market using a variety of policy tools

collectively known as the U.S. Sugar Program pursuant to the Agriculture Act of 2014, which

essentially extended most elements of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the

“2008 Farm Bill”) through the 2018 crop year.163  These tools influence the supply of sugar on

the U.S. market from domestic and nonsubject import sources, but not from Mexico.  Under

the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), subject imports from Mexico have

enjoyed unfettered access to the U.S. market since January 1, 2008.164    

The USDA regulates the quantity of sugar supplied by domestic producers to the U.S.

market by assigning marketing allotments to sugar beet processors and to sugarcane millers on

a firm‐specific basis.165  In a given crop year, the USDA establishes the overall allotment

quantity for U.S. sugar beet processors and sugarcane millers at 85 percent of projected U.S.

human consumption of sugar that year, and then apportions 54.35 percent of this allotment to

sugar beet processors and 45.65 percent to sugarcane millers.166  Allotments granted to

individual sugar beet processors are based on their past sugar production, while allotments to

individual sugarcane millers are based on their past processing levels and current ability to

market, among other things.167  Sugarcane millers and sugar beet processors that produce

                                                       161 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of

other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

162 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d

at 1357; S. Rep. 96‐249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and

difficult, and is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).    163 CR at I‐28; PR at I‐18.  Elements of the U.S. Sugar Program have evolved over time through

successive farm bills.  CR at I‐22‐30; PR at I‐17‐23.  For example, the 2008 Farm Bill continued most

elements of the U.S. Sugar Program established under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of

2002, with some modifications.  CR at 28; PR at I‐21.    164 CR at I‐17; PR at I‐13.

165 CR at I‐26, 28; PR at I‐19.

166 CR at I‐26, 28; PR at I‐19, 21.

167 CR at I‐26, 28; PR at I‐19, 21.
27

sugar beyond their allotments must either store the excess or sell in avenues other than the

U.S. market for human consumption.168   

The USDA also provides loans to sugarcane millers and sugar beet processors through

the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”), and sugarcane millers and beet processors are

entitled to receive loans for every pound of their production.169  As of 2013, sugarcane millers

received loans at the rate of 18.75 cents per pound of raw cane sugar, and sugar beet

processors received loans at 128.5 percent of the raw cane sugar rate, or 24.09 cents per

pound, which are known as the sugar loan rates.170  Sugarcane millers and sugar beet

processors may forfeit the sugar pledged as collateral for these loans to the CCC in lieu of

repaying the loans,171 and will generally do so when market prices fall below the applicable

sugar loan rates, plus interest and costs.172  The CCC may not sell forfeited sugar into the U.S.

market for human consumption, but must dispose of it through re‐export program credit swaps

and sales of sugar to ethanol production or for other non‐food uses.173   

During the period of investigation, the USDA removed domestically produced sugar

from the U.S. market for human consumption for the first time since 2004.174  Specifically, in

CY2012/13, the USDA effectively removed 1,047,490 short tons of domestically produced sugar

from the market at a net cost of $258,716,027.175  It did so through a combination of re‐export

program credit swaps and sales of forfeited and purchased sugar to ethanol producers under

the FFP.176   

The USDA, with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”), regulates imports

of sugar from nonsubject sources using tariff rate quotas (“TRQs”), which have been in effect

since October 1990.177  In‐quota imports are subject to minimal “tier I” tariffs, expressed on a

                                                       168 CR at I‐26; PR at I‐19.  The USDA may reassign unused marketing allotments to imports of raw

cane sugar.  CR at I‐29; PR at I‐19.   169 CR at I‐23‐24; PR at I‐17‐18.

170 CR at I‐28; PR at I‐24. 171 CR at I‐25; PR at I‐18‐19.

172 CR at I‐26; PR at I‐19.

173 CR at I‐29; PR at I‐21.  The Secretary of Agriculture is required to operate the U.S. Sugar Program

at no net cost to the U.S. government by avoiding, to the maximum extent possible, any forfeiture of

sugar to the CCC.  CR at I‐26; PR at I‐19.  To accomplish this goal, the USDA uses marketing allotments

and the regulation of nonsubject imports, as discussed below, as well as two other programs.  Under the

“payment‐in‐kind” (“PIK”) program, the USDA allows processors and growers to bid on raw cane sugar

or refined beet sugar held by the CCC in exchange for reducing their own production or

planting/harvesting of a specified acreage, as the case may be.  CR at I‐25; PR at I‐18‐19.  Under the

Feedstock Flexibility Program (“FFP”), the USDA must sell surplus sugar stocks, including forfeited sugar,

to ethanol producers, and may also purchase refined sugar from domestic producers for sale to ethanol

producers.   CR at I‐28; PR at I‐21; USDA, Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, November 2013, at 7, EDIS

Document No. 533432.      174 CR at I‐29; PR at I‐21.

175 CR at I‐30; PR at I‐23; CR/PR at Table I‐4.

176 CR/PR at Table I‐4. 177 CR at I‐17; PR at I‐13.
28

per pound basis, but imports in excess of the applicable quotas are subject to much higher “tier

II” tariffs, which are normally prohibitive.178   

Under the WTO Agreement, Schedule XX of the GATT Marrakesh Protocol, the United

States agreed to import not less than 1,231,484 short tons raw value of raw sugar and 24,251

short tons raw value of refined sugar annually.179  At the beginning of each crop year, on

October 1, the USDA sets the raw sugar TRQ at the minimum level permitted under the WTO

Agreement, and USTR apportions the TRQ on a country‐specific basis.180  Most of the TRQ

covering refined sugar subject to these investigations is allocated to Canada, with the balance

filled on a first‐come, first‐served basis.181  The USDA may increase the TRQs to alleviate short

supply conditions in the U.S. market but not before April 1, or midway through the crop year,

except in the event of emergencies, such as hurricanes and refinery explosions that reduce

domestic sugar supplies.182 183  

         

2. Demand Conditions

Apparent U.S. consumption was 10.7 million short tons in CY2010/11 and CY2011/12,

but increased to 11.7 million short tons in CY2012/13, a level 8.6 percent higher than in

CY2010/11.184  Apparent U.S. consumption was 3.1 million short tons in interim CY2013/14, up

13.4 percent from 2.7 million short tons in interim CY2012/13.185  

Although apparent U.S. consumption increased between CY2011/12 and CY2012/13, the

increase was not in the market for sugar destined for human consumption.  Data collected in

these investigations show a 1 million short ton increase in apparent U.S. consumption between

CY2011/12 and CY2012/13 because these data include the 1 million short tons of domestically

produced sugar removed from the market for human consumption by the USDA in CY2012/13,

through sugar forfeitures and USDA purchases under the FFP.186  Most responding domestic

producers, importers, and purchasers reported that U.S. demand for sugar grew slightly during

the period of investigation, in accordance with population growth.187  USDA data indicate that

U.S. shipments of sugar for use in food and beverages declined slightly from 11.2 million short

                                                       178 CR at I‐20; PR at I‐14.

179 CR at I‐17 & n.33; PR at I‐13 & n.33.

180 CR at I‐17; PR at I‐13; CR/PR at Table I‐2 & n.1.

181 CR at I‐21; PR at I‐16.  Of the 22,425 short ton TRQ covering refined sugar subject to these

investigations, 13,283 short tons are allocated to Canada and the rest is filled on a first‐come, first‐

served basis.  Id.

182 CR at I‐29; PR at I‐21.   183 Given the complexities of the U.S. Sugar Program, we invite parties to address, in any final phase

of these investigations, issues related to the program and its possible impact on our analysis.

184 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.

185 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.  We recognize that interim data cover a single quarter, and therefore attach

less weight to these data.

186 CR at I‐29‐30; PR at I‐23; CR/PR at Table I‐4.  Responding domestic producers reported sugar

forfeited to the CCC as U.S. shipments.  Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 23‐24.      187 CR at II‐8; PR at II‐6.   
29

tons in CY2010/11 to 11.1 million short tons in CY2011/12 before increasing to 11.5 million

short tons in CY2012/13, a level 2.8 percent higher than in CY2010/11.188          

The record also indicates that U.S. sugar demand is inelastic with respect to price,

meaning that overall demand for sugar is likely to experience small changes in response to

changes in sugar prices.189  The inelasticity of U.S. sugar demand with respect to price is a

function of the limited range of substitute products and the small cost share of sugar in most

downstream products.190

3. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry is divided between producers of beet sugar, which accounted for

56.5 percent of domestic refined sugar production in CY2012/13, and producers of cane sugar,

which accounted for 43.5 percent of domestic refined sugar production that same year.191  The

beet sugar segment of the domestic industry consists of 4,022 beet farms, as of the 2007

Census of Agriculture, and seven sugar beet processors operating in 15 locations.192  The cane

sugar segment of the domestic industry consists of 692 sugarcane farms, as of the 2007 Census,

13 sugarcane millers, and six sugarcane refineries.193   

The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments as a share of apparent U.S. consumption

increased from *** percent in CY2010/11 to *** percent in CY2011/12 and *** percent in

CY2012/13.194  The industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in interim

CY2013/14, down from *** percent in interim CY2012/13.195  

Subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from 15.4 percent in

CY2010/11 to 9.9 percent in CY2011/12 before increasing to 17.7 percent in CY2012/13, a level

2.3 percentage points higher than in CY2010/11.196  The subject import share of apparent U.S.

consumption was 18.5 percent in interim CY2013/14, up from 10.0 percent in interim

CY2012/13. 197

Nonsubject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from 14.3

percent in CY2010/11 to 17.3 percent in CY2011/12 before declining to 7.7 percent in

CY2012/13, a level 6.6 percentage points lower than in CY2010/11.198  The nonsubject import

                                                       188 CR/PR at Table IV‐6.   189 CR at II‐7; PR at II‐5.   190 CR at II‐7; PR at II‐5.

191 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐5 (based on USDA data).

192 CR at III‐2, 6; PR at III‐1, 4‐5.

193 CR at III‐3, 6; PR at III‐2, 4.

194 CR/PR at Table C‐2.  Domestic industry market share was calculated using only the industry’s U.S.

shipments of refined sugar made from U.S. inputs.  CR/PR at Table IV‐5 n.1.  Domestic industry U.S.

shipments of refined sugar made from subject imported and nonsubject imported inputs were counted

as U.S. shipments of subject imports and nonsubject imports, respectively.  Id.    195 CR/PR at Table C‐2.

196 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.

197 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.

198 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.
30

share of apparent U.S. consumption was 6.1 percent in interim CY2013/14, down from 12.4

percent in interim CY2012/13. 199

In CY2012/13, sugar production increased in both the United States and Mexico due to

favorable weather conditions in both countries. 200  Between CY2011/12 and CY2012/13,

domestic refined sugar production increased from 10.6 million short tons to 11.1 million short

tons, or 4.3 percent.201  Responding Mexican producers reported that their production of

estandar and refined sugar increased from 5.7 million short tons to 7.9 million short tons, or

38.6 percent, over the same period.202   

4. Substitutability and Other Conditions

The record of these preliminary phase investigations indicates that there is a high

degree of substitutability between domestically produced sugar and subject imported sugar

intended for the same use.203  For example, domestically produced raw sugar is used

interchangeably with subject imported estandar by domestic refiners in the production of

refined sugar.204  Similarly, domestically produced refined sugar can be used interchangeably

with subject imported refined sugar, and in some cases subject imported estandar,205 in the

production of downstream food and beverage products.206  Around two‐thirds of responding

domestic producers and importers reported that domestically produced sugar and subject

imported sugar are always or frequently interchangeable.207    

We further find that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions in the U.S. sugar

market, although non‐price factors are important as well.  Responding domestic producers and

importers were divided on the question of whether differences other than price are ever

significant to purchasers in choosing between sugar produced in Mexico and the United States.  

In response to this question, two‐thirds of responding producers responded “sometimes” or

“never,” while nearly two‐thirds of responding importers responded “always” or

                                                       199 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.

200 Conference Tr. at 34 (Berg), 224 (Cortina).  Higher yields resulting from the increased usage of

GMO beets may have contributed to increased domestic industry production during the period of

investigation.  Conference Tr. at 56 (Snyder); Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐1.

201 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐6.

202 CR/PR at Table VII‐4.

203 CR at II‐10; PR at II‐7.

204 Conference Tr. at 70‐71 (O’Malley) (“{E}standar or traditional raw sugar received from . . .

domestic producers . . . tends to be comingled . . . They’re all considered the same intermediate good.”);

Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐6 & n.2.

205 See Conference Tr. at 31 (Berg), 124 (O’Malley), 125 (Greenwald), 126 (O’Malley), 128 (Berg), 212‐

13 (Cortina), 214, 221 (Armero).  In any final phase investigations, we will seek to obtain information

from purchasers concerning the substitutability of subject imported estandar with domestically refined

sugar in the production of downstream food and beverage products.

206 All refined sugar, whether domestic or imported, corresponds to a polarimeter reading of at least

99.9 degrees, and would therefore be substitutable in most applications.  CR at I‐10‐11; PR at I‐9; but see

Conference Tr. at 195 (Jones).

207 CR/PR at Table II‐4.
31

“frequently.”208  Important non‐price factors cited by questionnaire respondents include the

lack of flexibility of shipment periods and logistics chains by domestic producers, the Jones Act,

quality control issues for imported sugar, the better availability of sugar imported from Mexico,

high transportation costs for imported sugar, and the proximity of domestic or Mexican sources

of sugar to particular customers.209  Nevertheless, the commodity nature of sugar, with a high

degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, suggests that

price is an important factor in competition between sugar from domestic and subject import

sources.210   

Another condition of competition relevant to our analysis is the prevalence of short and

long‐term contracts in the U.S. sugar market.  In CY2012/13, responding domestic producers

reported making 63.5 percent of their U.S. commercial shipments pursuant to short‐term

contracts, ranging in duration from 90 days to one year, 21.1 percent pursuant to long‐term

contracts, up to two years in duration, and 15.3 percent pursuant to spot sales.211  That same

crop year, responding importers reported making 61.7 percent of their U.S. commercial

shipments of subject imports pursuant to short‐term contracts, 7.4 percent pursuant to long‐

term contracts, and 30.9 percent pursuant to spot sales.212     

Finally, in 2007, the U.S. and Mexican Government established the U.S.‐Mexico

Consultative Committee, Sweeteners Working Group (“CCA”), to coordinate agricultural policy

pertaining to sweeteners.213  At a CCA meeting held in August 2013, the USDA asked the

Government of Mexico to divert sugar exports from the United States to third country markets

to alleviate oversupply conditions in the U.S. market, and the Government of Mexico agreed to

do so. 214  Accordingly, the Government of Mexico directed government‐owned mills to divert

700,000 short tons of sugar, and privately‐owned mills to divert 400,000 short tons of sugar,

from the United States to third country markets. 215 The extent to which these actions affected

the volume of subject imports in the U.S. market is unclear, however, because subject import

market share was significantly higher in interim CY2013/14, at 18.5 percent, than in interim

CY2012/13, when it was 10.0 percent.216   

                                                       208 CR/PR at Table II‐5.    209 CR at II‐12‐13; PR at II‐8.

210 See Conference Tr. at 29‐30 (Berg), 40 (O’Malley).    211 CR/PR at Table V‐2. 212 CR/PR at Table V‐2.

213 CR at VII‐14 n.37; PR at VII‐10 n.37.

214 CR at VII‐14 n.37; PR at VII‐10 n.37; see also Mexican Sugar Chamber’s Postconference Brief at 15‐

16; Sweetener Users’ Postconference Brief at 10‐11.

215 CR at VII‐14 n.37; PR at VII‐10 n.37; Conference Tr. at 161‐62 (Rello), 188‐89 (Farmer); see also

Mexican Sugar Chamber’s Postconference Brief at 16; Sweetener Users’ Postconference Brief at 10‐11.

216 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.
32

C. Volume of Subject Imports  

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that the “Commission shall consider

whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in

absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”217

We find that the absolute volume and increase in volume of subject imports are

significant over the period of investigation.  Subject import volume declined from 1,650,000

short tons in CY2010/11 to 1,062,000 short tons in CY 2011/12 before increasing to 2,066,000

short tons in CY2012/13, a level 25.2 percent higher than in CY2010/11.218  Subject import

volume was 573,000 short tons in interim CY2013/14, up 110.3 percent from 272,000 short

tons in interim CY2012/13. 219

Subject imports also increased relative to apparent U.S. consumption and domestic

industry production during the period of investigation.  As a share of apparent U.S.

consumption, subject imports declined from 15.4 percent in CY2010/11 to 9.9 percent in

CY2011/12 before increasing to 17.7 percent in CY 2012/13.220  Subject import market share

was 18.5 percent in interim CY2013/14, up from 10.0 percent in interim CY2012/13.221  The

ratio of subject imports to domestic production declined from 16.0 percent in CY2010/11 to

10.0 percent in CY2011/12 but increased to 18.7 percent in CY2012/13, a level 2.7 percentage

points higher than in CY2010/11.222  This ratio was 18.0 percent in interim CY2013/14, up from

8.0 percent in interim CY2012/13.223        

We conclude that the volume of subject imports and the increase in that volume are

significant.  We recognize that the increase in subject import volume and market share during

the period of investigation was accompanied by a greater decline in nonsubject import volume

and market share, resulting in an increase in the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments and market

share.224  Nevertheless, the significant increase in subject import volume had implications for

prices of the domestic like product, which are discussed in the following section.  

  

D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of

subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether –  

                                                       217 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

218 CR/PR at Tables IV‐5, C‐1.

219 CR/PR at Tables IV‐5, C‐1.

220 CR/PR at Table IV‐5. 221 CR/PR at Table IV‐5. 222 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables III‐6, IV‐2.  Excluding domestic production using inputs imported

from Mexico, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production declined from 21.4 percent in

CY2010/11 to 13.2 percent in CY2011/12 before increasing to 23.2 percent in CY2012/13 and 21.3

percent in interim CY2013/14, up from 9.3 percent in interim CY2012/13.  Id.   223 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables III‐6, IV‐2.

224 CR/PR at Table IV‐5; Mexican Sugar Chamber’s Postconference Brief at 30; Sweetener Users’

Postconference Brief at 13‐14; GOM’s Postconference Brief at para. 83.
33

(I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and  

(II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a

significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.225

As addressed in section V.B.4 above, the record indicates that there is a high degree of

substitutability in demand between subject imports and the domestic like product and that

price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions.

Twenty domestic producers and 13 importers of subject merchandise from Mexico

provided usable monthly f.o.b. U.S. selling price data for sales of seven products, although not

all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.226  Reported pricing data accounted

for approximately *** percent of domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of sugar and 26 percent

of subject imports from Mexico between October 2011 and December 2013.227   

These data show that subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 104 of 158

monthly comparisons, or 65.8 percent of the time, at margins ranging from 0.6 to 30.3

percent.228  Pricing data covering products 3, 4, and 5, which encompass refined sugar products,

show that subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 60 of 69 quarterly

comparisons, or 87.0 percent of the time, at margins ranging from 1.5 to 30.3 percent.229  We

find subject import underselling to be significant.

We further find for purposes of our preliminary determinations that subject import

underselling, coupled with the significant increase in subject import volume, depressed

domestic prices to a significant degree during the period of investigation.230  Domestic prices

                                                       225 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

226 CR at V‐4; PR at V‐3.    227 CR at V‐4; PR at V‐3.    228 CR at V‐20; PR at V‐13; CR/PR at Table V‐11.   Subject imports oversold the domestic like product

in the remaining 54 monthly comparisons, at margins ranging from 0.7 to 54.0 percent.  Id.

229 CR/PR at Table V‐11.  Parties on both sides dispute the reliability of pricing data for products

encompassing estandar.  Petitioners claim that the pricing data reported on sales of product 1,

encompassing sales of raw cane sugar or estandar to sugar refiners, are not meaningful because a

substantial proportion of subject imported estandar was purchased by domestic refiners for further

processing and not resold on the merchant market.  Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 28.  The

Sweetener Users Respondents argue that price comparisons including sales of subject imported

estandar are of limited value because subject imported estandar is not perfectly substitutable for

domestic raw or refined sugar in all applications, and is likely priced less than domestic refined sugar,

due to its lower polarity.  Sweetener Users’ Postconference Brief at 22‐23.  We invite the parties to

address in their comments on the draft questionnaires in any final phase investigations how best to

compare the prices of domestic raw and refined sugar to the prices of subject imported estandar.     230 We recognize that other factors may have contributed to declining domestic prices during the

period of investigation, as argued by respondents.  The Sweetener Users Respondents argue that prices

were unusually high during the early part of the period of investigation and that they then returned to

(Continued...)
34

for all seven pricing products declined between October 2011 and December 2013.231  In

addition, the average unit value of net sales reported by growers, millers, and

processors/refiners declined by ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, between

and CY2012/13.232  The average unit value of net shipments reported by millers and

processors/refiners was lower in interim CY2013/14 than in interim CY2012/13 by ***

percent, respectively.233 234  

We also note that the COGS to net sales ratio for domestic millers increased from ***

percent in CY2010/11 to *** percent in CY2012/13, and was *** percent in interim CY2013/14,

up from *** percent in interim CY2012/13.235  This same ratio for domestic processors/refiners

was around *** percent in CY2010/11 and CY2012/13, but was *** percent in interim

CY2013/14, up from *** percent in interim CY2012/13.236   

We recognize that, notwithstanding record evidence of significant subject import

underselling and adverse price effects, nearly all responding purchasers denied petitioners’ lost

sales and revenue allegations.  Specifically, only one of 61 responding purchasers agreed with

petitioners’ lost sales allegations and one of 10 responding purchasers agreed with petitioners’

lost revenue allegations.237  In addition, seven of 24 responding purchasers reported switching

from domestic sugar to subject imports during the period of investigation, but only two

reported doing so because of price.238  Four of 19 responding purchasers reported that

domestic producers reduced their prices to compete with subject imports during the period.239  

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

levels consistent with historic average prices toward the end of the period for reasons unrelated to

subject imports.  Sweetener Users’ Postconference Brief at 19‐20, Exhibit 12.  Respondents claim that

U.S. sugar prices declined in 2013 to pre‐2008 levels because favorable weather resulted in large

domestic sugarcane and sugar beet crops, global sugar supply reached record levels, and supply issues

were resolved at two domestic sugar refineries.  Mexican Sugar Chamber’s Postconference Brief at 34;

see also Sweetener Users’ Postconference Brief at 19.  The GOM argues that the decline in U.S. sugar

prices towards the end of the period of investigation merely followed the declining trend of world prices

during the same period, noting the USDA’s finding of a strong correlation between U.S. and world sugar

prices during the 2008‐2013 period.  GOM’s Postconference Brief at paras. 92, 95.  We intend to further

investigate these claims in any final phase investigations.     231 CR/PR at Table V‐10.

232 CR/PR at Tables VI‐1‐3.   We recognize that average unit value data can be influenced significantly

by changes in product mix, but note that there is no evidence of a significant change in the product mix

of grower, miller, or processor/refiner shipments during the period of investigation.

233 CR/PR at Tables VI‐2‐3.  Reliable interim period data for growers are not available.  CR/PR at VI‐1

n.2.   

234 We note that short and long‐term contracts entered into between domestic producers and their

customers towards the end of the period of investigation would lock in low sugar prices through the end

of the contract periods.  CR at V‐2; PR at V‐1.    235 CR/PR at Table VI‐2.

236 CR/PR at Table C‐2.

237 CR/PR at Tables V‐12‐13.

238 CR at V‐23; PR at V‐15.

239 CR at V‐23; PR at V‐15.
35

We intend to further investigate petitioners’ lost sales and revenue allegations in any final

phase investigations.   

E. Impact of the Subject Imports240

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that the Commission, in examining the

impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic

factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry.”  These factors include output, sales,

inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash

flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors

affecting domestic prices.  No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered

“within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to

the affected industry.”  

Although the domestic industry performed well during the period of investigation

according to many measures, several key measures of industry performance declined toward

the end of the period.  The responding domestic growers, which represented 21.0 percent of

domestic sugar production and 19.4 percent of sugar beets and sugarcane harvested in

CY2012/13, 241 reported generally improved performance during the CY2010/11‐CY2012/13

period.242  USDA data covering all sugar beet and sugarcane growers, however, estimate that

U.S. sugar beet and sugarcane production will decline by around 5.0 percent between

CY2012/13 and CY2013/14.243  Moreover, conference testimony and other record evidence

indicate that domestic growers suffered declining performance toward the end of the period.244     

                                                       240 Commerce initiated investigations based on estimated antidumping duty margins of 30.00 to

64.31 percent for imports from Mexico.  Sugar from Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation, 79 Fed Reg. 22795 (Apr. 24, 2014).

241 CR at III‐4‐5; PR at III‐3.  We invite parties to comment on how best to collect data from domestic

beet and sugarcane growers, in their comments on the draft questionnaires in any final phase

investigations.

242 Between CY2010/11 and CY2012/13, the domestic growers’ acres planted increased 6.6 percent

and their acres harvested increased 11.5 percent.  Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table

III‐2.  Their average number of production related workers (“PRWs”) increased from 2,530 to 2,772, or

9.6 percent, and hours worked and wages paid increased by 8.6 and 17.6 percent, respectively.  Id.  

During the same period, domestic growers’ net sales increased 23.7 percent, their net sales revenues

and income increased 19.4 percent, and their gross farming profit increased 20.9 percent.  CR/PR at

Table VI‐1.  As a share of net sales, their gross farming profit increased from 21.6 percent in CY2010/11

to 21.9 percent in CY2012/13.  Id.     243 Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐1.  By contrast, growers that responded to

the Commission’s questionnaire reported that their production increased from 10.9 million short tons in

CY2010/11 to 12.2 million short tons in CY2011/12 and 13.8 million short tons in CY2012/13.  Id. at Table

III‐2.  

244 At the conference, witnesses for sugarcane and sugar beet growers stated that prices for their

crops declined significantly in CY2012/13, adversely impacting the financial performance of their

respective farms and fellow growers.  See Conference Tr. at 17‐18 (Landry), 22 (Snyder).  In addition,

University of Minnesota FinBin data, based on surveys of 93 to 130 beet farms in each year of the period

(Continued...)
36

Domestic millers and processors/refiners also suffered declining performance toward

the end of the period of investigation according to several key measures, although other

measures of industry performance remained stable or improved.245  During the CY2010/11 to

CY2012/13 period, domestic millers and processors/refiners in the aggregate reported a ***

percent decline in the number of production related workers (“PRWs”) they employed and a

*** percent decline in the hours worked by PRWs, although wages paid increased by ***

percent and productivity increased by *** percent.246  Millers and processors/refiners also

reported increasing end‐of‐period inventories during the period of investigation.247   

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

of investigation, show that the responding farms’ net return per acre declined from $393.99 in 2012 to a

loss of $388.71 in 2013.  Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 36, Exhibit 12.  We recognize the

limitations of academic studies of beet growers, such as the FinBin data.  CR at VI‐4‐5 n.5; PR at VI‐4 n.5.     245 Between CY2010/11 and CY2012/13, the millers’ capacity increased *** percent, their production

increased *** percent, and their rate of capacity utilization increased from *** percent to *** percent.  

Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐6; CR/PR at C‐2.  The millers’ capacity was ***

between the interim periods, but their production was *** percent lower and their capacity utilization

rate was *** percentage points lower in interim CY2013/14 than in interim CY2012/13.  Id.   Between

CY2010/11 and CY2012/13, the millers’ total net sales quantity increased *** percent, their U.S.

shipments increased *** percent, and their total net sales value increased *** percent.   CR/PR at Tables

VI‐2, C‐2.  Comparing interim CY2013/14 to interim CY2012/13, however, their total net sales quantity

was *** percent lower, their U.S. shipments were *** percent lower, and their total net sales value was

*** percent lower.  Id.     

Between CY2010/11 and CY2012/13, domestic processors and refiners reported a *** percent

increase in capacity and a *** percent increase in production, resulting in a *** increase in their rate of

capacity utilization from *** percent to *** percent.  CR/PR at Table C‐2.  Their capacity and production

were lower in interim CY2013/14 as compared to interim CY2012/13 by *** percent and *** percent,

respectively, and their rate of capacity utilization was *** percent in interim CY2013/14, down from ***

percent in interim CY2012/13.  Id.  Between CY2010/11 and CY2012/13, the processor/refiners’ total net

sales quantity increased *** percent and their U.S. shipments increased *** percent, but their total net

sales value declined *** percent.   Id.  Comparing interim CY2013/14 to interim CY2012/13, however,

their total net sales quantity was *** percent higher, their U.S. shipments were *** percent higher, and

their total net sales value was *** percent lower.  Id.       246 CR at III‐33; PR at III‐17; CR/PR at Table C‐2.  Millers and processors/refiners reported that,

comparing interim CY2013/14 to interim CY2012/13, their number of PRWs was *** percent higher,

hours worked were *** percent higher, and wages paid were *** percent higher.  CR/PR at Table C‐2.    247 Millers reported that their end‐of‐period inventories increased *** percent between CY2010/11

and CY2012/13, and were *** percent higher in interim CY2013/14 than in interim CY2012/13.  

Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐9; CR/PR at Table C‐2.  The millers’ end‐of‐period

inventories increased as a share of U.S. production from *** percent in CY2010/11 to *** percent in

CY2012/13, and were *** percent in interim CY2013/14, up from *** percent in interim CY2012/13.  

Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐9.  They increased as a share of U.S. shipments

from *** percent in CY2010/11 to *** percent in CY2012/13, and were *** percent in interim

CY2013/14, up from *** percent in interim CY2012/13.  Id.  They increased as a share of total shipments

from *** percent in CY2012/13 to *** percent in CY2012/13, and were *** percent in interim 2013/14,

up from *** percent in interim 2012/13.  Id.       

(Continued...)
37

The financial performance of millers and processors/refiners declined markedly toward

the end of the period of investigation.  The millers’ operating income increased from $*** in

CY2010/11 to $*** in CY2011/12, but declined to $*** in CY2012/13 and to a loss of $*** in

interim CY2013/14, compared to an operating profit of $*** in interim CY2012/13.248  As a

share of net sales, the millers’ operating income was *** percent in CY2010/11 and CY2011/12

but declined to *** percent in CY2012/13 and a loss of *** percent in interim CY2013/14, as

compared to a positive *** percent in interim CY2012/13.249   

Similarly, domestic processors and refiners’ operating income declined from $*** in

CY2010/11 to $*** in CY2011/12 and $*** in CY2013/14.250   Their operating income was only

$*** in interim CY2013/14, down from $*** in interim CY2012/13.251  As a share of net sales,

domestic processors and refiners’ operating income declined from *** percent in CY2010/11 to

*** percent in CY2011/12 and *** percent in CY2012/13, and was *** percent in CY2013/14,

down from *** percent in interim CY2012/13.252  We find it noteworthy that domestic

processors and refiners suffered a significant decline in their financial performance toward the

end of the period of investigation even as their market share increased to a period high.253           

We find further support for our finding that the domestic industry encountered

difficulties during the latter portion of the period of investigation in the U.S. government’s

expenditure of $258.7 million to remove 1 million short tons of domestically‐produced sugar

from the U.S. market for human consumption in CY2012/13, through a combination of

forfeitures and purchases.254    

For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that subject

imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry, particularly toward the end

of the period of investigation.  Subject import underselling depressed domestic prices, the

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

Processors/refiners reported that their end‐of‐period inventories increased *** percent between

CY2010/11 and CY2012/13, but were *** percent lower in interim CY2013/14 than in interim

CY2012/13.  Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐9; CR/PR at Table C‐2.  The

processor/refiners’ end‐of‐period inventories increased as a share of U.S. production from 7.9 percent in

CY2010/11 to 10.0 percent in CY2012/13, and were 11.1 percent in interim CY2013/14, down from 12.8

percent in interim CY2012/13.  Memorandum INV‐MM‐041 (May 8, 2014) at Table III‐9.  They increased

as a share of U.S. shipments from *** percent in CY2010/11 to *** percent in CY2012/13, and were ***

percent in interim CY2013/14, down from *** percent in interim CY2012/13.  Id.  They increased as a

share of total shipments from 8.0 percent in CY2012/13 to 10.2 percent in CY2012/13, and were 12.3

percent in interim 2013/14, down from 16.7 percent in interim 2012/13.  Id.        248 CR/PR at Table VI‐2.

249 CR/PR at Table VI‐2.    250 CR/PR at Table C‐2.

251 CR/PR at Table C‐2.    252 CR/PR at Table C‐2.    253 CR/PR at Table C‐2.    254 CR at I‐29‐30; PR at I‐21, I‐23; CR/PR at Table I‐4.  The special rules for agricultural products, 19

U.S.C. § 1677(7)(D)(ii), provide, in relevant part, that “in assessing material injury by reason of subject

imports, the Commission must consider any increased burden on government income or price support

programs.”   
38

domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales increased,255 and lower prices and unit values led

to the declining financial performance of millers and processors/refiners toward the end of the

period of investigation.256  Declining sugar prices also necessitated substantial U.S. government

expenditures for the removal of 1 million short tons of domestically produced sugar from the

U.S. market, in an effort to stabilize prices.257     

We have considered whether there are other factors that may have had an adverse

impact on the domestic industry during the period of investigation to ensure that we are not

attributing injury from such other factors to the subject imports.258  Nonsubject imports had a

diminished presence in the U.S. market toward the end of the period of investigation, declining

from 17.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in CY2011/12 to 7.7 percent in CY2012/13.259  

Nonsubject import market share was 6.1 percent in interim CY2013/14, down from 12.4

percent in interim CY2012/13.260  Indeed, nonsubject imports filled only 53.9 percent of the

minimum TRQ of 1.2 million short tons in CY2012/13.261   

Respondents argue that other factors accounted for subject import volume and price

trends during the period of investigation.  Specifically, they argue that subject import volume

increased in CY2012/13 in response to a shortage of nonsubject imports, caused by high world

sugar prices relative to U.S. sugar prices.262  They also argue that the domestic industry, not

subject imports, was responsible for the conditions of oversupply that reduced sugar prices in

CY2012/13.263  Although there is some evidentiary support for these arguments, other evidence

                                                       255 The COGS to net sales ratio of millers increased from *** percent in CY2010/11 to *** percent in

CY2012/13, and was *** percent in interim CY2013/14, up from *** percent in interim CY2012/13.  

CR/PR at Table VI‐2.  The COGS to net sales ratio of processors/refiners was stable at around ***

percent during the CY2010/11 to CY2012/13 period, but was *** percent in interim CY2013/14, up from

*** percent in interim CY2012/13.  Id. at Table C‐2.    256 The average unit value of the millers’ U.S. shipments declined *** percent between CY2011/12

and CY2012/13, and was *** percent lower in interim CY2013/14 than in interim CY2012/13.  CR/PR at

Table VI‐2, C‐2.  The average unit value of the processor/refiners’ U.S. shipments declined *** percent

between CY2011/12 and CY2012/13, and was *** percent lower in interim CY2013/14 than in interim

CY2012/13.  Id. at Table C‐2.      257 CR at I‐29‐30; PR at I‐23; CR/PR at Table I‐4.

258 Commissioner Pinkert finds on a preliminary basis that sugar is a commodity product for purposes

of the Bratsk/Mittal Steel analysis, that nonsubject imports were a significant presence in the U.S.

market during the period of investigation, and that they were price competitive with the domestic like

product.  He finds, however, that nonsubject imports would not have fully replaced the subject imports

if the subject imports had exited the U.S. market.  Nonsubject imports were limited by country‐specific

TRQs and additional quotas under various free trade agreements.  CR at VII‐18; PR at VII‐12.         259 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.

260 CR/PR at Table IV‐5.

261 CR/PR at Table I‐2.

262 Sweetener Users’ Postconference Brief at 17‐18; see also Mexican Sugar Chamber’s

Postconference Brief at 30.        263 Sweetener Users’ Postconference Brief at 27‐28; Mexican Sugar Chamber’s Postconference Brief

at 34.  The Sweetener Users Respondents emphasize the USDA’s statement, in the Sugar and

Sweeteners Outlook issued on April 15, 2014, that the sugar price declines after CY2011/12 “started with

(Continued...)
39

on the record suggests that subject imports may have driven nonsubject imports from the U.S.

market in CY2012/13 by depressing domestic prices.264  We intend to further investigate

respondents’ claims in any final phase investigations.

In sum, the record of these preliminary phase investigations supports the conclusion

that there is a reasonable indication of material injury by reason of subject imports.   

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United

States is materially injured by reason of subject imports from Mexico that are allegedly

subsidized and sold at LTFV.

      

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

U.S. beet sugar prices” followed by sugar prices in Mexico and subject import prices.  Sweetener Users’

Postconference Brief at 21‐22.  Statements made by USDA in Sugar and Sweeteners Outlooks issued in

July 2013, November 2013, and February 2014, however, indicate that subject imports significantly

contributed to lower U.S. sugar prices.  See Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 3 (citing USDA, Sugar

and Sweeteners Outlook, November 2013, at 15‐16; USDA, Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, July 2013, at

5); USDA, Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, February 2014, appended to Petition at Exhibit I‐3, at 6.

264 See USDA, Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, November 2013, EDIS Document No. 533432, at 15‐16;

USDA, Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, February 2014, appended to Petition at Exhibit I‐3, at 6; see also

Nonparty Statement of the International Sugar Trade Coalition at 5.

I‐1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by the

American Sugar Coalition and its members:  American Sugar Cane League, Thibodaux, LA;

American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Washington, DC; American Sugar Refining, Inc., West

Palm Beach, FL; Florida Sugar Cane League, Washington, DC; Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar

Company, Puunene, HI; Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc., Santa Rosa, TX; Sugar Cane

Growers Cooperative of Florida, Belle Glade, FL; and United States Beet Sugar Association,

Washington, DC on March 28, 2014, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially

injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less‐than‐fair‐value

(“LTFV”) imports of sugar 1 from Mexico. The following tabulation provides information relating

to the background of these investigations.2 3

  

Effective date Action 

March 28, 2014 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution 

of Commission investigations (79 FR 18697, April 3, 2014) 

April 18, 2014 Commission’s conference 

April 24, 2014 Commerce’s notices of initiation (79 FR 22790, 22795) 

May 9, 2014 Commission’s vote 

May 12, 2014 Commission’s determinations 

May 19, 2014 Commission’s views 

                                                      

1 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete

description of the merchandise subject to these investigations. 2 Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in app. A, and may be found at the Commission’s

website (www.usitc.gov).

3 A list of witnesses appearing at the conference is presented in app. B of this report.
I‐2

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides

that in making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission‐‐ 

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II) the

effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for

domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in

the context of production operations within the United States; and. . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that‐‐ 

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission shall

consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether. . .(I) there has been significant price

underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of

domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports

of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or

prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a

significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II) factors

affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative effects on

cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise

capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects on the

existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry,

including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the
I‐3

domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping investigation}, the

magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged subsidy

and dumping margins, and the domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information

on conditions of competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information

on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments,

inventories, and employment. Parts IV and V present the volume of subject imports and pricing

of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part VI presents information on the financial

experience of U.S. producers and growers. Part VII presents the statutory requirements and

information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of

material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

MARKET SUMMARY

Sugar is generally used as a caloric sweetening agent in food. The leading U.S.

producers4 of sugar are ***, while leading producers of sugar in Mexico are ***. The leading

U.S. importers of sugar from Mexico are ***. The leading importers of sugar from nonsubject

countries are ***.  

Apparent U.S. consumption of sugar totaled approximately 11.7 million short tons raw

value (“STRV”) ($7.7 billion) in crop year 2012/13.5 Currently, 13 firms are known to mill

sugarcane in the United States; six firms are known to refine sugarcane in the United States,

including two firms that both mill and refine sugarcane; and seven firms are known to process

sugar from sugar beets in United States. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments6 of refined sugar

totaled 8.7 million stvr ($6.2 billion) in 2012/13, and accounted for 74.6 percent of apparent

U.S. consumption by quantity and 80.1 percent by value. U.S. imports from subject sources

totaled 2.1 million STRV ($1.0 billion) in 2012/13 and accounted for 17.7 percent of apparent

U.S. consumption by quantity and 13.5 percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources

                                                      

4 Throughout this report, references to U.S. producers encompass millers of sugarcane, sugarcane

refiners, and processors of beet sugar.  Additional information on the U.S. industry is contained in part

III. 5 The U.S. crop year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the following year.

6 U.S. producers' U.S. shipments includes only those refined shipments from U.S. inputs (i.e., fully

attributable to U.S. production activities). U.S. shipments of imported inputs further refined in the

United States have been removed from this line to avoid double counting.  Some of the imports from

Mexico and from all other sources reported in this grid had some U.S.‐value added operations prior to

sale to consumer.
I‐4

totaled 0.9 million STRV ($498 million) in 2012/13 and accounted for 7.7 percent of apparent

U.S. consumption by quantity and 6.4 percent by value.  

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C‐

1. Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 24 firms that

accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of sugar during October 2010 through

December 2013. U.S. imports are based on official import data and on questionnaire responses

from 19 U.S. importers that are believed to have accounted for 82.0 percent of sugar imports

from Mexico and *** percent of sugar imports from nonsubject sources during October 2010

through December 2013.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission has conducted two previous import injury investigations on sugar or

similar products.  

In March 1979, the Commission determined that an industry in the “Northeastern States

region” of the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of sugar and syrups

from Canada that Treasury had determined were being, or were likely to be, sold in the United

States at less than fair value.7 Commerce subsequently imposed an antidumping duty order on

imports of sugar and syrups from Canada.8 On October 1, 1998, the Commission instituted a

review of the order on sugar and syrups from Canada. On September 15, 1999, the Commission

determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on sugar and syrups from Canada

would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

                                                      

7 Sugars and Sirups from Canada, Determination of Material Injury in Investigation No. 731‐TA‐3

(Final), USITC Publication 1047, March 1980, p. 3. The Commission defined the regional industry in this

investigation as domestic producers of refined sugar located in the states of Connecticut, Maine,

Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

and Vermont. Ibid., p. 8.

8 Antidumping Duty Order; Sugars and Syrups From Canada, 45 FR 24126 (April 9, 1980). The

Commission’s 1980 determination was appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), and

after three remands, the CIT vacated the Commission’s affirmative determination. The Commission

appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and reinstated the Commission’s affirmative

determination. Sugar from the European Union; Sugar From Belgium, France, and Germany; and Sugar

and Syrups from Canada, Investigations Nos. 104‐TAA‐7 (Review); AA1921‐198–200 (Review); and 731‐

TA‐3 (Review) (“First Review Determinations”), USITC Publication 3238, September 1999, p. 3.
I‐5

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.9 Commerce accordingly revoked the order

on October 28, 1999.10

On July 31, 1978, Treasury imposed a countervailing duty order on imports of sugar

from the European Community.11 On March 28, 1980, the Commission received a request from

the Delegation of the European Community (now the EU) for an investigation under section

104(b) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 of whether revocation of the countervailing duty

order on sugar from the European Community would cause material injury or threat of material

injury to a domestic industry. On May 6, 1982, the Commission determined that an industry in

the United States would be threatened with material injury if the countervailing duty order on

sugar from the European Community were revoked.12  Accordingly, the order remained in

effect.

On September 15, 1999, the Commission determined that revocation of the

countervailing duty order on sugar from the EU would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time. The Commission also determined that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.13

On August 29, 2005, the Commission determined that revocation of the countervailing

duty order on sugar from the European Union would not be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time. The Commission also determined that revocation of the antidumping findings

on sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany would not be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.14 Commerce accordingly revoked the order effective October 28, 2004.

15

                                                      

9 Sugar from the European Union; Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany; and Sugar and Syrups

From Canada, 64 FR 54355 (October 6, 1999).

10 Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order: Sugar and Syrups From Canada, 64 FR 58035 (October 28,

1999). 11 43 FR 33237 (July 31, 1978). 12 Sugar from the European Community, Inv. No. 104‐TAA‐7, USITC Pub. 1247 (May 1982).

13 Sugar From the European Union; Sugar From Belgium, France, and Germany; and Sugar and Syrups

from Canada, Inv. Nos. 104‐TAA‐7 (Review); AA1921‐198‐200 (Review); and 731‐TA‐3 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3238 (Sept. 1999). 14 Sugar From the European Union; Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany, 70 FR 52446,

September 2, 2005.

15 Revocation of Antidumping Duty Findings and Countervailing Duty Order: Sugar from Belgium,

France, Germany and the European Community, 70 FR 54522 (September 15, 2005).
I‐6

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Alleged subsidies

On April 24, 2014, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation

of its countervailing duty investigation on sugar from Mexico.16 Commerce identified the

following government programs in Mexico:

A. Government Forgiveness or Discount of Debt

1. Forgiveness of FEESA Mills’ Financiera Nacional Azucarera, S.N.C. (FINA) Debt

2. Discount of Non‐FEESA Mills’ FINA Debt

3. FINA 1998 Restructuring of Mill Debt – Grace Period

4. Forgiveness of FEESA Mills’ Tax Liability

B. Grant Programs

1. 2001‐2002 “Special Fund” Grants to FEESA Mills

2. 2008 Grants to FEESA Mills

3. 2009 Grants to Cover Operational Deficit of FEESA Mills

4. 2013 Grants to FEESA Mills

5. 2011 Grant to Emiliano Zapata Mill

6. 2008 Programa de Apoyo al Sector Agroindustrial de la Caña de Azúcar

(PROINCAÑA Program) Grants

7. 2008 Programa Complementario de Apoyo al Pago de los Productores de Caña

de Azúcar de la Zafra (PROINCAÑA Supplementary Program) Grants

8. 1997 Export Subsidy

9. 1998 Inventory Support Subsidy

10. 1999 Inventory Support Subsidy

11. SAGARPA Emerging Technology Program for Sugar Cane Producers

12. Grants from Renewable Energy Funds (Green Fund, Emergent Technologies

Fund, Rural Electrification Fund, Biofuels Fund, General Renewable Energy Fund,

and Research and Technological Development Fund)

C. Tax Benefit Programs

1. Program for the Use of Renewable Energy Sources – Accelerated Depreciation

for Renewable Energy Investments

2. Program for the Use of Renewable Energy Sources – Import and Export Tax

Exemption for Articles Related to Renewable Energy Investments

   

                                                      

16 Sugar From Mexico:  Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 79 FR 22790, April 24, 2014.
I‐7

D. IMMEX Import Duty Exemptions

E. FINA 1998 Restructuring of Mill Debt – Preferential Loans

F. Uncreditworthiness Allegations

1. Uncreditworthiness of GAM (1998‐2001)

2. Uncreditworthiness of FEESA Mills (1998‐2001)

3. Uncreditworthiness of BSM (2001)

Alleged sales at LTFV

On April 24, 2014, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation

of its antidumping duty investigation on sugar from Mexico. Commerce has initiated an

antidumping duty investigation based on estimated dumping margins of 30.00 to 64.31 percent

with respect to imports of sugar from Mexico. 17

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows: 18

The merchandise 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”

                                                      

17 Sugar From Mexico:  Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 FR 22795, April 24, 2014.

18 Sugar From Mexico:  Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 79 FR 22790, April 24, 2014.
I‐8

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.

THE PRODUCT

Description and applications19

The products covered by these investigations include sugar derived from sugarcane and

sugar beets from Mexico. These sugar products include “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).20 Also included are “refined” sugar with a

                                                      

19 Information in this section has been compiled from the Petition, pp. 13–15; from the Response to

Supplemental Scope Questions submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce, April 14, 2014; from

the appendix to Commerce’s notices of initiation; and from Sugar from The European Union, and Sugar

from Belgium, France, and Germany, Inv. No. 104‐TAA‐7 (Second Review) and Inv. Nos. AA1921‐198‐200

(Second Review), USITC Publication 3793, August 2005, p. I‐11.

20 There is some difference regarding industry terminology and Harmonized System (HS)

nomenclature. The HS defines raw sugar as less than 99.5 degrees; the remaining sugar falls under an

“other” subheading.  The sugar industry generally refers to raw sugar as that which requires further

(continued...)
I‐9

sucrose content by weight in a dry state that corresponds to a polarimeter reading of at least

99.9 degrees; brown sugar; liquid sugar (sugar dissolved in water); organic raw sugar; and

organic refined sugar. Inedible molasses is not within the scope of these investigations. Certain

“specialty” sugars (e.g., rock candy, fondant, and sugar decorations) and processed food

products that contain sugar (e.g., beverages, candy, and cereals) are also not within the scope

of these investigations.

Except for fructose‐sugar blends, the sugar found in each of these products is chemically

classified as sucrose, a carbohydrate that occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables. Sucrose is

found in quantities large enough for commercial extraction in the stalk of sugarcane, a

perennial subtropical grass, and in the white root of a sugar beet, an annual vegetable which

grows in more temperate climates. Sugar beets are usually grown in rotation with other crops

to avoid disease and pest problems which occur when two beet crops are grown successively in

the same field.

Sugarcane (approximately 11 percent sugar by weight) is initially cut and milled to

obtain sugar juice. Through a process of filtering, evaporating, and centrifuging this juice, raw

cane sugar is produced, which consists of large sucrose crystals coated with molasses. This

intermediate product is normally 90‐99 percent pure sucrose21 and is the principal “sugar”

shipped in world trade. Raw cane sugar is not sold to U.S. consumers because the Food and

Drug Administration (“FDA”) considers it unsuitable for use, either as food or as an

intermediate food ingredient, due to the high level of impurities it contains. Consequently, raw

cane sugar is sold only to cane refineries, which further process the sugar through additional

melting, filtering, evaporating, and centrifuging, to extract most of the remaining impurities and

leave what is called refined sugar. Several U.S. cane refineries are located in separate facilities,

some quite distant from raw cane mills.  U.S. cane refineries rely on a mix of raw cane sugar

from both domestic and imported sources.

Like sugarcane, sugar beets (approximately 17 percent sugar by weight) are also initially

processed to obtain sugar juice. Beets grown in the United States are converted directly into

refined sugar in the same facility. The sucrose from sugar beets and sugarcane are identical to

one another.22  

Liquid sugar is a combination of sugar and water. Liquid sugar accounts for

approximately 17 percent of all sugar production in the United States.23  Liquid sugar

processors or “melt houses” utilize raw cane sugar and/or refined sugar to produce liquid sugar.

These facilities include operations that melt refined sugar and add water as well as operations

                                                      

(...continued)

processing for human consumption and refined sugar as that which requires no further processing for

human consumption, regardless of the polarization value.   21 Purity of sugar is described in “degrees.” For example, 95 percent pure raw cane sugar would be

described as “95 degree” sugar. 22 The Sugar Association, All About Sugar, available at www.sugar.org/all‐about‐sugar/ (accessed

April 30, 2014).

23 Petition, p. 30.
I‐10

that also purify raw and refined cane sugar using more sophisticated methods and machinery

during the production process.24  

The primary use of sugar in the United States is human consumption, as a caloric

sweetening agent in food. Among its various applications are use in bakery products, cereals,

confections, sauces, and meat curing; use in dairy and ice cream applications; and sales directly

to consumers. Most sugar is ultimately sold as pure granulated or powdered sucrose.

Substantial quantities also reach consumers as liquid sugar, and in forms other than chemically

pure sucrose, such as brown sugar25 and invert sugar syrups, or as sugar blends with glucose or

fructose. In calendar‐year 2013, 60 percent of the total quantity of U.S. sugar deliveries (refined

basis) was to industrial users, mainly as an ingredient in processed foods.26 Retail deliveries

accounted for 11 percent of the market that year.

Manufacturing processes27

Although converting sugar beets into refined sugar is a continuous process performed in

one facility, the basic manufacturing steps are similar to the combined operations of milling

sugarcane and refining raw cane sugar into a final product. The production of liquid sugar may

occur at a cane refinery or beet factory, at a dedicated facility, or at an end‐user’s facility.28 A

description of each type of manufacturing process follows.

Sugarcane Mill

Raw cane sugar is extracted from sugarcane through a process whereby the cane is

sliced into pulp, water is added, and sugar juice is extracted. The leftover pulp (bagasse) is used

as fuel to power the mill. The sugar juice is then clarified by adding calcium hydroxide (lime)

and carbon dioxide, which trap solid impurities, and then allowing these solids to settle out of

the solution. The sugar juice is then crystalized and placed into evaporators and high‐speed

rotating centrifuges, where extra water is evaporated and the sugar is separated from

blackstrap molasses (a byproduct sold mainly as animal feed). The final raw sugar product has a

characteristic amber color and is sold or transferred to cane refineries for further processing.

   

                                                      

24 The petition requested the exclusion of “melt houses” from the U.S. industry. Additional

information on U.S. producers’ liquid sugar operations are contained in Part III.    25 Brown sugar is normally produced by adding molasses to sugar fit for human consumption.

26 ERS Sugar and Sweetener Yearbook, table 20, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐

products/sugar‐and‐sweeteners‐yearbook‐tables.aspx#25456 (accessed April 1, 2014).

27 Information in this section has compiled from the Petition, pp. 16–18, and from Sugar from The

European Union, and Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany, Inv. No. 104‐TAA‐7 (Second Review)

and Inv. Nos. AA1921‐198‐200 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3793, August 2005, pp. I‐11‐I‐13.

28 Conference transcript, pp. 63–67 (O’Malley, Berg); 207–210 (Farmer).
I‐11

Cane Sugar Refinery

In the first step of the refining process, raw cane sugar is combined with a solution of

molasses and water called “affination syrup.” This mixture, called “magma,” is placed in high‐

speed rotating centrifuges which separate some of the remaining impurities from raw sugar

crystals. The crystals are then melted, run through mesh strainers, and separated from

microscopic impurities in a process called “carbonatation.” Now referred to as “liquor,” the

sugar solution is passed through “sweetland presses” and filtered through granular bits of char

which absorb most of the remaining impurities. The final processing steps re‐crystallize the

sugar and evaporate any excess water, leaving the sugar crystals dry enough to be sorted,

packaged, and stored for shipment to customers. A variety of products are produced from this

refined sugar, including granulated sugar, specialty sugars (such as brown sugar and powdered

sugar), syrups, and molasses.

Beet Sugar Factory

Unlike sugarcane, sugar beets are processed, and their sugar refined, in a continuous

process within the same manufacturing facility.29 The beets are first sliced into thin strips called

“cossettes,” and hot water is added to remove sucrose and create “raw juice.” Any leftover

sugar beet pulp is pressed into pellets and sold as livestock feed. The sugar juice is then mixed

with lime and carbon dioxide to trap and remove solid impurities from the solution. Excess

water is removed by evaporators, and the sugar is then crystallized and separated from the rest

of the solution, called molasses, by centrifuges. Molasses is sold as an ingredient for animal

feed, and to manufacturers for making lysine, baker’s yeast, and other products. At the end of

the process, the sugar crystals are dried, cooled, and sorted for packaging according to crystal

size.

Liquid Sugar Facility

Liquid sugar is produced at cane sugar refineries, beet sugar factories, melt houses, and

end‐user facilities.  The production process depends on the nature of the sugar used as a raw

material.  Sugar refineries, some other producers, and end‐users simply melt previously‐refined

sugar and add water.  Some melt houses purify raw cane sugar or lower‐quality refined sugar

that may contain foreign matter using more involved processes such as filtration and ultraviolet

light treatment.30 One liquid sugar producer, CSC Sugar LLC, is considered to be a refinery by

                                                      

29 Some facilities may divert and store thick juice, which contains approximately 60 percent sugar, for

later processing. However, this practice is not common in the U.S. industry.

30 Sugaright, “Redefining Sugar Refining,” p. 3, available at

http://www.sugaright.net/pdf/Technical_Brochure.pdf (accessed March 26, 2014).
I‐12

the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the purposes of the sugar re‐export program.31

According to a U.S. industry source, there are approximately 20 companies operating 38 melt

houses in the United States.32

TARIFF TREATMENT

Based upon the scope set forth by the Department of Commerce, the merchandise

subject to these investigations are imported under the provisions of the 2014 HTS shown in

table I‐1. Following HS revisions effective in 2012 (part of a periodic 5‐year review at the World

Customs Organization) raw cane sugar (subheading 1701.11) was divided into non‐centrifugal

(at least 69 degrees but less than 93 degrees; subheading 1701.13) and other (subheading

1701.14). In addition, standard industry terminology for “raw” and “refined” sugar may not

correspond to the HTS definitions (see footnote 20).

Table I-1 

HTSUS classification of sugar products within the scope of the investigations 

HTSUS subheading Brief description 

1701.12.1000 Raw beet sugar, in-quota 

1701.12.5000 Raw beet sugar, over-quota 

1701.13.1000 Raw cane sugar, non-centrifugal, in-quota 

1701.13.5000 Raw cane sugar, non-centrifugal, over-quota 

1701.14.1000 Raw cane sugar, centrifugal, in-quota 

1701.14.5000 Raw cane sugar, centrifugal, over-quota 

1701.91.1000 Sugar, other than raw, containing additional coloring but not flavoring, in-quota 

1701.91.3000 

Sugar, other than raw, containing additional coloring but not flavoring, overquota 

1701.99.1025 

Sugar, other than raw, not containing additional flavoring or coloring, not 

specialty sugars, not for further processing, in-quota 

1701.99.1050 

Sugar, other than raw, not containing additional flavoring or coloring, not 

specialty sugars, for further processing in-quota 

1701.99.5025 

Sugar, other than raw, not containing additional flavoring or coloring, not 

specialty sugars, not for further processing, over-quota 

1701.99.5050 

Sugar, other than raw, not containing additional flavoring or coloring, not 

specialty sugars, for further processing, over-quota 

1702.90.4000 Other cane and beet syrups, not elsewhere specified or included 

Source: HTS, 2014. 

                                                      

31 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Licensees operating under 7 CFR

1530,” undated, available at http://apps.fas.usda.gov/sugars/FASSugarsLicensees.aspx (accessed April

21, 2014).

32 Declaration of Brian O’Malley, Exhibit 5 of Petitioners’ Postconference Brief and Answers to

Commission Staff Questions.
I‐13

Tariff‐rate quotas on U.S. imports

U.S. imports of sugar from Mexico, including the products in the scope of these

investigations, have been granted duty‐free treatment under the NAFTA since January 1, 2008,

following staged reductions in special duty rates.  U.S. imports of sugar from sources other than

Mexico are currently subject to a system of World Trade Organization (WTO) tariff‐rate quotas

(TRQs), which have been in place since October 1990.33 The TRQs were proclaimed following a

GATT ruling against the U.S. sugar quota system that was in effect at the time. Pursuant to

market access commitments made under the Uruguay Round agreements, the United States

has agreed to annually import not less than 1,117,195 metric tons (1,231,484 short tons) of raw

cane sugar and not less than 22,000 metric tons (24,251 short tons) of other sugars (including

refined sugar34 and raw beet sugar), syrups, and molasses at low (in‐quota) duty rates. The U.S.

Trade Representative (USTR) allocates the entire raw cane sugar TRQ on a country‐by‐country

basis, while a portion of the refined sugar TRQ is allocated to specific countries, with the

remainder allocated on a global first‐come, first‐served basis.35 For the quota year beginning

October 1, 2013, the raw cane sugar TRQ is the minimum 1,117,195 metric tons, raw value

(1,231,484 STRV), and the refined sugar TRQ is 122,000 metric tons, raw value (134,481 STRV),

including 101,656 metric tons, raw value (112,055 STRV), reserved for specialty sugar.36  Table I‐

2 presents the raw sugar TRQ allocations for FY 2013.

Raw Cane Sugar

Raw cane sugar imports under the TRQ are assessed an in‐quota rate of 1.4606 cents

per kilogram (0.6625 cent per pound). This tariff is reduced by 0.020668 cent per kilogram

(0.009375 cent per pound) for each degree of purity under 100 degrees (or fractions thereof) to

                                                      

33 Additional U.S. note 5(a)(i) to chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule provides for separate

TRQs for imports of raw cane sugar and for imports of certain other sugars, syrups, and molasses. The

United States’ minimum in‐quota sugar import quantity is currently set by commitments made in

Schedule XX of the GATT Marrakesh Protocol; however, USDA can adjust the figure upward under

certain circumstances, to allow a larger quantity of sugar to enter at the lower, in‐quota, duty rate.

34 Sugar imported under the refined sugar TRQ can be produced from either sugar beets or

sugarcane.

35 The raw cane sugar TRQ is administered by a system of licenses called Certificates of Quota

Eligibility (CQEs).  CQEs are provided by the USDA to foreign governments to distribute to exporters.  

Each shipment must be accompanied by a valid CQE.

36 U.S. Trade Representative, “U.S. Trade Representative Froman Announces FY 2014 WTO Tariff‐Rate

Quota Allocations for Raw Cane Sugar, Refined and Specialty Sugar and Sugar‐Containing Products,”

press release, September 12, 2013, available at http://www.ustr.gov/about‐us/press‐office/press‐

releases/2013/september/WTO‐trq‐for‐sugar (accessed April 2, 2014). Refined sugar is defined by USDA

as “sugar of which the sucrose by weight, in the dry state, corresponds to a polarimeter reading of 99.5

degrees or more.” Specialty sugar is refined sugar that meets specifications determined by Customs. An

increasing portion of the refined sugar TRQ has been reserved for organic sugar in recent years, owing

to limited U.S. production and a growing demand by the organic processed foods industry.
I‐14

a minimum of 0.943854 cent per kilogram (0.428129 cent per pound). Eligible in‐quota imports

from Canada receive duty‐free treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), as do in‐quota imports from countries eligible for duty‐free treatment under

preferential trade arrangements (PTAs) including the Generalized System of Preferences

(GSP),37 the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA),38 the African Growth and

Opportunity Act (AGOA), and the Central America‐Dominican Republic  Free Trade Agreement

(CAFTA‐DR) as well as free trade agreements (FTAs) with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Colombia,

Israel, Jordan, Korea, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Peru, and Singapore.39 Tier I tariff rates have

not changed during the period of investigation.40

Raw cane sugar imports in excess of the quota are subject to a “tier II” tariff equal to

33.87 cents per kilogram (15.36 cents per pound). Tier II tariff reductions have been completed

since 2000 in line with the United States’ NAFTA and Uruguay Round commitments.41 In‐quota

(tier I) tariff rates and over‐quota (tier II) tariff rates are not cumulative; sugar imports are

either subject to the tier I or the tier II rate, as the HTS has separate subheadings for each tier.42

In addition to the WTO TRQs for raw cane sugar, additional quotas have been granted

under various FTAs.  These quotas are applied to the Tier II tariff rate lines.  Generally, these

additional quotas are phased in over a period of several years with a small perpetual annual

increase at the end of the phase‐in period.  The additional quotas are subject to the

beneficiaries being net exporters, with duty‐free treatment granted to the lesser of the

scheduled quantity or the net export balance.  These quotas apply to refined sugar and various

sugar‐containing products as well.43  

                                                      

37 U.S. imports of sugar under HTS subheadings 1701.12.10, 1701.13.10, 1701.13.20, 1701.14.10,

1701.14.20, 1701.99.10, and 1701.99.10 from Brazil and HTS subheading 1701.91.10 from the

Philippines are not eligible for duty‐free treatment under the GSP.  See General Note 4 (d) of the HTS.

38 U.S. imports of raw cane sugar under HTS heading 1701 from Antigua and Barbuda, Montserrat,

Netherlands Antilles, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are not eligible for duty‐free

treatment under the CBERA.

39 The quantity of duty‐free imports from countries under these free trade agreements may be

limited by conditions related to the countries’ net trade or production status for sugar.

40 Quota imports under the Colombia and Panama FTAs are administered by CQEs. 41 As of 2000, the United States has fulfilled its Uruguay Round tier II tariff reduction commitments.

Any further reductions would result from the present Doha Round of trade negotiations or from future

such talks. Tier II tariff rates for Mexico were phased out completely as of January 1, 2008.

42The in‐quota rates also apply to imports of raw cane sugar under general note 15 to the HTS

(relating to imports not entered for general consumption) and to imports of raw cane sugar to be used

in the production of polyhydric alcohols or to be refined and re‐exported in refined form or in sugar‐

containing products, or to be substituted for domestically produced raw cane sugar that has been or will

be exported. These products are not in the scope of these investigations.

43 Currently, additional sugar quotas are granted under FTAs with Bahrain, CAFTA‐DR, Chile,

Colombia, Jordan, Korea, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore.   
I‐15

Table I-2 

U.S. raw sugar TRQ WTO allocations and entries, FY 2013 

Country 

Entries final

(metric tons 

raw value) 

TRQ1

(metric tons 

raw value) 

Final shortfalls 

(metric tons 

raw value) 

Entries’ share 

of TRQ 

(percent) 

Argentina 6,100 46,154 40,054 13.22 

Australia 29,363 89,087 59,724 32.96 

Barbados 0 7,513 7,513 0.00 

Belize 26 11,807 11,781 0.22 

Bolivia 8,519 8,587 68 99.21 

Brazil 146,872 155,634 8,762 94.37 

Colombia 22,684 25,760 3,076 88.06 

Congo 0 7,258 7,258 0.00 

Costa Rica 16,097 16,100 3 99.98 

Cote d'Ivoire 0 7,258 7,258 0.00 

Dominican Republic 95,435 188,908 93,473 50.52 

Ecuador 11,807 11,807 0 100.00 

El Salvador 27,870 27,907 37 99.87 

Fiji 0 9,660 9,660 0.00 

Gabon 0 7,258 7,258 0.00 

Guatemala 37,365 51,520 14,155 72.53 

Guyana 0 12,880 12,880 0.00 

Haiti 0 7,258 7,258 0.00 

Honduras 10,733 10,733 0 100.00 

India 0 8,587 8,587 0.00 

Jamaica 0 11,807 11,807 0.00 

Madagascar 0 7,258 7,258 0.00 

Malawi 4,708 10,733 6,025 43.86 

Mauritius 8,968 12,880 3,912 69.63 

Mozambique 0 13,953 13,953 0.00 

Nicaragua 22,540 22,540 0 100.00 

Panama 31,127 31,127 0 100.00 

Papua New Guinea 0 7,258 7,258 0.00 

Paraguay 418 7,258 6,840 5.76 

Peru 40,517 44,007 3,490 92.07 

Philippines 56,373 144,901 88,528 38.90 

South Africa 24,232 24,687 455 98.16 

St. Kitts and Nevis 0 7,258 7,258 0.00 

Swaziland 0 17,174 17,174 0.00 

Thailand 0 15,027 15,027 0.00 

Trinidad-Tobago 0 7,513 7,513 0.00 

Uruguay 0 7,258 7,258 0.00 

Zimbabwe 0 12,880 12,880 0.00 

 Total 601,754 1,117,195 515,441 53.86 

Note.—Mexico and Taiwan were not allocated their TRQs in FY 2013.

1 In September 2012, USDA set the raw sugar TRQ at the minimum level to which the United States is committed in 

the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. USDA can increase the TRQ midway through the fiscal year if 

necessary. 

Source: Fiscal Year 2013 Tariff-rate Quota Allocations for Raw Cane Sugar, Refined and Specialty Sugar, and 

Sugar-Containing Products, 77 FR 57180, September 17, 2012; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Weekly 

Commodity Status Report, found at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/fas/SugMonImp//2010s/2013/SugMonImp11-19-2013.pdf. 
I‐16

  

Refined Sugar44

The combined TRQ for refined sugar for fiscal year 2014 is 110,678 STRV, including

92,222 STRV reserved for specialty sugars not in the scope of these investigations. Of the

quantity not reserved for specialty sugars, 13,283 STRV is allocated to Canada. The remaining

9,142 STRV are allocated on a first‐come, first‐served basis. Canada may utilize the first‐come,

first‐served portion of the TRQ before filling its reserved amount, thus potentially limiting the

amount available to other countries.

Various countries benefit from duty‐free access under PTAs and FTAs for in‐quota (tier I)

U.S. imports of refined sugar. These include GSP (subject to exclusions mentioned in footnote

18), Australia, Bahrain, CAFTA‐DR, Canada, Chile, Colombia, CBERA (subject to exclusions

mentioned in footnote 19), Israel, Jordan, Korea, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, and

Singapore. All other countries have tariff rates ranging from 1.43 to 1.66 cents per pound,

depending on the polarity of the sugar being imported. For over‐quota (tier II) imports, all

countries except Mexico and those with additional quota access under FTAs (see discussion in

the section on raw sugar) are levied a tariff equal to 16.21 cents per pound.  

  

Sugar‐Containing Products

Along with the raw and refined sugar TRQs, the USTR annually establishes and publishes

a TRQ for certain sugar‐containing products.45 For fiscal year 2014, the USTR established a

sugar‐containing products TRQ of 64,709 metric tons (71,329 short tons), of which 65,311 short

tons (or 92 percent of the total TRQ) is allocated to Canada.46 Sugar‐containing products other

than certain brown sugars and organic sugars are not in the scope of these investigations.

   

                                                      

44 The products subject to the tariff rate for refined sugar include raw beet sugar and sugars, syrups,

and molasses imported under HTS subheadings 1701.12.10, 1701.91.10, 1701.99.10, 1702.90.10, and

2106.90.44.

45 The products subject to the tariff rate quota for refined sugar include raw beet sugar and sugars,

syrups, and molasses imported under HTS subheadings 1701.12.10, 1701.91.10, 1701.99.10, 1702.90.10,

and 2106.90.44.

46 U.S. Trade Representative, “U.S. Trade Representative Froman Announces FY 2014 WTO Tariff‐Rate

Quota Allocations for Raw Cane Sugar, Refined and Specialty Sugar and Sugar‐Containing Products,”

press release, September 12, 2013, available at http://www.ustr.gov/about‐us/press‐office/press‐

releases/2013/september/WTO‐trq‐for‐sugar (accessed April 2, 2014).  The remaining in‐quota quantity

is available to other countries on a first‐come, first‐served basis. Specialty sugars are defined in CFR

2011.202.
I‐17

Safeguards

U.S. imports of various sugar and sugar‐containing products subject to TRQs are also

subject to additional safeguard duties.47  These duties are cumulative and are applied in

addition to over‐quota (Tier II) duties if prices fall below a certain level.  The safeguard duties

rise as prices fall, within specified bands. Safeguard duties are not applicable to imports from

free trade agreement beneficiaries, including Mexico.48  

U.S. SUGAR PROGRAM

History

The U.S. Government has played an active role in the domestic sugar industry for many

years. The first price‐support legislation for the U.S. sugar industry, called the Jones‐Costigan

Act (“Sugar Act”), was instituted in 1934 and set quotas on domestic production and foreign

imports based on estimated U.S. demand for the coming year. In the 1970s, inflation forced the

demise of this “sugar program,” as sugar prices quickly increased and the legislative tools did

very little to bring prices back down to their historic level. By November 1974, world raw sugar

prices reached 57 cents per pound (from 10 cents per pound the previous year), and on January

1, 1975, the Sugar Act was abandoned. With the Sugar Act’s repeal, the Secretary of Agriculture

lost the authority to set domestic sugar quotas; import quotas, acreage allotments, and direct

payment to farmers were also eliminated.  

Three years later, due to increased production in world markets, sugar prices declined

to an average of 8 cents per pound. To counteract this decline, and lessen its impact on U.S.

farmers, Congress intervened in the market once again, passing the Food and Agriculture Act

(“FAA”) in 1977. The FAA established a loan (or purchase) program in which cane millers and

beet processors could receive loans for every pound of sugar they produced. The loans could be

defaulted, and any sugar pledged as collateral forfeited to the Government, if the market price

was not higher than the per‐pound loan rate. In 1982, after a hiatus of seven years, Congress

re‐established quotas on sugar imports.

1996‐2002

Under Section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the

“Fair Act”), the U.S. sugar program continued to grant loans to domestic producers. Loans were

administered by the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”) of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (“USDA”), and credits (or “rates”) averaged 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar

                                                      

47 These duties are applied to imports under HTS subheading 9904.17.

48 See U.S. Note 1. Subchapter IV, Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(2014).  
I‐18

and 22.9 cents per pound for refined beet sugar.49 These rates could not be increased but could

be reduced by administrative action if domestic and export subsidies were reduced by the

European Union and 10 other sugar producing countries.  

Sugar loans could take the form of either “recourse” or “nonrecourse” credits. A

nonrecourse loan required the processor receiving credits to make minimum payments for

sugarcane or sugar beets delivered to it, and to pay a penalty if it forfeited its loan collateral to

the CCC. Conversely, a recourse loan required no minimum payments to growers and no

penalty for forfeiture; however, the processor remained liable for any losses the CCC incurred

in selling the forfeited sugar. Loans granted by the CCC to U.S. sugar mills and sugar beet

processors were recourse, unless in‐quota imports of sugar amounted to, or exceeded, 1.5

million STRV. If this occurred, nonrecourse loans would be made available and all recourse

loans made during the fiscal year would be converted to nonrecourse loans. Prior to 1996, the

sugar program was designed to operate at no net cost to the Federal  Government; the

Secretary of Agriculture set import quotas at levels which kept U.S. sugar prices above the loan

rates to discourage defaults. The Fair Act did not renew this “no‐net‐cost” provision of the

program.

2002–2008

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) was signed into law on

May 13, 2002 and was effective through Federal fiscal year 2007. Enactment of the 2002 Farm

Bill resulted in changes to the U.S. sugar program, the most significant of which included the

elimination of recourse loans, the reinstatement of a payment‐in‐kind (“PIK”) program, and the

establishment of domestic “marketing allotments” for processed sugar.  

The 2002 Farm Bill established that all loans made to U.S. sugar beet or sugarcane

processors are nonrecourse. Under these provisions, the USDA was required to accept sugar

pledged as collateral as payment in full, in lieu of cash repayment of a loan. The Farm Bill

terminated penalties for forfeitures to the CCC, and extended nonrecourse loans to “in‐

process” beets and cane syrups, allowing processors to obtain loans on these products at 80

percent of the ordinary loan rates (unchanged from the 1996 Fair Act at 22.9 cents per pound

for beet processors, and 18 cents per pound for producers of raw cane sugar). Loan rates could

be reduced by the USDA if foreign producers reduce export subsidies and support levels for

sugar below their current WTO commitments.

Nonrecourse loans were provided only to processors of sugar, who were required to

pledge to provide a portion of any loan payment to growers of the sugar beets or sugarcane

provided to their firm.  

The 2002 Farm Bill authorized a program, offered provisionally in 2000 and 2001,

allowing processors to bid on raw cane sugar or refined beet sugar held by the USDA in CCC

inventories, in exchange for agreement from the processor to reduce its own production. This

                                                      

49 Loan rates are lower for raw cane sugar primarily because it is an intermediate product requiring

further processing by refiners.
I‐19

“payment‐in‐kind” (PIK) program also allowed for growers of sugar beets and sugarcane to bid

for a quantity of CCC inventory they would accept in exchange for reducing planted acreage, or

for forgoing the harvest of a specified acreage of sugar beets or sugarcane.

The 2002 Farm Bill reactivated the provision, suspended during application of the 1996

Fair Act, that the U.S. sugar program be administered at no net cost to the Federal

Government. Under the provisions of the Farm Bill, the Secretary of Agriculture was directed to

achieve the “no net cost” requirement by avoiding, to the maximum extent possible, any

forfeitures of sugar to the CCC, which result when the market price for sugar was less than the

per pound rate of a nonrecourse loan, plus interest and costs. The PIK program was one

method by which the USDA could control excess supplies of sugar. Marketing allotments

provide another method.

Under the provisions of the Farm Bill, the USDA was authorized to establish flexible

marketing allotments which restricted the amount of sugar individual processors could market

in the United States. The overall quantity of sugar to be allotted for a given crop year was

determined by subtracting the sum of 1.532 million STRV, and any carry‐in stocks (or inventory)

of sugar, from the USDA’s estimate of domestic consumption, plus a reasonable carryover

stock. This overall allotment quantity (“OAQ”) was divided between beet and cane sugar at a

set ratio of 54.35 percent for beet and 45.65 percent for cane. Beet sugar processors were then

assigned allocations based on their sugar production in the 1998‐2000 crop years, while cane

sugar allocations were assigned on the basis of past marketings, current ability to market, and

past processing levels. Processors who produced sugar beyond their allotment were required to

postpone sales, and either store the excess or sell it outside the domestic “food‐use” market.

Table I‐3 lists cane millers and beet processors’ marketing allotments for FY 2011 through FY

2014.  
I‐20

Table I-3 

Sugar: Cane millers/beet processors, and share of Federal fiscal years 2011-2014 overall 

allotment quantity 

Firm 

Adjusted 

FY 2011 

Final 

FY 2012 

Final 

FY 2013 

Initial 

FY 2014 

 Quantity (STRV)

Beet Processors’ Marketing Allocations: 

Amalgamated Sugar Co. 1,060,209 1,125,852 1,130,074 1,145,405

American Crystal Sugar Co. 1,877,637 1,803,354 1,940,762 1,967,161

Michigan Sugar Co. 569,656 667,314 545,095 552,490

Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op. 369,977 363,119 366,556 371,529

So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op. 570,174 560,227 712,371 722,035

Western Sugar Co. 529,677 604,965 539,013 546,256

Wyoming Sugar Growers, LLC 42,028 42,360 44,194 44,794

 Subtotal, beet processors 5,019,358 5,167,190 5,278,064 5,349,671

Cane Processors’ Marketing Allocations: 

Florida Crystals 745,108 747,151 719,606 940,017

Growers Co-op of Florida 335,564 378,773 365,335 410,698

U.S. Sugar Corp 776,177 800,734 820,863 932,397

Louisiana Sugar Cane Products, Inc. 1,101,535 1,070,902 1,164,218 1,226,182

M.A. Patout & Sons 476,274 483,620 560,747 540,061

Rio Grande Valley 173,016 170,745 171,480 198,475

Gay & Robinson, Inc.1 45,997 22,637 n/a n/a

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company 237,219 245,499 230,936 245,499

 Subtotal, cane processors 3,890,892 3,920,060 4,033,186 4,493,330

Reassignment to imports 325,000 517,750 400,000 n/a

 Total 9,235,250 9,605,000 9,711,250 9,843,000

1 Gay & Robinson stopped harvesting sugarcane in 2010. Sugar era ending on Kauai as Gay & Robinson 

pulls out, Honolulu Advertiser, September 11, 2008, 

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Sep/11/ln/hawaii809110380.html. In FY 2014, the CCC 

determined that the Hawaiian cane processor, Gay and Robinson Inc., permanently terminated 

operations because it had not processed sugarcane for two consecutive crop years. The Gay and 

Robinson, Inc. FY 2012 allocation of 73,145 STRV was reassigned to the State of Hawaii and then further 

reassigned to the mainland sugarcane-producing states, because Hawaii is not expected to use all of its 

cane sugar allotment. 

Source: USDA Increases and Reassigns Fiscal Year 2012 Overall Allotment Quantity and Increases 

Fiscal Year 2012 Raw Sugar Tariff-Rate Quota, 77 FR 23450, April 19, 2012; 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=ner&newstype=ne

wsrel&type=detail&item=nr_20110411_rel_fas0066.html; 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/sugar_allot_allocs_fy2013.pdf; and 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/sugar_allot_allocs_fy2014.pdf. 

Under the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill, the USDA’s authority to restrict the

marketing of domestically produced sugar through allotments was suspended if imports of

sugar for human consumption exceeded 1.532 million STRV, such that the overall allotment

quantity would have to be reduced. Marketing allotments would remain suspended until the

USDA estimated that imports were reduced to under this “trigger” level.
I‐21

2008–Present

The current U.S. sugar program was formed by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act

of 2008 (P.L. 110‐246; 2008 Farm Bill).  The Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113‐79; 2014 Farm Bill)

essentially maintained and continued the elements of both the domestic and import

components of the U.S. sugar program in the 2008 Farm Bill through the 2018 crop year.50 The

main changes effected by the 2008 Farm Bill included an increase in the loan rates, the

elimination of the allotment suspension mechanism, the requirement for USDA to set the initial

OAQ at 85 percent of estimated U.S. human consumption of sugar, the requirement to set the

WTO TRQs at the minimum level for the first half of the fiscal year, and the establishment of the

feedstock flexibility program, whereby surplus sugar stocks are required to be sold for

conversion into ethanol.

   The base raw cane sugar loan rate was phased upward from 18.00 cents per pound in

FY2009 to 18.75 cents per pound in FY 2013. The refined beet sugar loan rate became subject

to a formula beginning in FY2010, with the refined beet sugar loan rate equal to 128.5 percent

of the raw cane sugar rate; the refined beet sugar rate amounted to 24.09 cents per pound in

FY 2013.  The 2008 Farm Bill continued the PIK program, but required that planted beets or

cane that is diverted from production must be used as bioenergy feedstocks. The 2008 Farm Bill

also increased USDA storage payment rates for forfeited raw cane sugar from 8 cents to 10

cents per hundredweight and for forfeited refined beet sugar from 10 cents to 15 cents per

hundredweight. The 2008 Farm Bill eliminated prepayment penalties for loans to processors to

construct or upgrade storage facilities.  The 2008 Farm Bill also required that any reassignment

of unused cane and beet allocations to imports be of raw cane sugar.  The 2008 Farm Bill also

eliminated the requirement for reallocating import TRQ shortfalls. In addition, TRQs must be

set at the minimum levels on October 1 and not be increased until April 1, except in the event

of emergencies.51 The 2008 Farm Bill also required USDA to establish “orderly” shipping

patterns for imports under TRQs and FTAs.  And, the Farm Bill required the United States to

restore its membership in the International Sugar Organization.

Prior to FY 2013, the administration of the U.S. sugar program had not resulted in

forfeitures since 2004.  However, the USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) took several

actions in FY 2013 to divert sugar supplies and dispose of forfeitures (table I‐4).  These actions

included the exchange of re‐export program credits for sugar52 and sales of sugar for ethanol

production and other non‐food uses.  The re‐export credit exchanges involved the substitution  

                                                      

50 See Section 1301.

51 This provision generally has been interpreted to refer to natural disasters, such as hurricanes and

refinery explosions.

52 The re‐export program credit exchanges also included some CQE exchanges under the Colombia

and Panama FTAs.  USDA, ERS, Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, November 15, 2013, p. 7, available at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHandler.ashx?file=/media/1221881/sssm303.pdf (accessed

March 26, 2014).
I‐22

Table I-4 USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) actions to remove surplus sugar during crop year 2012/13 

Date Program action 

Quantity 

removed 

(STRV) 

CCC 

acquisitions 

(STRV) 

CCC 

acquisitions 

(dollars) 

CCC sales 

(dollars) 

CCC net c

(dollar

6/18/13 

Re-export program credit swap 329,760 100,572 43,835,033 0 43,83

7/10/13 

Re-export program credit swap 51,322 17,090 6,871,428 0 6,87

7/31/13 

Feedstock flexibility program (FFP) 7,118 7,116 3,587,220 854,100 2,73

8/30/13 

Re-export program credit swap 154,193 56,712 23,413,237 0 23,41

9/19/13 

Re-export program credit swap 72,572 28,663 11,155,714 0 11,15

9/26/13 FFP 136,026 136,026 65,902,337 12,607,542 53,299/30/13 FFP 216,750 216,750 103,736,550 11,325,350 92,4111/22/13 FFP and non-food use 79,750 79,750 33,198,950 8,197,450 25,0012/13/13 Total 1,047,490 642,681 291,700,469 32,984,442 258,71

Source: USDA, Farm Service Agency, Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, January 2014. 
I‐23

of a unit of CCC‐owned sugar for a multiple amount of export credits or CQE rights.53   For crop

year 2012/13 sugar, the USDA effectively removed 1,047,490 STRV, of sugar from the U.S.

market, at a net cost of $258,716,027.  The average CCC net cost per pound of the actions was

12.35 cents (raw value basis).  This compared with an average U.S. raw cane sugar price of

21.00 cents per pound for fiscal year 2013.54

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The petitioner contends that the domestic like product should be coterminous with the

scope of the petition, consisting of sugar in all forms, whether derived from sugarcane or sugar

beets.55 This domestic like product definition is generally consistent with the like product

definition the Commission adopted in its previous investigations and reviews of sugar:  raw and

refined sugar, whether cane or beet.56  

Respondents Camara Nacional de Las Industrias Azucarera Y Alcoholera (“Mexican Sugar

Chamber”) do not challenge the petitioners’ proposed like product definition for purposes of

the preliminary phase investigations but argue that the Commission should address the

following domestic like product issues in any final phase investigations:  1) whether raw and

refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup (“HFCS”) are one like product; and 2) whether raw

and refined sugar and downstream sugar‐containing products, are separate like products.57

Similarly, respondent importer Barry Callebaut USA LLC (“Barry Callebaut”) and The Sweetener

Users Association do not challenge the domestic like product definition proposed by the

petitioners, but reserve the right to challenge the Petitioners’ like product definition in any final

phase investigations.58

                                                      

53 ERS computed the ratios of credits/CQEs to sugar at 3.239 for the July 10 exchange and 2.656 for

exchanges during August and September. The advantage to export credit and CQE holders is they can

sell the exchanged sugar on the world market (for which the price margin had narrowed), while the

advantage to the CCC is that it minimized its losses. USDA, ERS, Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook,

November 15, 2013, pp. 7–9, available at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHandler.ashx?file=/media/1221881/sssm303.pdf (accessed

March 26, 2014.

54 USDA, ERS, “Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook Tables,” Table 4‐‐U.S. raw sugar price, duty fee paid,

New York, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year, available at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Sugar_and_Sweeteners_Yearbook_Tables/World_and_US_Sugar_an

d_Corn_Sweetener_Prices/Table04.xls (accessed April 8, 2014). 55 Petition, p. 31, and Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 10.

56 Sugar from the European Union, and Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany, Inv. No.104‐TAA‐7

(Second Review) and Inv. Nos. AA1921‐198‐200 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3793, August 2005,

pp. 6‐7. 57 Mexican Sugar Chamber’s postconference brief, pp. 2‐5.

58 The Sweetener Users Association and Barry Callebaut’s postconference brief, p. 6.
I‐24

Respondent importer Diazteca Company (“Diazteca”) states that the products covered

by the petition “are not all ‘like products’ for purposes of ITC injury analysis. Diazteca believes

that these products are separate industries and separate products and that the ITC should

consider each one separately for purposes of its injury analysis.” Diazteca proposes that: 1)

refined sugar is a different product than raw cane sugar, and 2) beet sugar produced from

genetically modified organisms (“GMO”) is a different product than sugar produced from

sugarcane.59  

The Government of Mexico proposes that HFCS be included as part of the domestic like

product.60  

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like”

the subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3)

interchangeability; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6)

price. Information regarding these factors concerning raw and refined sugar; beet and cane

sugar; and HFCS and sugar are discussed below.  

Raw sugar and refined sugar

In previous reviews of sugar, the Commission concluded that a semifinished product

analysis supports the inclusion of raw and refined sugar in a single like product. The

Commission noted that raw sugar is dedicated to refined sugar production, and is unfit for

human consumption; there was no evidence that producers or consumers perceive markets for

raw sugar apart from sugar refineries, as raw sugar is sold only to refineries; both raw and

refined sugar consist of sucrose, with physical differences determined by the degree of

processing; and the value added through raw cane sugar refining appears modest relative to

the value added through sugarcane milling.61 Petitioners note that nothing has changed with

respect to the production or use or sale of sugar since 2005 that would suggest any change to

the Commission's analysis in these investigations.62 Diazteca states that raw and refined sugars

have distinct channels of distribution. Raw cane sugar is sold only to refineries for further

processing. Refined sugar goes to consumers, including industrial consumers, and grocery

stores and restaurants.63

                                                      

59 Diazteca’s postconference brief, pp. 1‐5.

60 Government of Mexico’s postconference brief, Nos. 25‐41.

61 Sugar from the European Union, and Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany, Inv. No.104‐TAA‐7

(Second Review) and Inv. Nos. AA1921‐198‐200 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3793, August 2005,

pp. 7, fn. 22.

62 Petition, p. 20.

63 Diazteca’s postconference brief, p. 2.
I‐25

Beet sugar and cane sugar

Petitioners state that cane and beet sugar constitute a single like product. Sugar refined

from sugarcane and from sugarbeets is identical in its physical characteristics and uses. Sugar

refined from sugarcane and sugar refined from sugar beets are entirely interchangeable and

sold through the exact same channels of distribution. Customers perceive them to be the same

product as they are generally sold without any distinction in packaging or price. While

extracting sugar from sugarcane requires the additional processing step of milling, once the raw

cane sugar is extracted, the process for producing refined sugar from either raw cane sugar or

sugarbeets is virtually identical. Finally, petitioners state sugar refined from sugarcane and

sugar refined from sugarbeets are chemically indistinguishable and are typically sold for the

same price to the same sets of customers.64

Approximately 90 percent of sugar beets are GMO.65 Diazteca contends that beet sugar

produced from genetically modified organisms (“GMO”) is a different product than sugar

produced from sugarcane. Diazteca claims that the Commission’s previous analysis of raw and

refined sugar should be rejected since the use of GMO sugar beets were not approved until

2006/2007.66 The company states that many consumers and industrial users are hesitant to use

GMO products, and bakers may prefer cane sugar to beet sugar.67 The president of the

American SugarBeet Growers Association claims that “the sugar from GMO beets is no different

than any other sugar. The properties of the GMO are completely removed in the process. So

when you look at sugar from GMO beets or conventional beets or sugarcane, it's identical.”68

However, some purchasers of beet sugar note that there is a growing trend by customers to

refuse to buy beet sugar because of its origin as GMO seed.69

HFCS and sugar

Petitioners claim that HFCS is not like sugar. They state that sugar consists of sucrose,

which is an organic disaccharide consisting of equal parts glucose and fructose chemically

joined by a type of covalent bond known as a glycosidic bond. HFCS, by contrast, is made up of

the monosaccharides fructose and glucose. Moreover, they claim HFCS has a different bonding

structure with free monosaccharides. As a result, the two function differently and are therefore

used differently; they cannot be substituted for one another in most applications. Petitioners

state that while HFCS is not sold for retail consumption, more than one‐third of sugar is sold to

restaurants and other food service suppliers and to retailers for use by individual consumers. In

addition, they claim sugar is sold to industrial end users, distributors, retailers, and institutional

                                                      

64 Petition, pp. 21‐22.

65 Conference transcript, p. 56 (Snyder).   66 Diazteca’s postconference brief, p. 3.

67 Diazteca’s postconference brief, pp. 4‐5.

68 Conference transcript, pp. 61‐62 (Snyder).

69 Conference transcript, p. 211 (Farmer).
I‐26

buyers, while HFCS is sold almost entirely to industrial users. Petitioners also assert that

customers for HFCS are primarily soft drink producers who purchase HFCS in bulk amounts and

in liquid form. Given its stable shelf life and particular sweetening properties, petitioners claim

such producers would not and could not easily switch to using sugar. In addition, there are no

common manufacturing facilities or production processes used to produce both sugar and

HFCS70 because they are produced by producers using very different processes and inputs.

Sugar is extracted from beets or cane while HFCS is manufactured from com by means of a

series of chemical reactions induced by enzymes. Finally petitioners state that the price of HFCS

is historically significantly less than the price of sugar.71 The spot price for HFCS‐42 was 21.66

cents per pound, dry weight in fiscal year 2011, 23.77 cents in fiscal year 2012, and 27.64 cents

in fiscal year 2013.72

The Mexican Sugar Chamber claims that HFCS should be included in the domestic like

product. They state a 2001 NAFTA Panel decision found that the physical characteristics of

sugar and HFCS were similar enough as to allow them to serve the same functions and to be

commercially interchangeable. In addition, in 2005, a World Trade Organization ("WTO") panel

in Mexico found that cane sugar, beet sugar, and HFCS were like products. Respondents claim

that both sugar and HFCS can be used interchangeably by the beverage industry.73

The Government of Mexico states that HFCS should be included in the domestic like

product. They state that sugar and HFCS physically differ in that they are derived from different

inputs, namely, corn and sugarcane, as well as in their production processes; however, both

have the same usages: they work as sweeteners with similar nutritional properties, allowing

both to be commercially interchangeable. In addition, they claim that soft drink producers and

other industries prefer HFCS instead of sugar due to cost considerations.74

                                                      

70 All U.S. producers stated that no other products can be produced on the same equipment or

machinery used to produce sugar. Molasses are produced as a by‐product or co‐product of the sugar

production process. 71 Petition, pp. 22‐24.

72 USDA Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook, table 9, retrieved on April 30, 2014 at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/sugar‐and‐sweeteners‐yearbook‐tables.aspx#.U1bAwRB7SQc.   73 Mexican Sugar Chamber’s postconference brief, pp. 2‐4. 74 Government of Mexico’s postconference brief, Nos. 25‐41.
II‐1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Sugar is a basic food item consumed throughout the world. There are a large number of

sugar producing countries, although production is somewhat concentrated. About one‐third of

world sugar production is traded internationally, with a handful of countries dominating

exports. The United States is a major, although not the leading, producer, importer, and

consumer of sugar; U.S. sugar exports are relatively minor.  

Cane sugar dominates world production of sugar, accounting for about 80 percent of

the annual total in most years. Brazil and India are the primary producers of cane sugar, and the

EU, China, and the United States are the leading producers of beet sugar (see Part VII).

The sugar industry tends to be relatively concentrated at the U.S. producer level. The

combined volume of total shipments by the two largest U.S. producers, ***, amounted to

almost *** of total U.S. production between October 2010 and December 2013. At the same

time, competition from imports from all nonsubject sources is limited due to the TRQ.

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

In the United States sugar is commonly used in industrial applications including the

manufacture of baked goods, ice cream, confections, and beverages, as well as for direct

consumer use. U.S. producers sold almost two‐thirds of their sales to industrial end users and

split the bulk of their remaining sales to grocery chains and distributors, as shown in table II‐1.

U.S. importers split about three‐fourths of their sales of imports from Mexico to industrial end

users and distributors.  

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

Eleven of 22 U.S. producers and five of 16 importers reported selling to all regions (table

II‐2).  About three‐quarters of U.S. producers’ sales were between 101 and 1,000 miles and

about 16 percent were over 1,000 miles. Importers sold just over one‐half of their sugar

between 101 and 1,000 miles and almost 30 percent within 100 miles of their U.S. point of

shipment.
II‐2

Table II-1 

Sugar: U.S. producers' and U.S. importers' channels of distribution, crop years 2010/11 through 

2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments to: 

 Distributors 13.5 13.4 14.3 14.8 15.3

Grocery chains 18.9 18.3 16.9 22.2 20.2

Restaurants and restaurant chains 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.5

Industrial end users 64.5 64.3 65.0 60.6 60.4

Refiners and melt houses 1.9 2.8 2.6 1.3 2.5

U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of 

imports from Mexico to: 

 Distributors 37.3 36.8 37.6 37.4 61.7

Grocery chains 3.2 4.2 5.3 8.4 6.0

Restaurants and restaurant chains 2.5 4.0 4.2 1.2 2.3

Industrial end users 35.1 41.6 43.4 42.2 27.7

Refiners and melt houses 21.9 13.4 9.5 10.8 2.3

U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of 

imports from all other sources to: 

 Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

Grocery chains *** *** *** *** ***

Restaurants and restaurant chains *** *** *** *** ***

Industrial end users *** *** *** *** ***

Refiners and melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table II-2 

Sugar: Geographic market areas in the United States served by U.S. producers and importers, by 

number of responding firms 

Region U.S. producers 

U.S. imports 

from Mexico 

Northeast 16 11 

Midwest 13 9 

Southeast 15 13 

Central Southwest 19 10 

Mountains 13 7 

Pacific Coast 14 12 

Other1 4 4 

Present in all continental regions 11 5 

Total responding 22 16 

 1 All other U.S. markets, including AK, HI, PR, and VI, among others. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
II‐3

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. supply

Domestic production

Based on available information, U.S. producers of sugar have the ability to respond to

changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.‐produced sugar

to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are

the availability of some capacity and some inventories. The highly regulated nature of the sugar

industry limits the flexibility of the U.S. producers in adjusting output in response to price

changes. While there are no controls on the amount of sugar produced, sales by individual U.S.

producers are limited by marketing allotments that specify the amount of sugar that they may

sell during a given crop year.

Industry capacity

Domestic refined sugar capacity utilization increased from 82.3 percent in 2010/11 to

82.8 in 2012/13. This moderately high level of capacity utilization suggests that U.S. producers

may have some capacity to increase production of product in response to an increase in prices.

Alternative markets

U.S. refiners’ exports, as a percentage of total shipments, decreased from *** percent

of total shipments in 2010/11 to *** percent of total shipments in 2012/13, indicating that U.S.

producers may have a limited ability to shift shipments between the U.S. market and other

markets in response to price changes.  

Inventory levels

U.S. refiners’ inventories increased from 8.0 percent of total shipments in 2010/11 to

10.2 percent of total shipments in 2012/13. These inventory levels suggest that U.S. producers

may have some ability to respond to changes in demand with changes in the quantity shipped

from inventories.

Production alternatives

No responding U.S. producers stated that they could switch production from sugar to

other products.  

Supply constraints

Three of 22 responding U.S. producers reported having refused, declined, or been

unable to supply sugar since October 1, 2010. U.S. producers cited refiners delaying raw sugar

shipments due to excess sugar, limited production capacity at *** during October 2010 and
II‐4

September 2012, and an inability to meet sales demand during initial startup and periodically

due to mechanical issues in production.

Subject imports from Mexico

Based on available information, producers of sugar from Mexico have the ability to

respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of sugar to the

U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the

existence of inventories and the ability to shift shipments from the Mexican home market.

Industry capacity

Mexican capacity utilization increased from 69.4 in 2010/11 percent to 89.9 percent in

2012/13. This high level of capacity utilization suggests that Mexican producers may have some

capacity to increase production of product in response to an increase in prices.

Alternative markets

Mexican producers’ exports to markets other than the United States, as a percentage of

total shipments rose from *** percent in 2010/11 to 3.2 percent in 2012/13.  Mexican

producers’ shipments to the Mexican market declined from *** percent in 2010‐11 to ***

percent in 2012/13.   This data indicates that Mexican producers may have little ability to shift

shipments between the U.S. market and other export markets in response to price changes, but

have an ability to shift shipments from the Mexican home market.  

Inventory levels

Mexican producers’ inventories as a share of total shipment increased from 15.0

percent in 2010/11 to 22.4 percent in 2012/13. These inventory levels suggest that Mexican

producers may have an ability to respond to changes in demand with changes in the quantity

shipped from inventories.

Production alternatives

None of responding Mexican producers stated that they could switch production from

sugar to other products.  

Supply constraints

Eight of 16 importers reported they have refused, declined, or been unable to supply

sugar since October 1, 2010. Importers cited the tight supply of white sugar during 2012, the

lack of organic sugar, limited production capacity at the *** during October 2010 and

September 2012, transportation and weather issues in Mexico causing low U.S. inventories,

changing market conditions, and aggressive forward pricing from beet sugar producers against

a lack of forward pricing ability for sales of Mexican sugar.
II‐5

Nonsubject imports

The largest sources of nonsubject imports during 2010/11 to 2012/13 were Brazil, the

Dominican Republic, and Philippines; the countries with the largest raw sugar TRQ allocations.

Combined, these countries accounted for 35 percent of nonsubject imports in 2012/13.  

U.S. demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for sugar is likely to experience

small changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the somewhat

limited range of substitute products and the small cost share of sugar in most of its end‐use

products.  

Petitioners cite estimates of the price elasticity of demand for sugar ranging from ‐0.11

to ‐0.30, suggesting that demand is inelastic.1 Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents indicate

that estimates of the price elasticity of demand for sugar that distinguish between food

consumed at and away from home are almost unit elastic, while estimates that didn’t make this

distinction were much more inelastic. They also claim if any of these estimates include types of

sugar not in the like product, the price elasticity of demand for the like product would be higher

because types of sugar not in the like product would be additional substitutes for the like

product.2

End uses

U.S. demand for sugar depends on the demand for U.S.‐produced sugar containing

products. Reported end uses include bakery products, beverages, confectionary products, food

products, and chocolate. Several responding U.S. producers and importers reported changes in

end uses. ***.3 One importer reported a move away from high fructose corn sweeteners and

the introduction of evaporated cane juice as a natural alterative to refined sugar.

Business cycles

A majority of U.S. producers and importers indicated that the market was subject to

business cycles or distinctive conditions of competition. Specifically, firms cited that customer

contracts are made on a crop year basis in line with crop supply and demand. They also cited

seasonal demand during the Fall baking and candy production season and during holiday

periods. The changes in conditions of competition most cited by firms were the ability of

 

1 Petition, pp. 34‐36, Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 19, and email from John Greenwald,

counsel for petitioners, May 1, 2014. 2 Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents’ postconference brief, Exhibit 8, response to “Page 268 Q10.”

3 ***
II‐6

Mexican imports to increase in U.S. market and the increase in the refining capacity since 2012.

CSC Sugar testified that there has been excess U.S. refining capacity for the past 30 years.4

   

Demand trends

Most firms reported an increase in U.S. demand for sugar since October 2010 both in

the U.S. market and outside the U.S. market, typically citing a small increase in demand due to

population growth (table II‐3).

Substitute products

Fourteen of 22 responding U.S. producers and seven of 15 responding importers

indicated that there are substitutes for sugar. HFCS was the most frequently cited substitute

product, although some firms also cited other substitutes such as Aspartame, Agave, dextrose,  

fructose, glucose, and Stevia.  All firms naming HFCS as a substitute indicated that changes in

the price of HFCS have affected the price of sugar.  *** reported that competition from HFCS

creates a price ceiling for sugar.  *** indicated that the competition from HFCS has displaced

sugar in certain applications, but that the collapse in the price of sugar over the past three years

was caused by the surge in imports from Mexico and was independent of competition from

HFCS. Petitioners indicate that there was a major shift from sugar to HFCS in soft drinks and

that HFCS places a ceiling on the price at which sugar could regain the business that it has lost

to HFCS.  They also indicate that there has been no ssignificant substitution of HFCS or other

sweeteners for sugar over the Commission’s period of investigation.5

Cost share

Sugar typically accounts for a small share of the cost of the end‐use products in which it

is used, but a large share of sugar products with less value added such as brown and granulated

sugar. U.S. producers and importers reported cost shares for sugar used in beverages,

chocolate, and other food products ranged from 12 to 15 percent of the cost of the end product

in their questionnaire responses.  Reported cost shares for brown sugar, granulated sugar,

powdered sugar, repackaged sugar, and liquid sucrose ranged from 68 to 100 percent of share

of the products.  Petitioners indicate that the cost of sugar is a small part of the cost of sugar‐

containing foods and other products that use sugar. Petitioners claim that the cost share of

sugar in food products ranges from 1 to 11 percent, citing a 2013 American Sugar Alliance

survey of retail products.6

 

4 Conference transcript, pp. 258‐262 (Farmer). 5 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Part II, Answers to Commission Staff Questions, p. 3.

6 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Part II, Answers to Commission Staff Questions, p. 2.
II‐7

Table II-3 

Sugar: Firms’ responses regarding U.S. demand, by number of responding firms

Item 

Number of firms reporting 

Increase No change Decrease Fluctuate 

Demand inside the United States: 

 U.S. producers 16 1 3 0 

Importers 12 0 2 0 

Demand outside the United States: 

 U.S. producers 15 0 0 1 

Importers 10 0 0 0 

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported sugar depends upon such

factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.),

and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery

dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there

is high degree of substitutability between domestically produced sugar and sugar imported

from Mexico.  

Lead times

Sugar is primarily sold from inventory. U.S. producers reported that about three‐fourths

of their commercial shipments were sold from inventory, with lead‐times typically ranging from

2 to 15 days.  The remaining commercial shipments were produced‐to‐order, with similar lead

times for U.S. producers also selling from inventory, but ranging from 1 to 180 days for U.S.

producers that only produce to order. U.S. importers reported selling about two‐thirds of their

commercial shipments from inventory, with lead times typically ranging from one to five days.

About a quarter of their sales were from foreign inventory, with lead times typically 15 to 30

days. Lead times for their produced‐to‐order sales ranged from 15 to 30 days as well.

Factors affecting purchasing decisions

Petitioners indicate that because sugar supply from different sources is perfectly

substitutable, they compete largely, if not exclusively, on price.7 American Crystal Sugar

Company indicates that price is the main determinant in making a sale, but that customers have

high quality standards, and that service is also important and acts as a “tie‐breaker” in making a

sale. For example, they indicated that American Crystal Sugar’s recent inability to get rail cars

 

7 Petition, p. 37.
II‐8

for sugar delivery to customers was a failure in service in which it lost the “tie‐breaker” with

other competitors.8 Domino Foods indicated that certain customers might be willing to pay

little more for a demonstrated record of exemplary supply.9

Comparison of U.S.‐produced and imported sugar

As shown in table II‐4, about one‐half of U.S. producers indicated that U.S.‐produced

sugar and imported from Mexico is “frequently” interchangeable, while more than 60 percent

of importers responded that U.S.‐produced sugar and imported sugar imported was at least

“frequently” interchangeable. U.S. producers and importers responded similarly when

comparing U.S.‐produced sugar with sugar imported from countries other than Mexico.

Responding firms indicated that interchangeability was limited by food safety considerations,

reliability, perceptions, customer approval of imported sugar, the Mexican and Central

American raw sugar rarely being food grade quality, and differences in taste, grain size, color,

appearance, or labeling of estandar sugar imported from Mexico.

In addition, producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other

than price were significant in sales of sugar from the United States, subject, or nonsubject

countries. As seen in table II‐5, about one‐half of U.S. producers indicated that differences in

factors other than price between sugar produced in the United States and other countries were  

“sometimes” an important factor in their firm’s sales of the products. About 60 percent of

importers indicated that differences in factors other than price between U.S.‐produced sugar

and imported sugar are at least “frequently” important in their sales. Responding firms cited

important non‐price differences such as the lack of flexibility of shipment periods and logistics

chains by U.S. producers, the Jones Act, quality control issues for imported sugar, better

availability of sugar imported from Mexico, high transportation costs for imported sugar, and

proximity to particular customers of both U.S. producers and importers of Mexican sugar.

 

8 Conference transcript, pp. 29, 118‐119 (Berg).

9 Conference transcript, p. 119 (O’Malley).
II‐9

Table II-4 

Sugar: Interchangeability between sugar produced in the United States and in other countries, by 

country pairs 

Country pair 

U.S. Producers U.S. importers 

A F S N A F S N 

United States vs. Mexico 4 10 4 1 6 5 6 0 

United States vs. Other 4 9 3 1 4 5 6 0 

Mexico vs. Other 1 4 4 0 6 3 5 0 

 Note.--A=Always, F=Frequently, S=Sometimes, N=Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table II-5 

Sugar: Significance of differences other than price between sugar produced in the United States 

and in other countries, by country pairs 

Country pair 

U.S. Producers U.S. importers 

A F S N A F S N 

United States vs. Mexico 5 1 9 3 5 6 4 2 

United States vs. Other 2 1 10 3 5 4 4 2 

Mexico vs. Other 0 0 6 1 0 3 6 2 

 Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

III‐1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19

U.S.C. §§ 1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the subsidies was presented in Part I of

this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Part IV and Part V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this

section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of all

segments of the sugar industry in the United States: 1) growers of sugarcane and sugar beets;

2) millers of sugarcane; 3) cane sugar refiners; and 4) processors of beet sugar.1

The Commission issued a U.S. producer questionnaire to the ten firms and/or trade

associations contained in the petition. Twenty‐four firms, representing the vast majority of

sugar production in the United States, provided useable data on their sugar operations. The

Commission received questionnaires from 11 of 13 known sugarcane millers, representing at

least 90 percent2 of raw sugarcane production in 2013/14; from all known sugarcane refiners; 3

and from all known sugar beet processors during 2010/11 to 2012/13. In addition, the

Commission received 93 usable U.S. sugarcane and sugar beet grower questionnaires.4

U.S. SUGAR BEET AND SUGARCANE GROWERS

Sugar beet growers

Sugar beets are currently grown in ten U.S. States: California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan,

Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wyoming.5 The 2007 Census of

Agriculture identified 4,022 farms growing sugar beets in the United States.6 U.S. sugarbeet

processors are farmer‐owned cooperatives;7 most sugar beet farmers lease their land.8

  

                                                      

1 Sugar beet processors produce refined sugar from beets in one continuous process, while refined

sugar produced from sugarcane is typically milled by one firm, and then further refined by another firm.  

There are some sugarcane refiners (see table III‐3) that are also sugarcane millers. 2 The Commission did not receive U.S. producer questionnaires from ***.

3 In addition, the Commission received a questionnaire response from Archer Daniels Midland

Company (“ADM”). ADM produces only liquid sugar and invert sugar at eight sweetener stations located

throughout the United States. ADM’s Answers to Staff Questions at the Conference, April 23, 2014, p. 1.   4 The Commission requested petitioners to provide a list of the ten largest suppliers of sugar beets to

the beet processors, as well as the ten largest suppliers of sugarcane to the cane millers in the last crop

year 2012/13. The Commission sent U.S. grower questionnaires to 132 farms. 5 Compiled from USDA Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook, table 14, retrieved on April 22, 2014 at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/sugar‐and‐sweeteners‐yearbook‐tables.aspx#.U1bAwRB7SQc. 6 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 35. 7 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 18.

8 Conference transcript, p. 24 (Snyder).
III‐2

Sugarbeets are an annual crop, planted in the spring and harvested in the fall.9 After

harvest, the beets are stored for processing into refined sugar through the following winter and

into the spring. Beet processors process those beets into sugar for human consumption all in

one continuous process.10  

Over 90 percent of sugar beets are GMO.11 Commercial planting of GMO sugar beets

began in the United States in 2008, in order to make weed management simpler and more

effective.12 The GMO seed has improved the sugar beet yield somewhat, but it has also

increased the price of seed, up from $50 an acre five years ago to $200 an acre.13

Sugarcane growers

Sugarcane is currently grown in four U.S. States: Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Texas.14

The 2007 Census of Agriculture identified 692 farms growing sugarcane in the United States.15

Sugarcane is a perennial grass that will yield commercially viable sucrose content for three or

more years. Sugarcane fields are replanted or taken out of production in three or four year

cycles. 16 Cane sugar is non‐GMO.17 The sugarcane harvest starts in late September and typically

runs 100 days, harvesting in December.18 U.S. mills typically operate seasonally over the

October‐to‐March harvesting season,19 as sugarcane is best processed within 24 hours after it is

cut.20

Production of sugar beets and sugarcane

Data relating to U.S. growers’ production of sugar beets and sugarcane are presented in

table III‐1. Acres of sugar beets harvested increased by 4.9 percent from 2010/11 to 2011/12

but then started decreasing, by less than one percent from 2011/12 to 2012/13. Production of

sugar beets decreased by 9.8 percent from 2010/11 to 2011/12 and increased overall by 10.0

                                                      

9 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 18.

10 Conference transcript, pp. 20‐21 (Snyder). 11 Conference transcript, p. 56 (Snyder). 12 Diazteca’s postconference brief, p. 4, fn 1, citing GMO Compass, www.gmo‐compass.org.   13 Conference transcript, pp. 57‐58 (Snyder).

14 Compiled from USDA Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook, table 15, retrieved on April 22, 2014 at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/sugar‐and‐sweeteners‐yearbook‐tables.aspx.   15 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 35.

16 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 17. 17 Imperial Sugar, Cane Sugar vs. Beet Sugar, http://www.imperialsugar.com/sugar‐101/cane‐sugar‐

vs‐beet‐sugar, accessed on April 25, 2014.

18 Conference transcript, p. 54 (Landry).

19 The crop year is October through September for Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. The crop year for

Hawaii corresponds with the calendar year.

20 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 17.
III‐3

percent from 2010/11 to 2012/13. Acres of sugarcane increased by 3.6 percent from 2010/11

to 2012/13, while production increased by 18.8 percent over the same period.

Table III-1 

Sugar: U.S. sugar beet and sugarcane production and yield, crop years 2001/02 – 2013/14 

Crop 

year 

Sugar beets Sugarcane 

Acres 

harvested 

(1,000s) 

Production 

(1,000 short 

tons) 

Yield (tons 

per acre) 

Acres 

(1,000s) 

Production 

(1,000 short 

tons) 

Yield (tons 

per acre) 

2001/02 1,243.4 25,764 20.7 970.3 32,775 33.8 

2002/03 1,360.7 27,707 20.4 971.9 33,903 34.9 

2003/04 1,347.8 30,710 22.8 930.6 31,942 34.3 

2004/05 1,306.7 30,021 23.0 879.5 27,243 31.0 

2005/06 1,242.9 27,433 22.1 858.2 24,728 28.8 

2006/07 1,303.6 34,064 26.1 846.6 27,962 33.0 

2007/08 1,246.8 31,834 25.5 827.9 28,273 34.2 

2008/09 1,004.5 26,881 26.8 821.6 26,131 31.8 

2009/10 1,148.5 29,783 25.9 817.0 28,484 34.9 

2010/11 1,156.1 32,034 27.7 825.3 25,663 31.1 

2011/12 1,213.2 28,896 23.8 827.1 27,738 33.5 

2012/13 1,204.1 35,224 29.3 854.9 30,500 35.7 

2013/14 1,154.2 32,837 28.5 858.1 29,705 34.6 

Source: Compiled from USDA Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook, tables 14 and 15, retrieved on April 22, 

2014 at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx. 

 

Table III‐2 presents a summary of production data received from sugar beet and

sugarcane farmers, based on 93 usable questionnaire responses. Seventy‐three farms reported

that they are members of a sugarcane or sugar beet cooperative and 10 farms reported that its

membership in the cooperative has changed during the past three growing seasons. Data

received represents 21.0 percent of sugar production21 and 19.4 percent of sugarcane and

sugar beets harvested22 in 2012/13. All responding growers support the petition.

                                                      

21 Coverage is based on responding growers reported production (13.832 million short tons) and

USDA total sugar beet and sugarcane production (65.724 million short tons). 22 Coverage is based on responding growers reported acreage harvested (401,584) and USDA total

acres of sugar beets and sugarcane (2.059 million).
III‐4

Table III-2 

Sugar: Reported U.S. sugar beet and sugarcane production and yield, crop years 2011/12 – 

2013/14 

Item 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

Acres planted (acres) 278,452 283,970 296,922

Acres harvested (acres) 358,743 374,404 400,153

Production Q (1,000 short tons) 10,925 12,172 13,781

Yield (tons per acre) 30.5 32.5 34.4

Average number of PRWs 2,530 2,813 2,772

PRW Hours Worked (1,000 hours) 4,785 4,986 5,196

PRW Wages Paid ($1,000s) 86,222 93,227 101,423

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Farms were asked to report any changes in their operations since October 2010.

Changes reported are presented in the following tabulation:23

Event 

Number of 

reporting farms 

Purchase or expansion of land 52 

Sale or reduction of land 14 

Increase in production of sugarcane or sugar beets 46 

Decrease in production of sugarcane or sugar beets 35 

Adverse weather conditions affecting crop yield 52 

Labor disputes or shortages 15 

Farms listed weather conditions, including drought, and land availability as the primary

constraints that limit growing capabilities. Other constraints included company marketing

allocations, proper crop rotations (sugar beets only), machinery, and labor. ***.

U.S. SUGARCANE MILLERS, CANE REFINERS, AND SUGAR BEET PROCESSORS

Because it becomes increasingly difficult to recover sucrose from sugarcane once it has

been cut, sugarcane mills are located close to cane producing areas. There are 13 sugarcane

millers in the United States operating in Hawaii, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Once raw cane

sugar is milled it is shipped to a refiner for further processing. There are six sugarcane refineries

in the United States, including Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar and United States Sugar

Corporation which have vertically integrated milling and refining operations. Beet processing is

a continuous process, as was detailed in Part I. There are seven sugar beet processors,

                                                      

23 The Commission gathered data from the beet processors’ and the sugarcane miller/refiners’ ten

largest supplier farms in the preliminary phase of these investigations. These farms may not accurately

represent the average farm profile.  
III‐5

operating in 15 locations in the following states:  California, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, and Wyoming.

In addition to sugarcane millers, sugarcane refiners, and sugar beet processors, the

Petitioners have identified another segment of the sugar market involved in producing liquid

sugar.  Petitioners claim that these “melt houses" do not produce edible sugar from sugar beets

or from raw cane sugar; rather they liquefy the sugar that has been produced by refiners.

Petitioners state that unlike refiners, melt houses cannot make refined sugar from raw cane

sugar. Melt houses must obtain edible sugar ‐ refined or estandar ‐ from producers in the

United States, mills in Mexico, or producers in other countries. Melt houses do not increase the

purity of the sugar. Cane refiners, on the other hand, take any form of raw cane sugar or

estandar, and engage in a number of steps and processes, including affination, defecation,24

clarification, absorption, and crystallization to reduce impurities, before evaporating it to create

granulated sugar. Melt houses are simply adding water to create liquid sugar. 25 Petitioners

estimate that there are 20 current companies or entities in the United States that are engaged

in melting sugar to produce liquid sugar.26

The Commission received questionnaires from eleven firms that produce liquid sugar –

***.  

CSC Sugar identifies itself as a true refining operation, operating five refineries that

produce liquid sugar and invert syrup. Its U.S. facilities has been inspected by USDA and

determined to constitute refineries for the purposed of the U.S. Refined Sugar Re‐Export

Program.27 CSC’s U.S. facilities can take sugar with a polarimeter reading (purity) of 98.5% and

refine that input product until it reaches a purity level of over 99.9% (the standard applied to

refined sugar).28 CSC refineries use carbon, ion exchange resin, diatomaceous earth, and press

filtration to purify raw sugar into its refined form.29 CSC’s newest plant in Pennsylvania uses a

proprietary piece of equipment specially designed by CSC that is unique to the industry.30 CSC

                                                      

24 Defecation is a clarification process to purify sugar juice during the refining process.  It generally

involves the addition of lime (calcium oxide) to the sugar juice, heating the mixture, and removing the

resulting precipitate of non‐sucrose substances.  Meade, George P. and James C. P. Chen, Cane Sugar

Handbook, Tenth Edition, 1977, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 110‐111.

25 Petition, p. 11, fn. 14 and pp. 28‐30.

26 Seven of them have multiple facilities, as follows:  ADM (8), Cargill (4), CSC (4), Indiana Sugars (3),

International Food Products (2), Carry Transit (2), and Sweetener Products (2). The remaining 14 entities

have only one facility each. One such company, Zucarmex, based in Mexico, has only announced their

intention to build a melting facility in Tucson, AZ. Petitioner’s postconference brief, Exhibit 5,

Declaration of Brian O’Malley.

27 CSC’s postconference statement, p. 1 and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural

Service, “Licensees operating under 7 CFR 1530,” undated, available at

http://apps.fas.usda.gov/sugars/FASSugarsLicensees.aspx (accessed April 21, 2014).

28 CSC’s postconference statement, pp. 3‐4 and Conference transcript, pp. 183, 208 (Farmer).

29 Conference transcript, p. 183 (Farmer).

30 CSC’s postconference statement, p. 4.
III‐6

has invested $*** in its refining operations over the past six years.31 The Commission has

examined value added by firms. A valued‐added calculation shows two ratios: (1) a ratio of the

sum of direct factory labor and factory overhead costs (conversion costs) to cost of goods sold

(COGS); and (2) a ratio of conversion costs plus selling, general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A) to the sum of COGS and SG&A. CSC Sugar’s ratio of conversion costs to COGS is

between *** percent and *** percent during the period for which data was collected. The ratio

of conversion costs plus SG&A is between *** percent and *** percent.

ADM produces liquid sugar and invert sugar using refined sugar at sweetener stations. It

does not use the term “melt house” to describe its operations.32 ADM’s sales of sugar products

exceeded $*** in 2013 and was *** percent of the company’s total sales in 2013. ADM’s input

material for liquid sugar and invert sugar is domestic refined sugar, not estandar or raw sugar.33

ADM has invested a total of more than $*** in its sweetener stations in assets relating the

sugar business.34 ADM’s ratio of conversion costs to COGS is between *** percent and ***

percent during the period for which data was collected. The ratio of conversion costs plus SG&A

is between *** percent and *** percent.

Table III‐3 presents U.S. producers’ nature of operations, ownership, related and/or

affiliated firms, and Table III‐4 lists U.S. producers of sugar, their production locations, positions

on the petition, and shares of total reported raw and refined production.

                                                      

31 CSC’s postconference statement, p. 8.

32 ADM’s Answers to Staff Questions at the Conference, April 23, 2014, pp. 1‐2.

33 ADM’s Answers to Staff Questions at the Conference, April 23, 2014, p. 2.

34 ADM’s Answers to Staff Questions at the Conference, April 23, 2014, p. 4., and correction

contained in U.S. Producer Response Revision, April 25, 2014.
III‐7

Table III-3 

Sugar: U.S. producers’ nature of operations, ownership, related and/or affiliated firms 

Firm Ownership and related firms 

Cane Millers 

Cora Texas ***. 

Florida Crystals Corporation ***. 

Lafourche Sugars ***. 

Louisiana Sugar Cooperative, Inc. 

(“LASUCA”) ***. 

Lula-Westfield ***. 

M. A. Patout & Son, Limited ***. 

Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers ***. 

St. Mary Sugar Cooperative, Inc. ***. 

Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of 

Florida ***. 

Cane Millers & Refiners 

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. ***. 

United States Sugar Corporation ***. 

Cane Refiners 

AmCane Sugar ***. 

American Sugar Holdings ***. 

Imperial Sugar Company ***. 

Louisiana Sugar Refining ***. 

Beet Processors 

American Crystal Sugar Company ***. 

Michigan Sugar Company ***. 

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop ***. 

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar 

Cooperative ***. 

The Amalgamated Sugar Company ***. 

The Western Sugar Cooperative ***. 

Wyoming Sugar Growers ***. 

Refiners that primarily produce liquid sugar 

Archer Daniels Midland ***. 

CSC Sugar ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
III‐8

Table III-4 

Sugar: U.S. producers, their position on the petition, location of production, and share of 

reported production, October 2010 through December 2013 

Firm 

Position on 

petition Production location(s)

Share of 

stand 

alone raw 

sugar 

production 

(percent) 

Share of 

refined 

sugar 

production 

(percent) 

AmCane Sugar *** Taylor, MI *** ***

American Crystal Sugar Company *** Moorhead, MN *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** 

Yonkers, NY 

Arabi, LA 

Baltimore, MD 

Crockett, CA 

South Bay FL *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** 

Decatur, IL 

(headquarters) *** ***

CSC Sugar *** New Canaan, CT *** ***

Florida Crystals Corporation *** 

South Bay, FL 

Pahokee, FL *** ***

Imperial Sugar Company *** 

Wentworth, GA 

Gramercy, LA 

Ludlow, KY 

Wilton, CT *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** Gramercy, LA *** ***

LASUCA *** St. Martinville, LA *** ***

Lula-Westfield *** Paincourtville, LA *** ***

M. A. Patout & Son *** 

Jeanerette, LA 

Raceland, LA 

Franklin, LA *** ***

Michigan Sugar Company *** 

Bay City, MI 

Caro, MI 

Croswell, MI 

Sebewaing, MI *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** Wahpeton, ND *** ***

Table continued on next page.   
III‐9

Table III-4--Continued 

Sugar: U.S. producers, their position on the petition, location of production, and share of 

reported production, October 2010 through December 2013 

Firm 

Position on 

petition Production location(s)

Share of 

standalone raw 

sugar 

production 

(percent) 

Share of 

refined 

sugar 

production 

(percent) 

Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers *** Santa Rosa, TX *** ***

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar 

Cooperative *** 

Renville, MN 

Brawley, CA *** ***

St. Mary Sugar Cooperative *** Jeanerette, LA *** ***

Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative 

of Florida *** Belle Glade, FL *** ***

The Amalgamated Sugar Company *** Boise, ID *** ***

The Western Sugar Cooperative *** 

Billings, MT 

Fort Morgan, CO 

Lovell, WY 

Scottsbluff, NE 

Torrington, WY *** ***

United States Sugar Corporation *** Clewiston, FL *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** Worland, WY *** ***

Cora Texas *** White Castle, LA *** ***

Lafourche Sugars *** Thibodaux, LA *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** Puunene HI *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

As indicated in table III‐4, *** related to Mexican producers35 of sugar and *** related

to U.S. importers of sugar from Mexico. In addition, as discussed in greater detail below, five

U.S. producers directly import the subject merchandise and five purchase the subject

merchandise from U.S. importers.  

Producers were asked to report any changes in operations since October 2010. There

were three reported plant openings and three closings. ***.

There were three reported expansions. ***.

There were two reported acquisitions. ***.  

There was one reported consolidation. ***.

There were three reported prolonged shutdowns or production curtailments. ***.

In addition, ***.   

                                                      

35 In addition, ***.  
III‐10

U.S. PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Official USDA statistics regarding U.S. sugar production from sugar beets and sugarcane

is presented in table III‐5.

Table III-5 

Sugar: U.S. sugar production, crop years 2001/02 – 2013/14 

Crop year

Production (1,000 STRV) Share (percent) 

Beet sugar Cane sugar Total Beet sugar Cane sugar 

2000/01 4,680 4,089 8,769 53.4 46.6 

2001/02 3,915 3,985 7,900 49.6 50.4 

2002/03 4,462 3,964 8,426 53.0 47.0 

2003/04 4,692 3,957 8,649 54.3 45.7 

2004/05 4,611 3,265 7,876 58.5 41.5 

2005/06 4,444 2,955 7,399 60.1 39.9 

2006/07 5,008 3,438 8,445 59.3 40.7 

2007/08 4,721 3,431 8,152 57.9 42.1 

2008/09 4,166 3,318 7,484 55.7 44.3 

2009/10 4,575 3,400 7,975 57.4 42.6 

2010/11 4,659 3,172 7,831 59.5 40.5 

2011/12 4,900 3,588 8,488 57.7 42.3 

2012/13 5,078 3,904 8,982 56.5 43.5 

Source: Compiled from USDA Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook, table 16, retrieved on April 22, 2014 at 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx. 

 

Table III‐6 and figures III‐1 and III‐2 present U.S. producers’ reported production,

capacity, and capacity utilization. U.S. capacity for sugar production increased between

2010/11 and 2012/13 by 6.5 percent, while production of refined sugar increased by 7.2

percent.
III‐11

Table III-6 

Sugar: U.S. producers' capacity, production, and capacity utilization, crop years 2010/11 through 

2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year 

October to 

December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

U.S. millers' stand-alone raw sugar operations:1

 Capacity *** *** *** *** ***

Production *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio (percent) 

Capacity utilization, raw sugar *** *** *** *** ***

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

U.S. processors' and refiners' sugar operations:1

 Capacity 12,536 13,402 13,346 4,012 3,952

Production 10,312 10,595 11,053 3,405 3,177

 Ratio (percent) 

Capacity utilization, refined sugar 82.3 79.1 82.8 84.9 80.4

 

Share of refined sugar production by source of 

input (percent) 

Refined sugar produced from.--2

 Domestic inputs 74.9 76.1 80.5 85.9 84.8

Inputs imported from Mexico 7.4 2.8 11.7 3.9 10.4

Inputs imported from sources other than Mexico 17.7 21.2 7.9 10.2 4.8

Subtotal, imported inputs 25.1 23.9 19.5 14.1 15.2

Total production 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 Stand-alone raw sugar data (i.e., millers) relate to firms that first produce raw sugar as an intermediate 

product in the production of refined sugar in non-continuous operations, which they either sell 

commercially or internally consume as an input in refined sugar production. Refined sugar data (i.e., 

refiners and processors) relate to production of sugar from either an agricultural input (sugarcane or 

sugar beet) or the intermediate product of raw sugar. Refined sugar data can encompass milling 

operations for those sugarcane refiners with continuous operations or its equivalent in the sugar beet 

industry, which historically has always been an integrated production process with no distinct intermediate 

product produced, stored, or sold. 

2 Inputs are understood to be either agricultural sugar crops (sugar beets or sugarcane) or raw (or "semirefined") sugar destined for further processing. It is understood that the vast majority of U.S. production 

using imported inputs use the semi-finished raw or refined sugar as the input. 

Note.—***. In addition, ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
III‐12

Figure III-1 

Sugar: U.S. millers' capacity, production, and capacity utilization, crop years 2010/11 through 

2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Table III-5. 

Figure III-2 

Sugar: U.S. refiners' and processors’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, crop years 

2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

 Source: Table III-5. 

Cane refineries ideally run on a continuous basis, 12 days on, two days off. Thus,

capacity can be defined as 312 operating days in a year times the average daily melt rate.36

Sugar beet processors define capacity according to the tons of sugar beets that can be sliced

daily. Machines typically run continuously from early September‐late August, and through May

or sometimes June.37

No U.S. producer reported the ability to switch production (capacity) between sugar and

other products using the same equipment and/or labor.38 Many firms did report that molasses

is produced on the same equipment and machinery used to produce sugar. Molasses is,

however, a byproduct or co‐product of sugar production.39 *** indicated that “byproducts

(such as molasses) are produced when making sugar and cannot be produced on a standalone

                                                      

36 Conference transcript, p. 73 (O’Malley).

37 Conference transcript, p. 74 (Berg).

38 Questionnaire responses, II‐5.

39 Conference transcript, p. 76 (O’Malley).

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2012-13 2013-14

Calendar year October to December

Ratio

(percent)

Quantity

(1,000 STRV)

Capacity (left-axis) Production (left-axis) Capacity utilization (right-axis)
III‐13

basis.”40 Accordingly, it is not the primary product refiners specifically seek out to produce.41

Furthermore, molasses production does not displace sugar production.42  

Reported constraints in the manufacturing process for the cane millers include weather,

the total amount of sugarcane that is available for processing, and the clarifier capacity. Cane

refineries generally reported that production is constrained by the raw sugar supply. Imperial

Sugar stated that ***43 Sugar beet processors reported the following constraints to production:

sugar content and quality of the beets, weather, beet slicing capacity, crystallizing equipment

sizes, shipping capacity, environmental permits, and USDA marketing allocations. CSC Sugar ***

and ADM ***.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORTS

Table III‐7 presents U.S. millers’ U.S. shipments and table III‐8 presents U.S. refiners’ U.S.

shipments, export shipments and total shipments. The quantity of U.S. refiners’ and processors’

U.S. shipments increased from 2010/11 to 2012/13 by *** percent, while the value of their U.S.

shipments decreased by *** percent. The unit values of U.S. shipments decreased by ***

percent from 2010/11 to 2012/13. U.S. producers reported exports to be less than two percent

of total shipments during 2010/11 to 2012/13. *** U.S. producers reported exporting to ***.

Domino Foods estimates that it exports less than five percent of its total production.44

Table III-7 

Sugar: U.S. millers' (i.e., raw sugar) U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments, crop 

years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

                                                      

40 *** U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, II‐3c. 41 Conference transcript, p. 86 (Greenwald).

42 Conference transcript, pp. 85‐86 (Berg).

43 Imperial Sugar further explained, ***. 44 Conference transcript, p. 78 (O’Malley).
III‐14

Table III-8 

Sugar: U.S. refiners' and processors’ (i.e., refined sugar) U.S. shipments, export shipments, and 

total shipments, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

Commercial U.S. shipments 9,931 10,173 10,704 2,563 2,809

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 10,224 10,432 10,878 2,604 2,862

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

Commercial U.S. shipments 7,725,754 8,494,212 7,729,096 2,015,566 1,812,010

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 7,945,956 8,691,050 7,863,196 2,050,043 1,847,757

 Unit value (dollars per STRV) 

Commercial U.S. shipments 777.94 834.98 722.08 786.41 645.07

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 777.16 833.14 722.88 787.20 645.58

 Share of quantity (percent) 

Commercial U.S. shipments 97.1 97.5 98.4 98.4 98.1

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Share of value (percent) 

Commercial U.S. shipments 97.2 97.7 98.3 98.3 98.1

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
III‐15

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III‐9 presents U.S. producers’ end‐of‐period inventories and the ratio of these

inventories to U.S. producers’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments over the period

examined. U.S. millers’ inventories of sugar increased by *** percent from 2010/11 to 2012/13,

while U.S. refiners’ inventories of sugar increased by 36.2 percent. Inventories of refined sugar

relative to total shipments increased by 2.2 percentage points from 2010/11 to 2012/13.  

Table III-9 

Sugar: U.S. producers' inventories, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and 

Oct-Dec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

U.S. millers' end-of-period 

inventories *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio (percent) 

Ratio of inventories to.-- 

 U.S. Production *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

U.S. processors' and refiners' endof-period inventories 815 956 1,110 1,737 1,405

 Ratio (percent) 

Ratio of inventories to.-- 

 U.S. Production 7.9 9.0 10.0 12.8 11.1

U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 8.0 9.2 10.2 16.7 12.3

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Nine U.S. producers’ reported imports and/or purchases of imported sugar since

October 1, 2010. Data for each of the nine companies are presented in tables III‐10 through III‐

18. ***.
III‐16

Table III-10 

Sugar: *** purchases of imports and production from imported inputs, crop years 2010/11 through 

2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table III-11 

Sugar: *** imports and production from imports, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 

2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table III-12 

Sugar: *** purchases of imports and production from imported imports, crop years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table III-13 

Sugar: *** imports and production from imports, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 

2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table III-14 

Sugar: *** imports and production from imports, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 

2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table III-15 

Sugar: *** imports, purchases of imports and production from imported inputs, crop years 

2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
III‐17

Table III-16 

Sugar: *** imports and production from imports, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 

2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table III-17 

Sugar: *** purchases of imports and production from imported imports, crop years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table III-18 

Sugar: *** purchases of imports and production from imported imports, crop years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Table III-19 presents data on the estimated value added of U.S. shipments of refining operations. 

Table III-19 

Sugar: Estimated value added of U.S. shipments of U.S. refining operations, by source, crop 

years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table III‐20 shows U.S. producers’ employment‐related data during the period

examined. The level of production‐related workers (PRWs) decreased by *** percent; total

hours worked decreased by *** percent; wages paid increased by *** percent; and productivity

increased by *** percent. Hourly wages increased for both cane millers and processors and

refiners from 2010/11 to 2012/13.
III‐18

Table III-20 

Sugar: U.S. producers' employment related data, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 

2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 U.S. millers 

Production-Related Workers (PRWs) 

(number) *** *** *** *** ***

Total hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** ***

Hours worked per PRW (hours) *** *** *** *** ***

Wages paid ($1,000) *** *** *** *** ***

Hourly wages (dollars per hour) $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Productivity (STRV per 1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** ***

Unit labor costs (dollars per STRV) $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

 U.S. processors and U.S. refiners 

Production-Related Workers (PRWs) 

(number) 9,713 8,444 9,134 9,702 10,242 

Total hours worked (1,000 hours) 20,262 18,177 19,824 5,506 5,812 

Hours worked per PRW (hours) 2,086 2,153 2,170 568 567 

Wages paid ($1,000) 456,655 421,203 463,383 128,820 137,115 

Hourly wages (dollars per hour) $22.54 $23.17 $23.37 $23.40 $23.59 

Productivity (STRV per 1,000 hours) 508.9 582.9 557.6 618.4 546.6 

Unit labor costs (dollars per STRV) $44 $40 $42 $38 $43 

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
IV‐1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, AND MARKET

SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 28 firms believed to be importers of

subject sugar, as well as to all U.S. producers of sugar.1 Usable questionnaire responses were

received from 19 companies, representing 82.0 percent2 of total imports of sugar from Mexico,

and *** percent3 of total imports of sugar from all other sources between October 2010 and

December 2013. Table IV‐1 lists all responding U.S. importers of sugar from Mexico and other

sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in October 2010 through December

2013.   

 

1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition,***.   2 Coverage was based on total reported imports from Mexico during October 2010 through

December 2013 (4.387 million STRV) versus official import statistics (5.351 million STRV).

3 Coverage was based on total reported imports from nonsubject sources during October 2010

through December 2013 (*** million STRV) versus Customs data which includes TRQ HTS numbers

(6.404 million STRV).
IV‐2

Table IV-1 

Sugar: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of total imports by source, October 2010 

through December 2013 

Firm Headquarters 

Share of imports by source 

(percent) 

Mexico 

All other 

sources 

Total 

imports 

Able Sales Company, Inc. San Juan, PR *** *** ***

AmCane Sugar LLC Taylor, MI *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings, Inc.1 Yonkers, NY *** *** ***

B&M Sugar Products, LLC Miami, FL *** *** ***

Barry Callebaut USA LLC2 Chicago, IL *** *** ***

Blackhive Corporation, Inc.3 Fayetteville, AR *** *** ***

C. Czarnikow Sugar Inc.4 Miami, FL *** *** ***

Cargill Inc.5 Minneapolis, MN *** *** ***

CSC Sugar, LLC6 New Canaan, CT *** *** ***

Diazteca, Co Rio Rico, AZ *** *** ***

E D & F Man Sugar Inc.7 Miami, FL *** *** ***

Evergreen Sweeteners Hallandale Beach, FL *** *** ***

H-E-B Grocery Co. San Antonio, TX *** *** ***

LD Commodities Sugar Holdings LLC 

(including Imperial Sugar Company and LD 

Commodities Sugar Merchandising LLC)8

 Wilton, CT *** *** ***

Peachtree Commodities, LLC Norcross , GA *** *** ***

Royal Ingredients, LLC9 Swedesboro, NJ *** *** ***

Sucden Americas Corporation10 Miami, FL *** *** ***

Walrus Trading, LLC11 Houston, TX *** *** ***

Zucrum Foods LLC dba Zucarmex USA12 Nogales, AZ *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1 American Sugar Holdings is ***. 

2 Barry Callebaut USA ***. 

3 Blackhive’s ***. 

4 C. Czarnikow Sugar’s ***. 

5 Cargill’s ***. 

6 CSC Sugar is ***. 

7 E D & F Man Sugar is ***. 

8 LD Commodities Sugar Holdings is ***. 

9 Royal Ingredients is ***. 

10 Sucden Americas is ***. 

11 Walrus Trading is ***. 12 Zucrum Foods is ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
IV‐3

U.S. IMPORTS   

Tables IV‐2 and IV‐3 and Figure IV‐1 present data for U.S. imports of sugar from Mexico

and all other sources. Import data is based on official import statistics, HTS statistical reporting

numbers, 1701.11.1000 (historical), 1701.11.5000 (historical), 1701.12.1000,1701.12.5000,

1701.13.1000, 1701.13.5000, 1701.14.1000, 1701.14.5000, 1701.91.1000,

1701.91.3000,1701.99.1020 (historical), 1701.99.1025, 1701.99.1030 (historical), 1701.99.1050,

1701.99.5020 (historical), 1701.99.5025, 1701.99.5030 (historical), 1701.99.5050, and

1702.90.4000.4

In 2012, HTS subheading 1701.11, which had covered raw “cane sugar” was

discontinued and replaced by 1701.13, “Cane sugar specified in subheading note 2 to this

schedule” (non‐centrifugal sugar), and 1701.14, “Other cane sugar.” These new subheadings

are subdivided into 8‐digit tariff rate lines to administer the TRQ, but no statistical reporting

numbers exist under them. To present an accurate data set from October 2010 through

December 2013, HTS heading 1701.11 is also included in import data throughout this report. In

2012, HTS statistical subheadings 1701.99.1020 and 1701.99.1030 were broken out into

1701.99.1025, 1701.99.1050 and 1701.99.1010 (out of scope).  

Likewise, HTS statistical subheadings 1701.99.5020 and 1701.99.5030 were replaced by  

1701.99.5025, 1701.99.5050, and 1701.99.5010 (out of scope). To present an accurate data set

from October 2010 through December 2013, HTS statistical subheadings 1701.99.1020,

1701.99.1030, 1701.99.5020, and 1701.99.5030 are also included in import data throughout

this report.

Imports of sugar from Mexico decreased from 2010/11 to 2011/12 by 35.6 percent, but

increased overall from 2010/11 to 2012/13 by 25.2 percent. Imports of sugar from nonsubject

sources increased from 2010/11 to 2011/12 by 20.8 percent, but decreased overall from

2010/11 to 2012/13 by 41.6 percent.

   

 

4 All import data are reported on a raw value basis. HTS items identified as refined or specialty sugars

were converted to a raw basis by multiplying by 1.07. HTS items identified as raw sugar were not

converted. This method may slightly understate the true raw basis of these imports, since some product

entering as raw sugar in the HTS may have a polarity level less than 99.5 (the HTS definition of raw

sugar) but more 93.0 degrees (the polarity for which raw sugar converts to 100 percent refined sugar

using the 1.07 conversion rate).
IV‐4

Table IV-2 

Sugar: U.S. imports, by source, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012-13, and OctDec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 1,650 1,062 2,066 272 573 

All other sources 1,532 1,850 895 338 189 

Total U.S. imports 3,183 2,912 2,962 610 762 

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 1,261,924 849,049 1,042,185 176,964 256,880 

All other sources 1,086,181 1,298,815 497,767 206,235 87,963 

Total U.S. imports 2,348,105 2,147,864 1,539,952 383,199 344,843 

 Unit value (dollars per STRV) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 765 799 504 650 448 

All other sources 709 702 556 611 466 

Total U.S. imports 738 737 520 628 453 

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 51.9 36.5 69.8 44.7 75.2 

All other sources 48.1 63.5 30.2 55.3 24.8 

Total U.S. imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 Share of value (percent) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 53.7 39.5 67.7 46.2 74.5 

All other sources 46.3 60.5 32.3 53.8 25.5 

Total U.S. imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 Ratio to U.S. refined sugar production (percent) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 16.0 10.0 18.7 8.0 18.0 

All other sources 14.9 17.5 8.1 9.9 5.9 

Total U.S. imports 30.9 27.5 26.8 17.9 24.0 

Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics.
IV‐5

Table IV-3 

Sugar: U.S. imports, by source and type of sugar, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 

2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

U.S. imports from Mexico.-- 

 Raw sugar 495 134 761 50 275 

Refined sugar 1,156 928 1,305 222 298 

Other sugars 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total U.S. imports from Mexico 1,650 1,062 2,066 272 573 

U.S. imports from nonsubject sources--

 Raw sugar 1,464 1,516 803 292 175 

Refined sugar 68 332 86 45 13 

Other sugars (

1

) 2 7 1 1 

 Total U.S. imports from nonsubject 

sources 1,532 1,850 895 338 189 

 Share of type by source (percent) 

U.S. imports from Mexico.-- 

 Raw sugar 30.0 12.6 36.8 18.4 48.0 

Refined sugar 70.0 87.4 63.2 81.6 52.0 

Other sugars 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Total U.S. imports from Mexico 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

U.S. imports from nonsubject sources--

 Raw sugar 95.5 82.0 89.7 86.4 92.5 

Refined sugar 4.5 18.0 9.6 13.5 6.8 

Other sugars (

2

) 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.6 

 Total U.S. imports from nonsubject 

 sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 Share of source by type (percent) 

U.S. imports from Mexico.-- 

 Raw sugar 25.3 8.1 48.7 14.6 61.2 

Refined sugar 94.4 73.6 93.8 83.0 95.8 

Other sugars 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Total U.S. imports from Mexico 51.9 36.5 69.8 44.7 75.2 

U.S. imports from nonsubject sources--

 Raw sugar 74.7 91.9 51.3 85.4 38.8 

Refined sugar 5.6 26.4 6.2 17.0 4.2 

Other sugars 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 Total U.S. imports from nonsubject 

 sources 48.1 63.5 30.2 55.3 24.8 

1

 less than 500 short tons raw value. 

2

 Less than 0.05 percent 

Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics. 
IV‐6

Figure IV-1 

Sugar: U.S. imports, by source, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and OctDec 2013/14 

 

Source: Table IV-2. 

Table IV‐4 presents data for U.S. imports of sugar from the top nonsubject sources. The

leading nonsubject source of sugar imports is Brazil, which accounted for 5.6 percent of total

imports in 2012/13.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14

Calendar year October to December

(dollars per STRV)

Average unit value

Quantity

(1,000 STRV)

Subject import volume (left-axis) Nonsubject import volume (left-axis)

Subject AUV (right-axis) Nonsubject AUV (right-axis)
IV‐7

Table IV-4 

Sugar: U.S. imports from major nonsubject sources, by source, crop years 2010/11 through 

2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Quantity (STRV) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Brazil 252,509 412,864 164,843 156,000 27,811 

Dominican Republic 221,599 221,824 101,992 1,028 5 

Philippines 71,823 68,110 82,684 26,105 5,082 

Guatemala 107,590 158,632 81,343 15,642 27,523 

Colombia 213,526 264,307 59,582 12 31,085 

El Salvador 136,979 136,314 59,525 59,525 69,446 

Australia 6,917 97,566 58,127 18,469 12,016 

Argentina 71,003 61,689 54,654 3,268 0 

Nicaragua 66,987 53,434 42,792 12,041 0 

Republic of South Africa 48,439 46,077 40,106 0 0 

All other nonsubject sources 334,842 329,503 149,659 45,538 15,857 

Total imports from nonsubject 

sources 1,532,213 1,850,321 895,305 337,629 188,824 

 Share of total imports (percent) 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Brazil 7.9 14.2 5.6 25.6 3.7 

Guatemala 7.0 7.6 3.4 0.2 (1) 

El Salvador 2.3 2.3 2.8 4.3 0.7 

Dominican Republic 3.4 5.4 2.7 2.6 3.6 

Philippines 6.7 9.1 2.0 (

1

) 4.1 

Colombia 4.3 4.7 2.0 9.8 9.1 

Australia 0.2 3.3 2.0 3.0 1.6 

Argentina 2.2 2.1 1.8 0.5 0.0 

Costa Rica 2.1 1.8 1.4 2.0 0.0 

Nicaragua 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 

All other nonsubject sources 10.5 11.3 5.1 7.5 2.1 

Total imports from nonsubject 

sources 48.1 63.5 30.2 55.3 24.8 

1

 Less than 0.05 percent. 

Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics. 

 
IV‐8

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury

determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.5 Negligible

imports are generally defined in the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country

of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product where such imports account for less

than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the

most recent 12‐month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the

petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of such merchandise

from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that individually

account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the

imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all

such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12‐month period, then

imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.6 Imports of sugar from Mexico

accounted for 74.38 percent7 of total imports of sugar by quantity during the 12‐month period

of April 2013 through March 2014.

.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table IV‐5 and Figure IV‐2 presents data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market

shares for sugar over the period examined. Apparent U.S. consumption, based on quantity,

decreased by 0.2 percent from 2010/11 to 2011/12 but increased overall by 8.6 percent from

2010/11 to 2012/13. Apparent U.S. consumption, based on value, increased by 6.2 percent

from 2010/11 to 2011/12 but decreased overall by 3.4 percent from 2010/11 to 2012/13. U.S.

producers’ share of apparent U.S. consumption, based on quantity, increased steadily from

2010/11 to 2012/13, increasing by 4.2 percentage points. The market share of imports of sugar

from Mexico increased by 2.3 percentage points over the period, while the market share of

nonsubject imports decreased by 6.6 percentage points over the period.

 

5 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1),

1671d(b)(1), 1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

6 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). 7 Total imports were 3,156,555 metric tons raw value; imports from Mexico were 2,347,873 metric

tons raw value. USDA Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook, "Table 61 ‐‐ U.S. monthly sugar imports, fiscal

years (FYs) 2008‐14". http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/sugar‐and‐sweeteners‐yearbook‐

tables.aspx.  
IV‐9

Table IV-5 

Sugar: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, OctDec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments1 7,555 7,806 8,697 2,117 2,331 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 1,650 1,062 2,066 272 573 

All other sources 1,532 1,850 895 338 189 

Total U.S. imports 3,183 2,912 2,962 610 762 

Apparent U.S. consumption 10,738 10,719 11,659 2,727 3,093 

 Value (1,000 dollars)

2

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments1 5,642,656 6,334,965 6,180,960 1,625,511 1,475,719 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 1,261,924 849,049 1,042,185 176,964 256,880 

All other sources 1,086,181 1,298,815 497,767 206,235 87,963 

Total U.S. imports 2,348,105 2,147,864 1,539,952 383,199 344,843 

Apparent U.S. consumption 7,990,761 8,482,828 7,720,911 2,008,710 1,820,562 

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 70.4 72.8 74.6 77.6 75.4 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 15.4 9.9 17.7 10.0 18.5 

All other sources 14.3 17.3 7.7 12.4 6.1 

Total U.S. imports 29.6 27.2 25.4 22.4 24.6 

 Share of value (percent) 

U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 70.6 74.7 80.1 80.9 81.1 

U.S. imports from.-- 

 Mexico 15.8 10.0 13.5 8.8 14.1 

All other sources 13.6 15.3 6.4 10.3 4.8 

Total U.S. imports 29.4 25.3 19.9 19.1 18.9 

1

 U.S. producers' U.S. shipments includes only those refined shipments from U.S. inputs (i.e., fully 

attributable to U.S. production activities). U.S. shipments of imported inputs further refined in the United 

States have been removed from this line to avoid double counting. Some of the imports from Mexico and 

from all other sources reported in this grid had some U.S.-value added operations prior to sale to 

consumer. 

2

 Landed, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official U.S. import 

statistics. 
IV‐10

Figure IV-2 

Sugar: Apparent U.S. consumption, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and 

Oct-Dec 2013/14 

 Source: Table IV-5

Official statistics, compiled by USDA, relating to U.S. production, and consumption of

sugar are presented in table IV‐6.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14

Calendar year October to November

Quantity

(1,000 STRV)

U.S. producers Subject imports Nonsubject imports
IV‐11

Table IV-6 

Sugar: U.S. production, imports, and consumption, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13 

Item 

Crop year 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

Beginning stocks 1,498 1,378 1,979

U.S. production: 

 Beet sugar 4,659 4,900 5,076

 Cane sugar 3,172 3,588 3,905

 Total production 7,831 8,488 8,981

U.S. imports: 

 Mexico 1,708 1,071 2,124

 Other non-program imports 18 13 7

 TRQ imports 1,721 1,883 957

 Other program imports 291 664 136

 Total imports 3,738 3,632 3,224

 Total U.S. supply 13,067 13,498 14,185

U.S. shipments: 

 Food & beverage 11,193 11,141 11,511

 Other1 229 173 265

 Total shipments 11,422 11,313 11,776

U.S. exports 248 269 274

Ending stocks 1,378 1,979 2,158

Ratio (percent) 

Stocks to use ratio 11.79 17.18 17.95

Share of total U.S. shipments (percent)

2

U.S. production 68.56 75.03 76.27 

U.S. imports 32.73 32.10 27.38

1 Includes sugar transferred to sugar-containing products and alcohols, intended for re-export, as well as 

sugar intended for nonhuman consumption (e.g., animal feed).

2

 Due to the presence of sugar stocks (or inventories), total U.S. shipments of sugar may exceed (or be 

less than) the sum of U.S. sugar production and U.S. sugar imports.

Note.--Due to rounding and statistical adjustments in the original data, items may not add to the totals 

shown. 

Source: Compiled from USDA Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook, table 24a, retrieved on April 23, 2014 at 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx#.U1bAwRB7SQc. 

V‐1

PART V: PRICING DATA

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw material costs

A large majority of the cost of production for both sugarcane milling and sugar beet

processing is the cost of raw materials, sugarcane and sugar beets, respectively. Raw material

costs made up over 70 percent of the costs of goods sold for refiners during 2012/13.   

U.S. inland transportation costs

Almost all responding U.S. producers and importers reported that they typically arrange

for transportation to their customers. Most U.S. producers reported that their U.S. inland

transportation costs ranged from 2 to 20 percent while most importers reported costs of 1 to

30 percent.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing methods

Prices are most commonly determined under contract negotiations for multiple

shipments, although transaction‐by‐transaction negotiations for spot sales were also reported

(table V‐1). The majority of sugar sales by processors/refiners and importers are on a contract

basis as with short‐term contracts accounting for the majority of sales (table V‐2). Short‐term

contracts are typically for periods of 90 days to one year. Long‐term contracts are typically for

periods up to two years, although two U.S. producers (***) reported using 10‐year contracts.

For most U.S. producers and importers, prices and quantities are fixed during the contract

period. None of the responding firms’ contracts typically contain meet‐or‐release provisions.

Sales terms and discounts

Questionnaire responses indicated that most U.S. producers and importers quote prices

on a delivered basis, but that a few quote only on an f.o.b. basis and some quote on both bases.

Most U.S. producers and importers do not offer discounts on their sales of sugar. Volume

discount policies vary among processors/refiners.  
V‐2

Table V-1 

Sugar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported price setting methods, by number of responding 

firms1

Method U.S. producers U.S. importers 

Transaction-by-transaction 8 12 

Contract 23 13 

Set price list 2 1 

Other 2 2 

 1 The sum of responses down may not add up to the total number of responding firms as each firm was 

instructed to check all applicable price setting methods employed.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table V-2 

Sugar: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of U.S. commercial shipments by type of sale, 

2012/13 

Type of sale 

Share of commercial U.S. shipments (percent) 

U.S. producers U.S. importers 

Long-term contracts 21.1 7.4 

Short-term contracts 63.5 61.7 

Spot sales 15.3 30.9 

 Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to 100.0 percent. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested that U.S. producers and importers provide quarterly data for

the total quantity and f.o.b. value of the following sugar products shipped to unrelated U.S.

customers from October 2011 to December 2013.

Product 1.‐‐ Raw cane sugar or estandar sold to sugar refiners.

Product 2.‐‐ Refined sugar or estandar sold to industrial producers of food, beverages

or other sugar‐containing‐products (e.g., General Mills, Mars, Coca‐cola, Kraft).

Product 3.‐‐ Refined sugar sold in packages of 50 lbs. or less to grocery chains (e.g.,

Safeway, Harris Teeter, Walmart, Costco).

Product 4.‐‐ Refined sugar sold in packages of 50 kgs. (110.23 lbs.) or less to

institutional and/or food service providers (e.g., Sysco, restaurant chains,

bakeries, schools, hospitals, prisons).
V‐3

Product 5.‐‐ Refined sugar sold in bulk to institutional and/or food service providers

(e.g., restaurant chains, bakeries, schools, hospitals, prisons).

Product 6.‐‐ Refined sugar or estandar sold in packages of 50 kgs. (110.23 lbs.) or less

to distributors (i.e., companies such as Batory Foods that buy sugar to resell to

the industrial trade for use as an ingredient).

Product 7.‐‐ Refined sugar or estandar sold in bulk to distributors (i.e., companies such

as Batory Foods that buy sugar to resell to the industrial trade for use as an

ingredient).

Twenty U.S. producers and 13 importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the

requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.1

Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S.

producers’ shipments of sugar and 26 percent of subject imports from Mexico between

October 2011 and December 2013. Price data for products 1‐7 are presented in tables V‐3 to V‐

9, and figure V‐1.

The Mexican Sugar Chamber estimates that the coverage for the price data as only ***

percent.  They indicate that the coverage is low because a high percentage of the subject

imports does not enter the merchant market, but is raw sugar imported and then refined by the

domestic industry.2 In estimating the coverage of import from Mexico, the Mexican Sugar

Chamber does not explain why it included none of the reported price data for Mexican imports

for products 1, 4, 5, and 7 and smaller quantities for the other three price products is

estimating the coverage.3  

Petitioners suggest the data for product 1 are not particularly meaningful since ***.4  

                                                      

1 Price data for products 2, 5, and 6 reported by importer *** was not included. This importer

reported processing all of the sugar that it imports.  It ***.   2 Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents’ postconference brief, Exhibit 1, Economic Submission, p. 21.

3 Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents’ postconference brief, Exhibit 1, Economic Submission, p. 21

and accompanying tables; and Exhibit 8, response to “Pages 263‐264 Q9.” Except for data reported by

***, Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents do not explain why they do not use all of price data reported

in the questionnaires for imports from Mexico. They allege the import price data for ***. Email from

***, economist for Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents, May 5, 2014. Mexican Sugar Chamber

respondents’ postconference brief, exhibit 1, Economic Submission, p. 21 and accompanying tables.    4 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 28.
V‐4

Table V-3 

Sugar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11

 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by month, October 2011-December 2013 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundredweight) 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundred-weight 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Margin 

(percent) 

2011: 

October 30.83 1,848,697 -- 0 --

November 32.27 2,666,217 -- 0 --

December 25.87 2,405,682 -- 0 --

2012: 

January 31.94 1,621,002 -- 0 --

February 32.06 1,227,456 *** *** ***

March 31.82 1,985,828 *** *** ***

April 32.79 1,783,287 -- 0 --

May 32.44 2,769,543 -- 0 --

June 32.38 1,973,793 -- 0 --

July 32.70 2,804,749 -- 0 --

August 33.37 2,690,322 -- 0 --

September 32.69 3,884,214 -- 0 --

October 29.04 2,001,421 -- 0 --

November 26.04 2,219,925 -- 0 --

December 26.89 3,699,790 -- 0 --

2013: 

January 28.33 1,170,352 -- 0 --

February 27.60 1,864,646 -- 0 --

March 25.35 2,258,468 -- 0 --

April 27.10 1,587,289 *** *** ***

May 26.72 1,309,296 -- 0 --

June 28.20 2,388,269 *** *** ***

July 27.87 3,109,973 -- 0 --

August 25.77 1,815,027 *** *** ***

September 26.67 4,189,661 *** *** ***

October 26.59 1,307,948 *** *** ***

November 23.17 2,119,634 -- 0 --

December 21.01 1,701,867 *** *** ***

1

 Product 1: Raw cane sugar or estandar sold to sugar refiners.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐5

Table V-4 

Sugar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21

 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by month, October 2011-December 2013 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundredweight) 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundred-weight 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Margin 

(percent) 

2011: 

October 39.44 9,782,126 44.79 314,082 (13.6)

November 40.11 8,068,219 46.30 332,432 (15.4)

December 41.30 7,642,652 46.34 290,833 (12.2)

2012: 

January 41.78 8,829,604 47.58 258,699 (13.9)

February 41.85 8,580,925 46.27 302,886 (10.5)

March 42.46 9,461,545 44.27 403,858 (4.3)

April 42.20 8,889,932 44.07 340,314 (4.4)

May 42.04 9,266,980 46.72 412,889 (11.1)

June 41.44 8,932,469 45.61 331,723 (10.1)

July 42.21 9,773,927 44.28 287,038 (4.9)

August 41.44 9,597,441 43.70 344,824 (5.4)

September 39.84 12,017,185 43.18 258,632 (8.4)

October 40.47 7,271,760 41.04 314,188 (1.4)

November 38.72 7,288,625 40.17 240,092 (3.8)

December 39.46 6,966,282 38.14 219,294 3.4

2013: 

January 37.97 9,285,536 33.27 292,198 12.4

February 37.37 8,861,939 32.75 384,660 12.4

March 34.04 9,650,695 33.30 355,086 2.2

April 36.70 9,667,836 33.12 302,819 9.8

May 36.45 9,357,610 33.60 397,550 7.8

June 35.84 9,672,268 34.86 359,174 2.7

July 34.83 9,907,071 34.43 352,071 1.1

August 35.17 9,887,255 32.77 354,830 6.8

September 30.20 15,296,211 31.59 381,120 (4.6)

October 31.74 10,329,999 32.17 330,343 (1.4)

November 31.47 8,486,481 30.83 250,312 2.0

December 32.99 7,420,319 29.95 258,374 9.2

1

 Product 2:Refined sugar or estandar sold to industrial producers of food, beverages or other sugarcontaining-products (e.g., General Mills, Mars, Coca-cola, Kraft).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐6

Table V-5 

Sugar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 31

 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by month, October 2011-December 2013 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundredweight) 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundred-weight 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Margin 

(percent) 

2011: 

October 49.96 3,609,740 *** *** ***

November 50.21 3,401,182 *** *** ***

December 50.90 2,852,987 *** *** ***

2012: 

January 51.98 1,623,393 *** *** ***

February 51.66 2,138,917 *** *** ***

March 50.46 2,432,919 *** *** ***

April 50.90 2,295,408 *** *** ***

May 50.00 2,420,747 *** *** ***

June 49.53 2,547,605 *** *** ***

July 48.72 2,917,214 *** *** ***

August 48.58 2,781,939 *** *** ***

September 48.18 3,340,632 *** *** ***

October 46.99 3,171,406 *** *** ***

November 46.41 3,318,129 *** *** ***

December 47.02 2,628,777 *** *** ***

2013: 

January 44.58 1,747,267 *** *** ***

February 43.14 2,055,655 *** *** ***

March 42.31 2,719,215 *** *** ***

April 42.30 1,925,616 *** *** ***

May 41.86 2,384,496 *** *** ***

June 40.94 2,682,698 *** *** ***

July 40.33 2,437,691 *** *** ***

August 39.82 2,725,494 *** *** ***

September 39.80 3,041,346 *** *** ***

October 37.85 3,239,405 *** *** ***

November 35.21 3,588,969 *** *** ***

December 41.58 2,613,201 *** *** ***

1

 Product 3: Refined sugar sold in packages of 50 lbs. or less to grocery chains (e.g., Safeway, Harris 

Teeter, Walmart, Costco).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐7

Table V-6 

Sugar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 41

 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by month, October 2011-December 2013 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundredweight) 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundred-weight 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Margin 

(percent) 

2011: 

October *** *** 51.30 69,544 ***

November *** *** 51.43 72,227 ***

December *** *** 52.78 81,927 ***

2012: 

January *** *** 47.50 33,399 ***

February *** *** 50.34 45,823 ***

March *** *** 50.49 63,546 ***

April *** *** 52.44 60,330 ***

May *** *** 49.60 61,680 ***

June *** *** 49.70 53,770 ***

July *** *** 48.91 60,721 ***

August *** *** 47.99 65,024 ***

September *** *** 47.85 58,169 ***

October *** *** 39.59 36,822 ***

November *** *** *** *** ***

December *** *** *** *** ***

2013: 

January *** *** 33.10 35,241 ***

February *** *** 32.36 38,065 ***

March *** *** 33.49 43,917 ***

April *** *** 32.96 51,104 ***

May *** *** 33.98 52,383 ***

June *** *** 32.76 55,272 ***

July *** *** 31.89 53,962 ***

August *** *** *** *** ***

September *** *** *** *** ***

October *** *** 30.79 51,881 ***

November *** *** *** *** ***

December *** *** 32.80 46,683 ***

1

 Product 4: Refined sugar sold in packages of 50 kgs. (110.23 lbs.) or less to institutional and/or food 

service providers (e.g., Sysco, restaurant chains, bakeries, schools, hospitals, prisons).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐8

Table V-7 

Sugar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 51

 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by month, October 2011-December 2013 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundredweight) 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundred-weight 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Margin 

(percent) 

2011: 

October *** *** *** *** ***

November *** *** -- 0 --

December *** *** -- 0 --

2012: 

January *** *** -- 0 --

February *** *** -- 0 --

March *** *** *** *** ***

April *** *** *** *** ***

May *** *** *** *** ***

June *** *** *** *** ***

July *** *** *** *** ***

August *** *** *** *** ***

September *** *** *** *** ***

October *** *** *** *** ***

November *** *** -- 0 --

December *** *** -- 0 --

2013: 

January *** *** *** *** ***

February *** *** *** *** ***

March *** *** *** *** ***

April *** *** -- 0 --

May *** *** -- 0 --

June *** *** -- 0 --

July *** *** *** *** ***

August *** *** *** *** ***

September *** *** *** *** ***

October *** *** -- 0 --

November *** *** -- 0 --

December *** *** -- 0 -- 1

 Product 5: Refined sugar sold in bulk to institutional and/or food service providers (e.g., restaurant 

chains, bakeries, schools, hospitals, prisons).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐9

Table V-8 

Sugar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 61

 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by month, October 2011-December 2013 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundredweight) 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundred-weight 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Margin 

(percent) 

2011: 

October 44.53 783,021 45.62 210,420 (2.5)

November 44.07 665,110 46.26 212,704 (5.0)

December 44.41 595,938 47.38 102,532 (6.7)

2012: 

January 45.32 619,505 48.47 47,090 (6.9)

February 45.13 658,205 48.40 48,579 (7.3)

March 45.32 758,241 47.58 89,476 (5.0)

April 45.58 749,344 46.73 95,028 (2.5)

May 44.83 731,939 46.38 114,329 (3.5)

June 44.02 747,042 43.76 72,578 0.6

July 44.32 773,822 43.36 84,117 2.2

August 43.90 895,441 42.48 101,172 3.3

September 41.96 947,430 41.27 94,609 1.7

October 38.91 940,598 40.09 151,307 (3.0)

November 39.65 819,859 38.39 128,065 3.2

December 40.70 734,771 35.30 99,825 13.3

2013: 

January 38.75 769,991 33.52 104,363 13.5

February 38.09 654,298 32.34 105,805 15.1

March 37.20 790,047 31.66 141,814 14.9

April 36.77 756,223 31.68 167,278 13.8

May 36.37 784,720 31.89 179,224 12.3

June 36.62 764,364 31.41 143,386 14.2

July 35.15 795,431 28.90 136,325 17.8

August 35.81 848,609 29.07 179,164 18.8

September 33.22 852,246 29.75 148,845 10.4

October 32.39 786,555 29.05 224,033 10.3

November 32.41 658,135 29.19 148,863 9.9

December 34.35 675,321 29.42 157,706 14.3

1

 Product 6: Refined sugar or estandar sold in packages of 50 kgs. (110.23 lbs.) or less to distributors 

(i.e., companies such as Batory Foods that buy sugar to resell to the industrial trade for use as an 

ingredient). 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐10

Table V-9 

Sugar: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 71

 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by month, October 2011-December 2013 

Period 

United States Mexico 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundredweight) 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Price 

(dollars per 

hundred-weight 

Quantity 

(hundredweight) 

Margin 

(percent) 

2011: 

October 37.33 1,421,843 *** *** ***

November 38.30 1,312,609 *** *** ***

December 39.40 1,081,903 *** *** ***

2012: 

January 40.57 1,344,426 *** *** ***

February 39.97 1,459,994 *** *** ***

March 41.12 1,431,245 *** *** ***

April 41.33 1,179,371 *** *** ***

May 40.48 1,518,793 *** *** ***

June 40.92 1,303,955 *** *** ***

July 40.33 1,640,120 *** *** ***

August 40.68 1,324,791 *** *** ***

September 38.91 2,367,378 *** *** ***

October 35.85 1,283,451 *** *** ***

November 37.79 1,416,354 *** *** ***

December 37.55 1,330,982 40.13 15,392 (6.9)

2013: 

January 36.59 1,565,687 *** *** ***

February 35.87 1,423,363 *** *** ***

March 34.99 1,657,657 *** *** ***

April 34.92 1,496,953 *** *** ***

May 33.85 1,817,550 *** *** ***

June 33.48 1,679,774 *** *** ***

July 32.99 1,626,222 *** *** ***

August 33.82 1,694,824 *** *** ***

September 32.45 2,149,145 *** *** ***

October 32.02 1,455,680 *** *** ***

November 31.25 1,675,304 *** *** ***

December 31.87 1,486,257 *** *** ***

1

 Product 7: Refined sugar or estandar sold in bulk to distributors (i.e., companies such as Batory Foods 

that buy sugar to resell to the industrial trade for use as an ingredient). 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐11

Figure V-1 

Sugar: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product, by month, 

October 2011-December 2013 

* * * * * * * 

Product 2:Refined sugar or estandar sold to industrial producers of food, beverages or other sugarcontaining-products (e.g., General Mills, Mars, Coca-cola, Kraft). 

Figure continued. 
V‐12

Figure V-1-Continued. 

Sugar: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product, by month, 

October 2011-December 2013 

* * * * * * * 

Product 6: Refined sugar or estandar sold in packages of 50 kgs. (110.23 lbs.) or less to distributors (i.e., 

companies such as Batory Foods that buy sugar to resell to the industrial trade for use as an ingredient). 

* * * * * * * 
V‐13

Price trends

Prices reported by U.S. producers and importers decreased between October 2011 and

December 2013. Table V‐10 summarizes the price trends, by country and by product. As shown

in the table, domestic price declines ranged from *** to 32 percent between October 2011 and

December 2013 while import price declines ranged from *** to *** percent.  

Petitioners claim that because most sugar is sold under fixed price contracts of 3 months

to 2 years in length, prices have been locked into contracts for that time period.  They indicate

that changes in the spot price for sugar are entirely unrelated to the price of Mexican sugar

imports.5 Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents estimate that there is no correlation between

historical trends of spot market price for sugar and imports of sugar from Mexico. They claim

that the price for sugar declined during 2013 because of ideal weather conditions in the United

States and the rest of the world creating record high U.S. and world sugar supplies and because

conditions at two domestic refineries that led to shortages in the early part of the POI were

resolved. Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents indicate that prices are returning to historical

norms after departing from recent historical anomalies and suggest that the Commission

should use proper historical context for its injury analysis.6

Price comparisons

As shown in table V‐11, prices for sugar imported from Mexico were below those for

U.S.‐produced product in 104 of 158 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 0.6 to 30.3

percent. In the remaining 54 instances, prices for sugar from Mexico were between 0.7 and

54.0 percent above prices for the domestic product. There was overselling in all but one

instance for product 1 which compared U.S.‐produced raw sugar with Mexican imports of

estandar. There was underselling in 60 of 69 instances for products 3, 4, and 5 which compared

which U.S.‐produced refined sugar with Mexican imports of refined sugar, but no imports of

estandar from Mexico.7

Petitioners claim that the pricing data properly capture competition both between

imports of estandar and domestic raw cane sugar in sales to refiners, and between imports of

estandar compared with refined sugar and domestic refined sugar in sales to industrial users

and distributors. They also claim that there is no “estandar discount” since industrial users and  

                                                      

5 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 2, 16‐17.

6 Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 17‐18, 32‐33 and exhibits 1 and 4. 7 About *** percent of the price data for products 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 reported by U.S. producer ***

appears to be production by other sources which they identified as repackaging of sugar processed by

other firms. Their price data accounts for about *** percent of the price data reported by U.S.

producers. If all of the price data for *** were excluded from the price data, there would be underselling

in 103 of 158 instances.
V‐14

Table V-10 

Sugar: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-7 from the United States and 

Mexico 

Item 

Number of 

quarters 

Low price 

(dollars per 

unit) 

High price 

(dollars per 

unit) 

Change in 

price1

 (percent) 

Product 1 

United States 27 21.01 33.37 (31.8)

Mexico *** *** *** ***

Product 2 

United States 27 30.20 42.46 (16.3)

Mexico 27 29.95 47.58 (33.1)

Product 3 

United States 27 35.21 51.98 (16.8)

Mexico *** *** *** ***

Product 4 

United States *** *** *** ***

Mexico 27 30.79 52.78 (36.1)

Product 5 

United States *** *** *** ***

Mexico *** *** *** ***

Product 6 

United States 27 32.39 45.58 (22.9)

Mexico 27 28.90 48.47 (35.5)

Product 7 

United States 27 31.25 41.33 (14.6)

Mexico *** *** *** *** 1

 Percentage change from the first quarter in which data were available to the last quarter in which price 

data were available, based on rounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table V-11 

Sugar: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, by country, 

October 2011-December 2013 

Source 

Underselling Overselling 

Number of 

instances 

Range 

(percent) 

Average 

margin 

(percent) 

Number of 

instances 

Range 

(percent) 

Average 

margin 

(percent) 

Product 1 1 2.3 to 2.3 2.3 7 4.6 to 54.0 33.9 

Product 2 11 1.1 to 12.4 6.3 16 1.4 to 15.4 7.8 

Product 3 27 1.5 to 30.3 15.8 0 - - 

Product 4 27 2.2 to 26.5 13.5 0 - - 

Product 5 6 9.9 to 28.4 15.6 9 7.5 to 21.0 14.1 

Product 6 18 0.6 to 18.8 10.5 9 2.5 to 7.3 4.7 

Product 7 14 3.0 to 21.7 11.7 13 0.7 to 20.8 9.8 

 Total 104 0.6 to 30.3 12.6 54 0.7 to 54.0 12.2 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V‐15

distributors chose between estandar from Mexico and refined sugar based on their needs and

the difference in price.8

Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents indicate that refined sugar and estandar sell at

different price points and that comparing the two inevitably shows underselling. They argue

that the Commission should use alternative pricing comparisons that exclude estandar. The

Mexican Sugar Chamber also claims that prices for companies that blend sugar cannot be used

to assess the existence of underselling.9 The Sweetener Users Association and Barry Callebaut

claim that the price comparisons are of limited value because the majority of comparisons are

of the prices of raw or refined sugar of U.S. producers with imports from Mexico of estandar.

They indicate that although estandar and refined sugar might be used in some similar end use

applications, the Commission’s price comparisons assume that estandar and refined sugar are

interchangeable.10

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUE

The Commission requested U.S. producers of sugar to report any instances of lost sales

or revenue they experienced due to competition from imports of sugar from Mexico since

October 2010. Of the 16 responding U.S. producers, 14 reported that they had to either reduce

prices or roll back announced price increases. The 128 lost sales allegations involved 4.0 billion

pounds of sugar (about 80 percent of imports of Mexican sugar during the period of

investigation) and the 25 lost revenue allegations totaled $3.2 million and involved 110 million

pounds of sugar (see tables V‐12 and V‐13). U.S. producers did not provide a rejected U.S. price

for 44 allegations representing 2.9 billion pounds of sugar, so the value of lost sales cannot be

calculated.  The remaining 84 lost sales allegations totaled $367 million and involved about 1.0

billion pounds of sugar.   Staff attempted to contact all purchasers and a summary of the

information obtained follows.

Purchasers responding to the lost sales allegations also were asked whether they shifted

their purchases of sugar from U.S. producers to suppliers of sugar from Mexico since October

2010. In addition, they were asked whether U.S. producers reduced their prices in order to

compete with suppliers of sugar from Mexico. Seven of the 24 responding purchasers reported

that they had shifted purchases of sugar from U.S. producers to subject imports since October

2010; two of these purchasers reported that price was the reason for the shift. Four of 19

purchasers reported that the U.S. producers had reduced their prices in order to compete with

the prices of subject imports since 2009.

                                                      

8 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 15‐16.

9 Mexican Sugar Chamber respondents’ postconference brief, Exhibit 8, response to “Page 263‐264

Q9.”  Importer *** reported that it sells U.S.‐produced sugar and imports from Mexico together.  It

provided estimates for sales of its imports from Mexico that are included in the price data.

10 Sweetener Users Association and Barry Callebaut respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 22‐23.
V‐16

Table V-12 

Sugar: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations 

* * * * * * * 

Table V-13 

Sugar: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations 

* * * * * * * 

The Sweetener Users Association and Barry Callebaut indicated that purchaser

responses to lost sales and lost revenue allegations do not support Petitioners’ allegations that

imports from Mexico have been the cause of declining prices in the U.S. market.11  Petitioners

cite narrative responses which they claim establish that Mexican imports captured significant  

sales volumes at specific accounts, that price was critical to deciding the outcome of

competition, and that domestic producers lost volume or lowered prices.12

***.

***.13

***.

                                                      

11 Sweetener Users Association and Barry Callebaut post conference brief, pp. 23‐24. 12 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 30‐31 and exhibit 9.

13 Staff interview, with ***, April 11, 2014.
VI‐1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

As noted in Part III of this report, the Commission gathered data from growers of

sugarcane and sugar beet; millers, which refine sugarcane into raw sugar; and

processors/refiners, which process sugar beets and raw cane sugar, respectively, into refined

sugar. Eighty‐nine growers of cane and beet, 10 millers of sugar cane, and 15

processors/refiners1 provided useable financial data. Growers of sugarcane and sugar beets are

predominantly members of agricultural co‐operative associations (“co‐op”). Cane millers ship to

cane refiners and may be part of a related co‐op and/or part of an integrated supply chain;

sugar beet processors, which produce refined sugar, are typically part of the cooperative

association. Finally, refiners may or may not be stand‐alone independent entities.

OPERATIONS ON SUGAR

Aggregated data collected for the period examined (crop years 2010/11, 2011/12, and

2012/13) are presented in table VI‐1 for U.S. growers’ operations (i.e., sugarcane and sugar

beet farms) in relation to sugar,2 which is presented first. Next in order of presentation (for the

full crop years and for the partial crop years of October‐December 2012/13 and October‐

December 2013/14) are the aggregated data on U.S. miller’s (sugar cane milling) operations in

table VI‐2, while aggregated data on U.S. processors’ and refiners’ operations together are

presented in table VI‐3.

 

1 Petitioners argue that two firms, (CSC Sugar and ADM), termed “melt houses,” should be excluded

from the domestic industry. Whether or not these firms engage in sufficient domestic‐related

production activity is discussed in Part III of this report.   2 Many growers did not provide one or both of the interim periods rendering such data not

comparable. Additionally, several farmers commented that the October‐December net income is not

representative of the full year as approximately 65 percent of revenue is received (a portion of the

payment from the cooperative) while a much smaller percentage of costs are incurred. Hence, there is a

fundamental mismatch of revenues and expenses.
VI‐2

Table VI-1 

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. growers, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13 

Item 

Crop year 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

Total net sales:1

16,961 19,487 20,981 

of which sugar beet growers 3,021 3,051 3,513 

of which sugar cane growers 13,940 16,436 17,468 

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

Total net sales revenues and incomes:1

673,987 829,805 804,756 

of which sugar beet growers 196,089 212,625 220,213 

of which sugar cane growers 477,898 617,180 584,543 

Cost of goods grown (COGG): 

 Planting, growing, and harvesting costs 467,874 546,473 564,437 

 Transportation expenses 60,304 66,550 64,098 

 Total COGG 528,178 613,023 628,535 

 of which COGG for beet growers 126,793 141,218 158,260 

 of which COGG for cane growers 401,385 471,805 470,275 

Gross farming profit: 2

145,809 216,782 176,221 

 of which gross income or (loss) for beet growers 69,296 71,407 61,953 

 of which gross income or (loss) for cane growers 76,513 145,375 114,268 

Other Expense / (Income), net 10,120 2,080 12,569

Net Income 2 135,689 214,702 163,652

Depreciation/Amortization 54,415 54,649 63,634

Cash Flow 190,104 269,351 227,286

 Ratio to net sales (percent) 

COGG: 

 Planting, growing, and harvesting costs 69.4 65.9 70.1 

 Transportation expenses 8.9 8.0 8.0 

 Average COGG 78.4 73.9 78.1 

 of which average COGG for beet growers 64.7 66.4 71.9 

 of which average COGG for cane growers 84.0 76.4 80.5 

Gross farming profit: 21.6 26.1 21.9 

 of which gross income or (loss) for beet growers 35.3 33.6 28.1 

 of which gross income or (loss) for cane growers 16.0 23.6 19.5 

Table continued on the next page.
VI‐3

Table VI-1--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. growers, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13 

Item 

Crop year 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

 Unit value (dollars per STRV) 

Total net sales 39.74 42.58 38.36 

of which sugar beet growers 64.91 69.69 62.69 

of which sugar cane growers 34.28 37.55 33.46 

COGG: 

 Planting, growing, and harvesting costs 27.59 28.04 26.90 

Transportation expenses 3.56 3.42 3.06 

 Average COGG 31.14 31.46 29.96 

 of which average COGG for beet growers 41.97 46.29 45.05 

 of which average COGG for cane growers 28.79 28.71 26.92 

Gross farming profit: 8.60 11.12 8.40 

 of which gross income or (loss) for beet growers 22.94 23.40 17.64 

 of which gross income or (loss) for cane growers 5.49 8.85 6.54 

 Number of firms reporting: 

Operating losses2

4 5 5 

Data 89 89 88 

1

 includes commercial sales (i.e., non-co-op shipments) and shipments to the member’s cooperative and 

“other revenues” as shown in the folowing tablulation: 

Type of sale 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Commercial sales value ($1,000) 346,287 436,649 408,065 

Co-op shipments value ($1,000) 286,546 342,231 345,206 

Other revenues value ($1,000) 41,154 50,925 51,485 

Total Net Sales value ($1,000) 673,987 829,805 804,756 

The structure of the growing parts of the industry differ: All or nearly all of the beet farmers belong to 

agricultural co-ops while only some of the cane farmers are members of co-ops. 

2

 Net income equals gross farming profit minus interest expense and other expense plus other income 

(e.g., government programs). 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

 

With respect to the reporting growers, total net sales, total costs of goods grown

(“COGG”), gross farming profit, and net income increased between the full crop years 2010/11‐

12/13. Many growers noted that growing and harvesting costs rose as sugar prices increased

but costs have not fallen with the decline in sugar prices. One grower estimated that farming

costs had risen by 40 percent between 2009 and 2013; another commented “we are battling

rising labor costs, fuel prices, fertilizer prices, equipment repairs, and insurance costs.”3 Others

 

3 ***.
VI‐4

included land rent and new equipment purchases among rising costs.4 They also mentioned

various farming conditions they encountered in the past three crop years as constraints on

production, including variable weather, drought and lack of water resources, early freezes, lack

of available farm labor, and the like. Each of these undoubtedly affected the costs of growing

and harvesting.

As noted earlier, many of the reporting growers belong to agricultural cooperatives (“co‐

op”). A co‐op is an entity that is legally separate from its members, performs processing and

sales services and acts as a pass‐through mechanism of sales proceeds and costs.5

  The co‐op

shipments value shown above is an approximation of the sales proceeds of refined sugar made

through members’ co‐ops. Growers of sugarcane and sugar beets reported commercial sales,

 

4 For example, ***. In regard to new equipment purchases, several growers mentioned recognizing

capital purchases as an expense using accelerated depreciation allowed under Section 168 of the

Internal Revenue Code. 5 Agricultural cooperatives are voluntary associations of growers and the related miller/processor.

Here, sugarcane or sugar beets growers provide the input cane and beets to sugarcane millers and sugar

beet processors, respectively, for refining into raw and refined sugar, respectively. Processors and

millers provide marketing services for the sugar product. Several growers stated that they purchase

shares in their agricultural co‐op, which gives them the right to grow beets on one acre per share;

hence, coop members share in the processor’s USDA marketing allotment. The agricultural co‐op

provides an initial payment to its growers, representing about 65 percent of the projected final sales

price of the refined sugar product and including deduction of processing costs, with subsequent

payments based on realized prices minus processing costs.

The co‐op acts as a pass‐through mechanism for revenues and costs. In other words, growers’

reported revenues mainly reflect distributions from the coops with which they are affiliated. Co‐ops’  

distributions to their members reflect sales revenues minus processing and marketing costs, i.e., coops’

distributions to their members reconcile and account for net proceeds from member and nonmember

business in their public statements. See, for example, Minn‐Dak Farmers Coop., 2011 Form 10‐K,

downloaded April 17, 2014. In this regard, coop ***. All or nearly all of the coops participating in this

investigation stated that they did not know their members’ growing and harvesting costs. Hence, the

actual costs of raw material inputs of the co‐op are unknown and cannot be calculated exactly. When

growers made profits, input costs to the co‐ops are understated; when growers made losses, input costs

are overstated. The total effect of this veil between growers and co‐ops is to make more difficult an

analysis of the financial results of the industry as a whole. In investigations, the Commission typically

examines financial data of related entities on a consolidated basis with sales reported to unrelated

parties on a commercial basis and transfers of inputs from related parties on the basis of actual cost. In

accounting terms, consolidation of related entities means reconciling intra‐firm transfers and

eliminating intra‐firm profits on those transfers.

Petitioners recommended using studies performed by universities as a surrogate for planting,

growing, and harvesting costs of sugarcane and sugar beets. Academic studies have a number of

shortfalls, including covering only a small sample of growers in a limited geographic area, not aligning

with the period of investigation, lacking specificity to sugarcane or sugar beet crops, not informing the

Commission of conditions specific to sugar, not being record information, not subject to ITC verification,

and the like. Hence, they are usable as background information but not a substitute for questionnaire

responses focused on the subject product.
VI‐5

cooperative shipments (distributions) and other revenues, which are generally from sales of

byproducts or coproducts. Co‐op distributions represented only about 19 percent of their total

revenues while that figure was over 98 percent for sugar beet growers.

Table VI‐2 presents aggregated data for the sugar operations of *** reporting millers

and is briefly summarized here. Total net sales include commercial sales and transfers to

related firms. The quantity of total sales rose between the full crop years 2010/11 to 2012/13

but was lower in the partial crop year October‐December 2013/14 than in October‐December

2012/13. The value of total sales rose irregularly between the full crop years (sales value was

highest in 2011/12) and was lower in October‐December 2013/14 than in October‐December

2012/13. Operating income, net income before taxes, and cash flow fell between the full crop

years 2010/11 to 2012/13, and registered a loss in the partial crop year October‐December

2013/14 compared with a profit in October‐December 2012/13.

Table VI-2 

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. millers, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, OctoberDecember 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

With regard to sugarcane millers, total net sales include commercial sales and transfers

to related firms. The latter category accounted for *** percent to *** percent of total sales, by

quantity, and between *** percent and *** percent of total sales, by value in the full year

periods. Transfers accounted for *** percent to *** percent by quantity and *** percent to ***

percent by value in the two partial year periods.  

With regard to sugarcane millers, the value of raw material costs, which are the single

largest component of COGS, irregularly rose between the full yearly periods but was lower in

October‐December 2013/14 than in October‐December 2012/13.  *** of the ten reporting

millers reportedly purchase their cane from independent growers or only loosely affiliated

growers who are not be part of a formal co‐op arrangement. *** of the ten sugarcane millers

reporting data are co‐ops.6

  

Commission staff are not able to consolidate such co‐op entities with their related

growers because co‐ops do not maintain their accounting records to record their member‐

owners’ costs of production, and the co‐ops reported member distributions as their own raw

material costs while the member growers reported distributions received as sales revenue in

their questionnaire responses, respectively. Commission staff compared deliveries of sugarcane

reported by grower‐members and receipts of sugarcane reported by the co‐ops; staff then

calculated a “coverage ratio” by dividing the quantity (in short tons) of sugarcane delivered by

members of the co‐op by the quantity in short tons of sugarcane received reported by the co‐

 

6 These are ***. A number of cane growers reported commercial shipments that accounted for more

than 80 to 90 percent of their total shipments (e.g., ***). Additionally, ***.
VI‐6

op.7

  Staff then divided the total costs of planting, growing, harvesting, and transport (cost of

goods grown) reported by the grower‐members of each co‐op by the coverage ratio. This may

be one way to extrapolate growers’ COGGs to the affiliated co‐op and thereby estimate raw

material inputs of the co‐op at cost. Finally, staff compared the resulting number, which is the

theoretical raw material costs of the co‐op, against the reported raw material costs of the co‐

op. The difference between the calculated raw material costs and the reported raw material

costs would flow through to the co‐ops’ operating income.8 For both of the reporting millers,

using this method results in an estimated raw material costs that are lower and an estimated

operating income that is greater than what was reported. For ***. The effect on the industry

milling sugar cane can be estimated as the sum of estimated differences of those two millers,

$*** in the three crop years, 2010/11, 2011/12, and 2012/13, respectively.

A table showing the results of operations on sugar by U.S. millers on a firm‐by‐firm basis

is presented in appendix D.

Table VI‐3 presents aggregated data for the sugar operations of 15 reporting processors

and refiners and is briefly summarized here. Total net sales rose on a quantity basis between

2010/11 and 2012/13 and were higher in partial crop year October‐December 2013/14 than

October‐December 2012/13. On a value basis total net sales declined irregularly from 2010/11

to 2012/13 and were lower in October‐December 2013/14 than October‐December 2012/13.

Operating income fell between the full crop years 2010/11 to 2012/13, and were much lower,

but still profitable, in the partial crop year October‐December 2013/14 compared with October‐

December 2012/13.  To the contrary net income before taxes and cash flow increased between

the crop years of 2010/11 and 2012/13 but were lower in the partial crop year October‐

December 2013/14 compared with October‐December 2012/13.

 

7 The coverage ratio calculated for *** in the full year periods 2010/11, 2011/12, and 2012/13,

respectively. In the case of *** in those same time periods, respectively.   8 For example, assume that the ratio of deliveries of cane reported by growers to receipts of cane

reported by coop (the coverage ratio) is 50 percent and the growers reported an aggregate total cost of

goods grown (COGG) of $50,000. Dividing COGG by the coverage ratio equals an estimated raw material

cost for the coop of $100,000. If the coop had reported raw material costs of, say, $125,000, then the

estimated effect would be to reduce the coop’s raw material costs and increase its operating income by

the difference between the reported costs and estimated costs, or $25,000 in this example. The

estimate is influenced by several factors, including the coverage ratio and the quality of reporting of

both growers and millers.
VI‐7

Table VI-3 

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners,1

 crop years 2010/11 through 

2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

Quantity (1,000 short tons raw value) 

Total net sales 10,704 10,800 11,451 2,720 2,923 

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

Total net sales 8,485,821 9,066,487 8,407,088 2,203,559 1,895,682 

Cost of goods sold (COGS).-- 

 Raw materials 5,132,261 5,614,993 4,895,642 1,306,557 1,160,978 

Direct labor 319,948 271,280 312,410 83,217 96,525 

Other factory costs2 1,509,464 1,639,141 1,696,055 406,622 408,955 

Total COGS 6,961,673 7,525,414 6,904,107 1,796,396 1,666,458 

Gross profit 1,524,148 1,541,073 1,502,981 407,163 229,224 

SG&A expense 784,773 832,990 869,445 260,282 200,941 

Operating income 739,375 708,083 633,536 146,881 28,283 

Other expense or (income), net (131,078) (191,000) (450,303) (263,870) (68,190)

Net income 870,453 899,083 1,083,839 410,751 96,473 

Depreciation/amortization 220,580 227,041 240,454 69,575 74,709 

Cash flow 1,091,033 1,126,124 1,324,293 480,326 171,182 

 Ratio to net sales (percent) 

COGS: 

 Raw materials 60.5 61.9 58.2 59.3 61.2 

Direct labor 3.8 3.0 3.7 3.8 5.1 

Other factory costs 17.8 18.1 20.2 18.5 21.6 

Average COGS 82.0 83.0 82.1 81.5 87.9 

Gross profit 18.0 17.0 17.9 18.5 12.1 

SG&A expense 9.2 9.2 10.3 11.8 10.6 

Operating income 8.7 7.8 7.5 6.7 1.5 

Net income 10.3 9.9 12.9 18.6 5.1

Table continued on the next page.
VI‐8

Table VI-3—Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners,1

 crop years 2010/11 through 

2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Unit value (dollars per STRV) 

Total net sales 793 839 734 810 649 

COGS: 

 Raw materials 479 520 428 480 397 

Direct labor 30 25 27 31 33 

Other factory costs 141 152 148 149 140 

Average COGS 650 697 603 660 570 

Gross profit 142 143 131 150 78 

SG&A expense 73 77 76 96 69 

Operating income 69 66 55 54 10 

Net income 81 83 95 151 33 

 Number of firms reporting 

Operating losses 5 6 4 9 10 

Data 15 15 15 15 15 1 ***. 2

 Includes ***. 

Note.—Changes to the questionnaire response of *** were received too late to be used. It is believed that such 

changes would have no effect on the financial performance of the industry. 

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

The value of raw material costs, the single largest component of COGS, irregularly

declined between the full crop years of 2010/11 to 2012/13 but was lower in October‐

December 2013/14 than in October‐December 2012/13. Six of the sugar beet processors

reporting data are co‐ops.9 As noted earlier, Commission staff are not able to consolidate such

co‐op entities with their owners but as with two miller co‐ops (discussed earlier in this section

of the report) calculated a coverage ratio10 and used that coverage ratio to estimate raw

material costs of the co‐op in place of the reported distributions to growers.11 Staff then

 

9 These are: ***. ***.

10 Staff calculated a “coverage ratio” by dividing the quantity (in short tons) of sugar beets delivered

by members of the coop by the quantity in short tons of sugar beets received as reported by the coop.

The grower‐members reported shipping 100 percent of their crop to the cooperative. Staff calculated

the coverage ratio by dividing the reported deliveries of sugar beets by members by the receipts

reported by the cooperative. Coverage ranged from a low of 4 to 5 percent in the case of *** to a high

of 15.4 percent in the case of *** during the three yearly periods. 11 Commission staff divided the total costs of planting, growing, harvesting, and transport (cost of

goods grown) reported by the grower‐members of each processor by the coverage ratio referred to

earlier. The total raw material costs of the co‐op may be estimated by dividing the coverage ratio into

the growers’ reported COGGs, thus extrapolating growers’ costs to the co‐op’s raw material costs and

(continued...)
VI‐9

compared the resulting number, which is the theoretical raw material costs of the co‐op,

against the reported raw material costs of the co‐op and examined the effect on the co‐op’s

operating income. In most instances, estimated raw material costs were lower and estimated

operating income was greater than reported; notable exceptions to this were ***. The total

effect on the industry processing sugar beets can be estimated as the sum of differences

between estimated and reported operating income of the six processors, $*** in 2010/11,

2011/12, and 2012/13 respectively. Including the estimate for *** in the above, this would lead

to a further increase in industry operating income by $*** in 2010/11, 2011/12, and 2012/13

respectively.12

A table showing the results of operations on sugar by U.S. processors/refiners on a firm‐

by‐firm basis is presented in appendix D.  

Variance analysis

A variance analysis for the operations of U.S. producers of sugar is presented in tables

VI‐4, VI‐5, and VI‐6 for growers, millers, and processor/refiners, respectively.13 The information

for these variance analyses is derived from tables VI‐1, VI‐2, and VI‐3.

                                                            

(...continued)

may represent one way to estimate raw material inputs of the coop at cost. Limitations are posed by the

low coverage ratio and by the quality of the data reported. 12 See earlier note on this calculation.

13 The Commission’s variance analysis is calculated in three parts:  Sales variance, cost of sales

variance (COGS variance), and SG&A expense variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case

of the sales variance) or a cost or expense variance (in the case of the COGS and SG&A expense

variance), and a volume variance.  The sales or cost/expense variance is calculated as the change in unit

price or per‐unit cost/expense times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the

change in volume times the old unit price or per‐unit cost/expense. Summarized at the bottom of the

table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance is the sum of those items from COGS

and SG&A variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the volume components of the

net sales, COGS, and SG&A expense variances.  The overall volume component of the variance analysis is

generally small.
VI‐10

Table VI-4 

Sugar: Variance analysis on the operations of U.S. growers, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13 

Item 

Between crop years 

2010/11 to 

2012/13 

2010/11 to 

2011/12 

2011/12 to 

2012/13 

 Value ($1,000) 

Net sales: 

 Price variance (28,968) 55,464 (88,685)

Volume variance 159,737 100,354 63,636 

Net sales variance 130,769 155,818 (25,049)

Cost of sales: 

 Cost/expense variance 24,823 (6,201) 31,499 

Volume variance (125,180) (78,644) (47,011)

Total cost of sales variance (100,357) (84,845) (15,512)

Gross profit variance 30,412 70,973 (40,561)

Summarized as: 

 Price variance (28,968) 55,464 (88,685)

Net cost/expense variance 24,823 (6,201) 31,499 

Net volume variance 34,557 21,710 16,624 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

As shown above, growers’ gross profit from farming operations (which is before

consideration of other income or expense but nearly the same as reported net income)

increased by $30.4 million as reported unit costs declined, volume increased, but unit prices fell

between the full crop years, 2010/11 to 2012/13.

Table VI‐5 presents a variance analysis on the operations of sugarcane millers. In

contrast to the data in table VI‐4, operating income of the millers fell due to an unfavorable

price variance (unit prices fell) that was much greater than favorable variances on net

cost/expenses (unit costs/expenses fell) and net volume.

Table VI-5 

Sugar: Variance analysis on the operations of U.S. millers, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, 

October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Table VI‐6 presents a variance analysis for the sugar operations of processors and

refiners.
VI‐11

Table VI-6 

Sugar: Variance analysis on the operations of U.S. processors and refiners,1

 crop years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Item 

Between crop years 

Between 

Oct.-Dec. 

2010/11-

12/13 

2010/11-

11/12 

2011/12-

12/13 

2012/13-

13/14 

Value ($1,000) 

Commercial sales: 

 Price variance *** *** *** ***

Volume variance *** *** *** ***

Total commercial sales variance *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption: 

 Price variance *** *** *** ***

Volume variance *** *** *** ***

Total internal consumption variance *** *** *** ***

Related firm transfers: 

 Price variance *** *** *** ***

Volume variance *** *** *** ***

Total transfers variance *** *** *** ***

Net sales: 

 Price variance (670,933) 504,479 (1,205,816) (472,366)

Volume variance 592,200 76,187 546,417 164,489 

Net sales variance (78,733) 580,666 (659,399) (307,877)

Cost of sales: 

 Cost/expense variance 543,400 (501,238) 1,074,847 264,034 

Volume variance (485,834) (62,503) (453,540) (134,096)

Total cost of sales variance 57,566 (563,741) 621,307 129,938 

Gross profit variance (21,167) 16,925 (38,092) (177,939)

SG&A expenses: 

 Cost/expense variance (29,905) (41,171) 13,747 78,770 

Volume variance (54,767) (7,046) (50,202) (19,429)

Total SG&A expense variance (84,672) (48,217) (36,455) 59,341 

Operating income variance (105,839) (31,292) (74,547) (118,598)

Summarized as: 

 Price variance (670,933) 504,479 (1,205,816) (472,366)

Net cost/expense variance 513,495 (542,409) 1,088,594 342,804 

Net volume variance 51,599 6,638 42,675 10,964 1

 No reported internal consumption. ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

The variance for the processor/refiner industry is similar to that for the millers.

Operating income fell between the full yearly periods due to an unfavorable price variance that

was much greater than favorable variances on net cost/expense and volume.
VI‐12

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Table VI‐7 presents capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”)

expenses for growers; tables VI‐8 and VI‐9 present data on capital expenditures and research

and development (“R&D”) expenses, by firm, for millers and processors/refiners, respectively.

The data for processors/refiners in table VI‐9 are presented with and without the data reported

by ***.

Table VI-7 

Sugar: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. growers, crop years 

2010/11 through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Item 

Crop year October to December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Value ($1,000) 

Sugarcane: 

Capital expenditures 414,556 534,776 677,193 310,454 599,978

R&D expenses *** *** *** *** ***

Sugar beets: 

Capital expenditures 22,976 38,517 48,284 18,507 13,860

R&D expenses *** *** *** *** ***

Total: 

Capital expenditures 437,532 573,293 725,477 328,961 613,838

R&D expenses *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table VI-8 

Sugar: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. millers, by firm, crop 

years 2010/11 through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 
VI‐13

Table VI-9 

Sugar: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. processors/refiners, 

crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14

Firm 

Crop year October to December 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Capital expenditures ($1,000) 

AmCane Sugar LLC *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings, Inc. *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar, LLC *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining, LLC *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop. *** *** *** *** ***

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop. *** *** *** *** ***

The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC *** *** *** *** ***

The Western Sugar Coop. *** *** *** *** ***

United States Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers, LLC *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 316,405 291,025 318,333 49,555 71,072 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Research and development expenses ($1,000) 

AmCane Sugar LLC *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings, Inc. *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar, LLC *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining, LLC *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop. *** *** *** *** ***

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop. *** *** *** *** ***

The Amalgamated Sugar Co. LLC *** *** *** *** ***

The Western Sugar Coop. *** *** *** *** ***

United States Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers, LLC *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 4,696 5,431 6,554 1,705 2,032 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Capital expenditures reported by *** are as shown in table VI‐9; ***.
VI‐14

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Table VI‐10 presents data on the U.S. growers’ total net assets used in production,

warehousing, and sales of sugar, and their return on investment (“ROI”). Tables VI‐11 and VI‐12

present data on U.S. millers’ and U.S. processors’/refiners’ total assets and their return on

investment (“ROI”), respectively. Table VI‐12 data for U.S. processors/refiners are presented

with and without ***. Data are presented for the crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13.

Table VI-10 

Sugar: Total assets and return on investment of U.S. growers, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13 

Item 

Crop year 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

Sugarcane 

Total assets ($1,000) 483,953 696,790 716,487

ROI, based on gross profit (percent) 15.8 20.9 15.9

ROI, based on net income (percent) 16.0 21.8 15.9

Sugar beets 

Total assets ($1,000) 280,165 335,813 374,317

ROI, based on gross profit (percent) 24.7 21.3 16.6

ROI, based on net income (percent) 20.8 18.8 13.3

Total 

Total assets ($1,000) 764,118 1,032,603 1,090,804

ROI, based on gross profit (percent) 19.1 21.0 16.2

ROI, based on net income (percent) 17.8 20.8 15.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table VI-11 

Sugar: Total assets and return on investment of U.S. millers, by firm, crop years 2010/11 through 

2012/13 

* * * * * * * 
VI‐15

Table VI-11 

Sugar: Total assets and return on investment of U.S. processors/refiners, by firm, crop years 

2010/11 through 2012/13

Firm 

Crop year 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

Total net assets ($1,000) 

AmCane Sugar LLC *** *** ***

American Crystal Sugar Co. *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings, Inc. *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** ***

CSC Sugar, LLC *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar Co. *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining, LLC *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop. *** *** ***

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop. *** *** ***

The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC *** *** ***

The Western Sugar Coop. *** *** ***

United States Sugar Corp. *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers, LLC *** *** ***

All firms 4,842,186 5,195,218 5,383,400 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** ***

 Operating return on assets (percent) 

AmCane Sugar LLC *** *** ***

American Crystal Sugar Co. *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings, Inc. *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** ***

CSC Sugar, LLC *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar Co. *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining, LLC *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop. *** *** ***

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop. *** *** ***

The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC *** *** ***

The Western Sugar Coop. *** *** ***

United States Sugar Corp. *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers, LLC *** *** ***

All firms 15.3 13.6 11.8 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires 
VI‐16

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of sugar to describe any actual or potential

negative effects of imports of sugar from Mexico on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to

raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Appendix

E presents the responses of U.S. growers, millers, processors, and refiners.  
VII‐1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that—

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1‐‐ 

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may

be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature

of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable

subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies

Agreement), and whether imports of the subject merchandise are

likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating

the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject

merchandise into the United States, taking into account the

availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration

of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing

effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for

further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

                                                            

1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall

consider {these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or

subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless

an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of

any factor which the Commission is required to consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance

with respect to the determination. Such a determination may not be made on the basis of mere

conjecture or supposition.”
VII‐2

(VI) the potential for product‐shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph

(4)(E)(iv)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural

product, the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by

reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative determination

by the Commission under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with

respect to either the raw agricultural product or the processed

agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry,

including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version

of the domestic like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the

probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of

imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise

(whether or not it is actually being imported at the time).2

Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies was presented earlier in this report;

information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in

Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S.

producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on

inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential

for “product‐shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third‐

country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained

for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries.  

                                                            

2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries

(as evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the

same class or kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation)

suggests a threat of material injury to the domestic industry.”
VII‐3

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

Introduction

In 2011, the value of sugar production in Mexico totaled about 54 billion pesos (roughly

$4.3 billion) and represented 2.4 percent of the value of the Mexican food industry.3 Sugarcane

ranks second among agricultural crops in Mexico, behind corn.4

The Mexican sugar industry reportedly provides for 457,000 direct jobs.5

  These include

approximately 170,000 sugarcane growers, 147,000 laborers, 69,000 cutters, and 36,000

transporters who grow, harvest, and transport sugarcane to more than 50 sugar mill‐refineries,

which employ approximately 36,000 workers.

Most Mexican sugarcane growers are represented by two unions—the National

Sugarcane Growers and the National Association of Sugarcane Growers.6 Growers and

sugarcane processors enter annual contracts, with sugarcane prices set at 57 percent of a

reference price for sugar. The reference price is determined by a formula based on several

factors, including the average domestic price of estandar sugar and export prices depending on

destination (based on the ICE number 16 contract price for exports to the United States and the

ICE number 11 price for exports to the world market).7 The growers receive initial pre‐

settlement payments, generally paid monthly during October‐May. Final settlement payments

begin in June, and a final adjustment is paid during October‐December based on updated

information.8

Mexican sugar mill/refineries are integrated facilities that mill sugarcane and produce

refined sugars of various grades.  The industry terminology for these grades include estandar, a

lower‐polarity grade; refinada, a high‐polarity grade white sugar; blanca especial, a lower‐

quality white sugar; and muscovado, a brown sugar.  The Mexican sugar refining industry is

organized into 12 corporate groups comprising 47 facilities, with an additional 7 independent

operations in 2010/11.9 The largest group is FEESA, which is a collection of facilities that were

expropriated and are now administered by the Mexican government. FEESA accounts for about

20 percent of total domestic production capacity.  Capacity shares of the other groups range

                                                            

3 Campos‐Ortiz, Francisco and Mariana Oviedo‐Pacheco, Study on the Competitiveness of the Mexican

Sugar Industry, Banco de México Working Paper No. 2013–16, November 2013, p. 2. The food industry

accounted for about 4 percent of Mexican GDP in 2011. 4 Ibid.

5 Jasso, Humberto, “Dynamics of an Oversupplied Market,” presentation at the 30th International

Sweetener Symposium, August 2013.  Included as Exhibit I‐7 of the Petition.

6 USDA, FAS, Mexico Sugar Annual, GAIN Report No. MX4032, April 15, 2014, pp. 3–4. 7 Jasso, Humberto, “Dynamics of an Oversupplied Market,” presentation at the 30th International

Sweetener Symposium, August 2013.  Included as Exhibit I‐7 of the Petition.

8 Campos‐Ortiz, Francisco and Mariana Oviedo‐Pacheco, Study on the Competitiveness of the Mexican

Sugar Industry, Banco de México Working Paper No. 2013–16, November 2013, pp. 30–32.

9 Campos‐Ortiz, Francisco and Mariana Oviedo‐Pacheco, Study on the Competitiveness of the Mexican

Sugar Industry, Banco de México Working Paper No. 2013–16, November 2013, p. 47.
VII‐4

from 2 to 14 percent, with the independent facilities collectively accounting for about 11

percent.10

The harvested area of Mexican sugarcane increased from 1.7 million acres in 2010/11 to

1.9 million acres in 2012/13, or by 16 percent (table VII‐1). The increase was largely spurred by

rising sugar prices.11  

All Mexican sugar production is refined, but at different quality levels.  As shown in table

VII‐1, the primary refined sugar produced in Mexico is estandar, which accounted for over 60

percent of total production during 2012/13 (tel quel –“as is”‐‐ basis).  About 30 percent of

annual production was of refinada sugar, with the remainder accounted for by blanca especial

and muscovado sugar.  The Mexican sugar industry also produces alcohol, generally between

three to five million gallons per year; most of this is either for beverage or non‐fuel industrial

uses.

Table VII-1 

Sugar: Mexican production of sugarcane, harvested area, production of refined sugar, and 

production of alcohol from sugar, 2010/11–2012/13 

Item 

Crop year 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

Sugarcane crushed, gross (short tons) 48,646,230 50,960,684 67,723,702

Sugarcane crushed, net (short tons) 46,878,692 49,022,880 65,048,263

Harvested area (acres) 1,664,203 1,739,029 1,928,047

Total sugar production (short tons) 5,713,772 5,564,927 7,688,321

Sugarcane crushed per acre (short tons per acre) 28.2 28.2 33.7

Refinada sugar production (short tons) 1,883,194 1,725,118 2,297,727

Estandar sugar production (short tons) 3,573,909 3,568,111 4,941,304

Blanca especial sugar production (short tons) 206,679 252,610 382,160

Muscovado sugar production (short tons) 49,990 19,087 67,130

Alcohol production (gallons) 5,109,751 4,044,278 4,407,964

Source: CONADESUCA, Sistema Infocaña, Resumen Historico Años, available at 

http://www.campomexicano.gob.mx/azcf/reportes/reportes.php?tipo=OTROS (accessed April 24, 2014). 

Mexican sugar consumption declined between 2008/09 and 2010/11 before rebounding

during 2011/12 and 2012/13 (table VII‐2). The decline occurred as high‐fructose corn syrup

displaced a portion of sugar in end‐use markets such as soft drinks in the face of a substantial

rise in domestic and global sugar prices.12  Consumption recovered, in part, owing to a severe

drought in the United States in 2012 that caused a substantial rise in corn prices, which affected

the competitiveness of high‐fructose corn syrup relative to sugar. 13  Imports typically supply a

                                                            

10 Ibid. 11 Conference transcript, pp. 224 (Cortina). 12 Conference transcript, pp. 233‐234 (Cortina).

13 Ibid.
VII‐5

relatively small share of the Mexican sugar market and accounted for approximately 5 percent

in 2012/2013.  

Table VII-2 

Mexican sugar supply and use, crop years 2008/09-2013/14 

Item 

Crop year 

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 

Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

Beginning stocks 2,177 687 1,073 888 1,129 1,706

Production 5,798 5,638 6,057 5,898 8,149 7,595

Imports 176 949 337 557 252 255

Total supply 8,152 7,274 7,467 7,344 9,530 9,556

Exports 1,519 828 1,716 1,086 2,304 2,739

Human domestic 

consumption 5,834 5,087 4,566 4,727 5,009 5,228

Other disappearance 111 287 297 402 511 438

Total use 5,946 5,374 4,862 5,129 5,520 5,666

Ending stocks 687 1,073 888 1,129 1,706 1,151

Exports/production (percent) 26.2 14.7 28.3 18.4 28.3 36.1

Source: USDA, FAS, PSD Online database, available at 

http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx (accessed April 23, 2014). 

Note.--Data for 2013/14 are estimated. 

Operations on sugar

The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to 20 sugar

producing groups believed to produce and/or export sugar from Mexico.14 Useable responses

to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from 16 producers and one exporter,

including FEESA, 10 responding producers in sugar producing groups,15 and five independent

firms. The combined operations for these firms included 49 facilities. Table VII‐3 presents

summary data on the groups and firms that provided responses. These firms’ exports to the

United States accounted for approximately 97 percent16 of U.S. imports of sugar from Mexico

over the period being examined. According to estimates requested of the responding Mexican

                                                            

14 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and

provided by counsel for respondent Camara Nacional de Las Industriaas Azucarera Y al Alcoholera

(Mexican Sugar Chamber) (“Camara”).

15 A group is a firm that owns sugar mills. Conference transcript, p. 220 (Armero).

16 Coverage was based on total reported exports to the United States from Mexico during October

2010 through December 2013 (5.164 million STRV) versus official U.S. import statistics (5.351 million

STRV).
VII‐6

producers, the production of sugar in Mexico reported in this Part of the report accounts for

approximately 90 percent of overall production of sugar in Mexico.17  

Table VII-3 

Sugar: Summary data on firms in Mexico, October 2010 through December 2013 

Group 

Production 

(1,000 STRV) 

Share of 

reported 

production

(percent) 

Exports to the

United States 

(1,000 STRV) 

Share of 

reported 

exports to the 

United States 

(percent) 

Total 

shipments 

(STRV) 

Share of firm's 

total shipments 

exported to the

United States 

(percent) 

ASR Holdings De Mexico1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Azucar Grupo Saenz *** *** *** *** *** ***

Beta San Miguel *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cía Azucarera de los Mochis *** *** *** *** *** ***

ED&F Man de Comercio, S.A. 

de C.V. *** *** *** *** *** ***

Fondo de Empresas 

Expropiadas 

de Sector Azucarero (FEESA) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grupo La Margarita *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grupo Motzorongo *** *** *** *** *** ***

Grupo Porres *** *** *** *** *** ***

Impulsora Azucarera del 

Noroeste *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ingenio de Puga *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ingenio El Molino *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ingenio Panuco3 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ingenios Santos *** *** *** *** *** ***

Organizacion Cultiba *** *** *** *** *** ***

Promotora Industria Josela 

S.A. de C.V. *** *** *** *** *** ***

Promotora Industrial 

Azucarera *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 20,364 100.0 5,164 100.0 20,726 ***

Note.-- All but one firm *** reported that sales of sugar represents a large share of the firm’s total sales in their last fiscal year, 

ranging from *** percent to *** percent. *** reported that sales of sugar represented *** percent of its sales in its most recent 

fiscal year, with its *** accounting for its other sales. E-mail from ***, April 25, 2014. 

1

 ASR Holdings de Mexico (“ASR Mexico”) is a subsidiary of ASR Group, and producer Ingenio San Nicolas, S.A. de C.V. is a 

subsidiary of ASR Mexico. ASR Mexico is affiliated with petitioning firm and importer of subject merchandise, American Sugar 

Holdings. ASR Mexico ***. Questionnaire response of ***, II-4. 

2

 ED&F Man de Comercio, S.A. de C.V. ***. 

3

 Ingenio Panuco reported that ***. Questionnaire response of Ingenio Panuco, ***. 

                                                            

17 Questionnaire responses of foreign producers, II‐9. Comparing VII‐1 data to questionnaire data

shows 95 percent coverage.
VII‐7

Responding Mexican producers identified changes to their operations since October 1,

2010. Thirteen firms reported revised labor agreements. According to the responses, the

mandatory collective agreement in Mexico for the sugar mills is enforced by law (Contrato Ley).

As of October 16, each year the salary portion of the agreement is negotiated, and every two

years (on even years), the benefits portion of the agreement is negotiated.18 Five firms reported

expansions.19 *** reported that it made ***.20  Relatedly, *** also reported that it ***. 21 ***

reported that it increased grinding capacity from ***. This mill was ***. 22 *** reported that it

***.23 One firm, *** reported ***.24 Four firms reported changes to their energy cogeneration,

three of which, ***, reported investments in cogeneration plants, and one firm *** reported

***.25

Two firms reported anticipated changes to their operations. *** reported that it plans

***.26 *** reported that ***.27

Mexican producers’ capacity, production, and shipments

Table VII‐4 presents information on the sugar operations of the 16 responding

producers in Mexico. Capacity increased by 3.6 percent from crop year 2010/2011 to crop year

2012/13, and was 3.5 percent lower in October‐December 2013/14 as compared to October‐

December 2012/13.28 Compared to crop year 2012/13, capacity is projected to be virtually

unchanged in crop years 2013/14 and 2014/15. Production decreased by 2.7 percent from crop

year 2010/11 to 2011/12, but was 34.2 percent higher in crop year 2012/13 compared to crop

year 2010/11.29 Respondents claim the increase resulted from a combination of increased

harvested area and beneficial weather conditions that resulted in high yields.30  Production was

                                                            

18 Questionnaire responses of multiple firms, II‐2.

19 ***. Questionnaire responses of ***, II‐2.

20 Questionnaire response of ***, II‐2. 21 Questionnaire response of ***, II‐2. 22 Questionnaire response of ***, II‐2.

23 Questionnaire response of ***, II‐2.

24 Questionnaire response of ***, II‐2.

25 Questionnaire responses of ***, II‐2.

26 Questionnaire response of ***, II‐2.

27 Questionnaire response of ***, II‐2.

28 No firm reported that it is able to shift production (capacity) between sugar and other products

using the same equipment and/or labor. Questionnaire responses, II‐5.  Many firms did report that

molasses is produced on the same equipment and machinery used to produce sugar. Molasses can be,

however, either a byproduct or co‐product of sugar production.  Conference transcript, p. 76 (O’Malley).

Accordingly, it is not the primary product refiners specifically seek out to produce. Conference

transcript, p. 86 (Greenwald). Furthermore, molasses production does not displace sugar production.

Conference transcript, pp. 85‐86 (Berg).   29 Many firms reported that production constraints include sugarcane availability, emphasizing that

weather plays a large role, and several firms also reported price. Questionnaire responses, II‐4d.

30 Conference transcript, pp. 224 (Cortina); table VII‐2.
VII‐8

31.0 percent lower in October‐December 2013/14 compared to October‐December 2012/13.

*** responding producers reported increased production in crop year 2012/13 compared to

crop year 2010/11. The combination of relatively stable capacity and increased production

shows an increase in capacity utilization from 69.4 percent in crop year 2010/11 to 89.9 percent

in crop year 2012/13. The capacity utilization rate for October‐December 2012/13 was 54.6

percent compared to 39.1 percent for October‐December.31

In crop year 2012/13, 32.0 percent of total shipments of sugar from Mexico were

exported to the United States and 3.2 percent were exported to all other markets.32 Exports of

sugar to the United States increased by 67.8 percent from crop year 2010/11 to crop year

2012/13,33 and were more than double in October‐December 2013/14 compared to October‐

December 2012/13. Exports to the United States are projected to decrease by 23.4 percent

from crop year 2012/13 to crop year2013/14, and to remain at a similar lever during crop year

2014/15.

Exports of sugar with greater than 97.0 polarity for further refinement34 accounted for

97 percent of the 940,000 STRV increase in exports to the United States from crop year

2010/11 to crop year 2012/2013. There were no reported exports to the United Sates of sugar

less than 97.0 polarity, and exports to the United Sates of sugar with greater than 99.5 polarity

fluctuated throughout crop years 2010/11‐2012/13. Exports to other markets increased from

4,000 STRV in crop year 2010/11 to 231,000 STRV in crop year 2012/13. In October‐December

2012, there were no exports to all other markets and in October‐December 2013 there were

143,000 STRV exports to other markets.

Internal consumption/transfers as a share of total sales fluctuated, increasing from ***

percent in crop year 2010/11 to *** percent in crop year 2011/12, followed by decreasing to

*** percent in crop year 2012/12. During October‐December 2012, internal consumption

accounted for *** percent of shipments and in October‐December 2012 7.3 percent.

Projections show volumes of internal consumption slightly greater than any period for which

actual data were reported, but remain within the same range as share of total shipments. ***

firms reported shipments used for internal consumption/transfers. *** accounted for

approximately *** of the reported internal consumption/transfers, with the sugar used to

produce ***.35 The other *** producers, ***, combined, accounted for approximately ***

percent of the reported internal consumption/transfers. As noted above, ***.36  

                                                            

31 The capacity utilization rates for the interim periods appear to be lower than the full year rates

because of the timing of the sugarcane harvest and interim periods’ capacity allocation methodologies.

32 Table VII‐5 provides data for Mexico’s exports of sugar, by country, based on data reported by the

government of Mexico.   33 *** of the *** reporting firms reported increased exports to the United States during this period of

comparison.

34 Shipments of estandar would be included in this product category.

35 E‐mail from ***, April 28, 2014.

36 E‐mail from ***, April 25, 2014 and e‐mail from ***, April 28, 2014.
VII‐9

Table VII-4 

Sugar: Data on industry in Mexico, crop years 2010/11 through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and OctDec 2013/14 and projection crop years 2013/14, 2014/15 

Item 

Actual experience Projections 

Crop year

October to 

December Crop year 

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 

 Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

Capacity 8,447 8,416 8,747 2,491 2,403 8,689 8,665 

Production 5,861 5,700 7,863 1,361 940 7,244 7,259 

End-of-period inventories 909 1,026 1,625 1,039 751 1,001 1,081 

Shipments: 

 Internal consumption/ transfers 

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments to: 

 United States 

 <97.0 polarity 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 >97.0 polarity 

 for further refinement 

585 224 1,495 103 380 1,188 870 

 >99.5 polarity 

 not intended for further refinement 

803 595 833 140 249 596 842 

 Total exports to the United States 1,388 819 2,328 243 629 1,784 1,712 

 Exports to all other markets *** 0 231 0 143 1,186 451 

Total exports *** 819 2,559 243 772 2,970 2,163 

Total shipments 6,068 5,582 7,264 1,330 1,811 7,860 7,181 

 Ratios and shares (percent) 

Capacity utilization 69.4 67.7 89.9 54.6 39.1 83.4 83.8 

Inventories/production 15.5 18.0 20.7 19.1 20.0 13.8 14.9 

Inventories/total shipments 15.0 18.4 22.4 19.5 10.4 12.7 15.1 

Share of total shipments: 

 Internal consumption/ transfers 

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments to: 

 United States 

 <97.0 polarity 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 >97.0 polarity 

 for further refinement 

9.6 4.0 20.6 7.8 21.0 15.1 12.1 

 >99.5 polarity 

 not intended for further refinement 

13.2 10.7 11.5 10.5 13.7 7.6 11.7 

 Total exports to the United States 22.9 14.7 32.0 18.3 34.7 22.7 23.8 

 Exports to all other markets *** 0.0 3.2 0.0 7.9 15.1 6.3 

Total exports *** 14.7 35.2 18.3 42.6 37.8 30.1 

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Note.-- Firms reported capacity based on factors including: sugarcane crushing capacity, days of harvest, 

factory yield rate, and milling capacity. Questionnaire responses, II-9. 
VII‐10

Mexican export markets

The United States is Mexico’s principal export market for sugar (table VII‐5). Mexico

exported sugar to several new markets in 2013, including Burkina Faso, Switzerland, Cote

d’Ivoire, Morocco, Australia, and Mauritania. These shipments were part of an effort by the

Mexican government ‐‐ in consultation with U.S. government officials ‐‐ and industry to redirect

exports away from the U.S. market.37

Table VII-5 

Sugar: Mexican sugar exports, by principal markets, 2008-2013 

Market 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Quantity (short tons, tel quel) 

United States 1,027,893 1,082,968 965,334 1,512,844 1,099,009 2,606,570

Burkina Faso 0 0 0 0 0 36,376

Switzerland 0 0 0 0 0 33,620

Cote d’ Ivoire 0 0 0 0 0 33,069

Morocco 0 0 0 0 0 31,636

Australia 0 0 0 0 0 29,762

Canada 0 13,641 0 15,568 71 26,323

Mauritania 0 0 0 0 0 20,833

United Kingdom 937 220 0 22,018 0 17,637

Colombia 0 6 3 8 24 13,556

All other 55,399 19 15 3,792 25 35,598

World 1,084,229 1,096,854 965,352 1,554,230 1,099,129 2,884,980

Source: Global Trade Atlas, GTIS Database, based on INEGI, HS subheadings 1701.11, 1701.12, 

1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, and 1701.99. 

Mexican exports are mainly of sugar with 99.5 degrees polarity and above (table VII‐6).

This accounted for 56 percent of total Mexican exports in 2013. While sugar below 99.5 degrees

polarity excludes refinada sugar and likely is accounted for totally by estandar sugar, the

category for sugar 99.5 degrees polarity and above can include both types.

                                                            

37 Conference transcript, pp. 160 (Rello) and 188‐189 (Farmer). In 2007, the United States and Mexico

established a Consultative Committee on Agriculture ("CCA") to coordinate agricultural policy between

the two countries. Based on a joint recommendation by the two governments, a sweeteners working

group under the CCA was also established in 2007. The working group includes undersecretaries from

Mexico's Ministry of Economia and Ministry of Agriculture and undersecretaries from the USDA and the

United States Trade Representative.  Respondent Chamber’s postconference brief, Exh. 1, pp. 3‐4. The

CCA met in August 2013 and addressed diverting sugar from Mexico to alleviate the oversupply of sugar

in the United Sates. Arrangements were subsequently made to divert export shipments to markets

other than the United States. Respondent Chamber’s postconference brief, pp 15‐16.  Respondent

Chamber provided a list detailing the Mexican firms, their buyers, and volume of sugar under contract

totaling *** metric tons (***) and an additional *** from ***. The total ***. Respondent Chamber’s

postconference brief, Exh. 3.
VII‐11

Table VII-6 

Sugar: Mexican sugar exports, by principal HS subheadings, 2008-2013 

HS subheading 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Quantity (short tons, tel quel) 

1701.11 403,678 379,501 253,261 302,453 118,555 0

1701.12 20,160 0 27,012 13,702 11 147

1701.13 0 0 0 0 241 5,325

1701.14 0 0 0 0 83,689 1,264,847

1701.91 24,134 11,450 13,147 4,413 3,710 4,131

1701.99 636,257 705,903 671,932 1,233,663 892,923 1,610,531

Total 1,084,229 1,096,854 965,352 1,554,230 1,099,129 2,884,980

Source: Global Trade Atlas, GTIS Database, based on INEGI. 

Note.-- Sugar below 99.5 degrees polarity comprises HS subheadings 1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.13, and 

1701.14. Other sugar 99.5 degrees polarity and above includes HS subheadings 1701.91 and 1701.99. 

U.S. INVENTORIES OF IMPORTED MERCHANDISE

Table VII‐7 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of sugar.  

Table VII-7 

Sugar: U.S. importers' end-of-period inventories of imports by source, crop years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, Oct-Dec 2012/13, and Oct-Dec 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

U.S. IMPORTERS’ OUTSTANDING ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for

the importation of sugar from Mexico after December 31, 2013. Table VII‐8 presents U.S.

import shipments of sugar arranged for importation after December 31, 2013.

Table VII-8 

Sugar: U.S. importers' arranged imports, by quarter, 2014 

* * * * * * * 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
VII‐12

TRADE REMEDY MEASURES IN THIRD‐COUNTRY MARKETS

No Mexican producer reported that it is subject to trade remedy findings, remedies, or

proceedings in third‐country markets.

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with

material injury “by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the

Commission must examine all relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the

dumped or subsidized imports, that may be injuring the domestic industry, and that the

Commission must examine those other factors (including non‐subject imports) ‘to ensure that it

is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”38

As discussed in Part I of this report, U.S. imports of sugar from sources other than

Mexico are currently subject to the WTO TRQs, which have been in place since October 1990,

and additional quotas under various FTAs. The TRQs provide one method for managing sugar

supplies to avoid forfeitures.39 The USTR allocates the entire raw cane sugar TRQ on a country‐

by‐country basis, while a portion of the refined sugar TRQ is allocated to specific countries, with

the remainder allocated on a global first‐come, first‐served basis. As shown in Table I‐2, fiscal

year 2012/13 (the fiscal year corresponds with the crop year), the Dominican Republic received

the largest allocation under the TRQ (144,901 MTRV), and fulfilled half of it, making it the

second largest source of imports under the TRQ.40 Brazil received the second largest allocation

under the TRQ (155,634 MTRV), and fulfilled 95 percent of it, making it the largest source of

imports under the TRQ.41 The Philippines received the third largest allocation under the TRQ

(144,901 MTRV), and fulfilled 39 percent of it, making it the third largest source of imports

under the TRQ.42 For fiscal year 2013/14, the total raw cane sugar TRQ is set at 1,117,195

MTRV, the minimum amount to which the United States is committed under the WTO

agreement, and the same amount it was for fiscal year 2012/13.43 The Dominican Republic has

                                                            

38 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007‐1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2008),

quoting from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103‐316,

Vol. I at 851‐52; see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

39 No party has argued that nonsubject imports are an alternative source of injury to the domestic

industry.

40 In crop year 2012/13, the Dominican Republic accounted for 3.2 percent of total U.S. imports of

sugar. See table IV‐4. 41 In crop year 2012/13, Brazil was the largest nonsubject supplier of sugar to the United States,

accounting for 5.5 percent of total U.S. imports of sugar. See table IV‐4.

42 In crop year 2012/13, the Philippines accounted for 2.8 percent of total U.S. imports of sugar. See

table IV‐4.

43 U.S. Trade Representative, “U.S. Trade Representative Froman Announces FY 2014 WTO Tariff‐Rate

Quota Allocations for Raw Cane Sugar, Refined and Specialty Sugar and Sugar‐Containing Products,”

(continued...)
VII‐13

the largest allocation (185,335 MTRV), followed by Brazil (152,691 MTRV), and the Philippines

(142,160 MTRV).44  

The global sugar market

Sugar is produced in substantial quantities throughout the world. Table VII‐9 presents

data on global sugar production, for the top 10 producing countries. Global sugar production

increased by 18 percent during 2008/09–2012/13 and totaled 194 million STRV (centrifugal

basis).  Brazil was the leading producer, accounting for 22 percent of the total the latter year.  

Following Brazil were India (16 percent), the European Union (9 percent), and China (8 percent).  

The United States was the sixth‐leading producer in 2012/13 (5 percent), while Mexico ranked

sixth (4 percent).  Growth generally was greatest during the period in Asian markets, including

India (41 percent), Thailand (28 percent), and Pakistan (27 percent).

Table VII-9 

Sugar: Global sugar production, by principal suppliers, marketing years 2008/09-2012/13 

Country 

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

Quantity (1,000 STRV, centrifugal basis) 

Brazil 35,108 40,124 42,273 39,848 42,549

India 17,582 22,748 29,293 31,548 29,983

European Union 15,752 18,626 17,570 20,194 18,288

China 14,679 12,598 12,345 13,603 15,432

Thailand 7,937 7,639 10,652 11,282 11,023

United States 7,532 7,963 7,831 8,488 8,977

Mexico 5,798 5,638 6,057 5,898 8,149

Russia 3,837 3,796 3,302 6,112 5,512

Pakistan 3,871 3,770 4,321 4,982 5,269

Australia 5,306 5,181 4,079 4,060 4,685

All other 41,344 41,013 40,766 43,503 44,175

Total 158,747 169,096 178,488 189,520 194,041

Source: USDA, FAS, PSD Online database, available at 

http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx (accessed April 23, 2014). 

                                                            

(...continued)

press release, September 12, 2013, available at http://www.ustr.gov/about‐us/press‐office/press‐

releases/2013/september/WTO‐trq‐for‐sugar (accessed April 30, 2014). In calendar year 2013, an

additional 184,176 metric tons of sugar and sugar‐containing products were eligible for duty‐free access

under various FTAs, with entries under these quotas totaling 110,544 metric tons.  U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Sugar Monthly Import and Re‐export Data,” available at

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/fas/SugMonImp//2010s/2013/SugMonImp‐11‐19‐2013.pdf

(accessed April 30, 2014). 44 Ibid.
VII‐14

Table VII‐10 shows that global sugar production is dominated by cane sugar, which

accounts for approximately 80 percent of the annual total most years.  Beet sugar accounts for

the remainder.  Primary cane sugar producers include Brazil and India, while the leading beet

sugar producers include the European Union, China, and the United States.

Table VII-10 

Sugar: Global production of beet sugar and cane sugar, marketing years 2008/09-2012/13 

Type 

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

Beet sugar 33,264 36,806 35,206 42,471 40,039

Cane sugar 125,483 132,290 143,281 147,049 154,002

Total 158,747 169,096 178,488 189,520 194,041

Share of total (percent) 

Beet sugar 21.0 21.8 19.7 22.4 20.6

Cane sugar 79.0 78.2 80.3 77.6 79.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USDA, FAS, PSD Online database, available at 

http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx (accessed April 23, 2014). 

As shown in table VII‐11, global sugar exports have been relatively flat in recent years,

totaling about 52 million short tons annually. Brazil is the leading global exporter, accounting

for 57 percent of the total in 2012/2013. Thailand was the second leading exporter that year,

with a 13‐percent share of the global export market.  Mexico ranked third among global

exporters in 2012/13, with a 6‐percent share.  The United States is a minor sugar exporter.

Mexico exhibited the largest growth in exports, 166 percent during 2008 through 2013.  

Virtually all of this growth occurred during the latter year.

Table VII-11 

Global sugar exports, by principal sources, 2008-2013 

Source 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Quantity (1,000 short tons, tel quel) 

Brazil 21,465 26,779 30,864 27,953 26,833 29,932

Thailand 5,525 5,569 4,961 7,188 7,554 6,608

Mexico 1,084 1,097 965 1,554 1,099 2,885

Guatemala 1,430 1,754 1,920 1,422 1,687 2,128

India 5,537 86 1,433 4,005 3,819 1,787

EU28 1,472 1,655 2,399 1,507 2,131 1,561

Colombia 459 1,013 887 925 830 684

South Africa 1,186 998 466 293 338 655

Belarus 357 485 544 437 497 555

Philippines 237 276 83 644 224 538

All other 7,367 6,759 8,039 7,375 7,415 5,539

Total 46,118 46,472 52,563 53,304 52,429 52,872

Source: GTIS, Global Trade Atlas database. 

Note: Includes HS subheadings 1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.19, and 1701.99. 
VII‐15

Global sugar consumption increased by 6.7 percent during 2008/09 through 2012/13

and totaled 180 million short tons, raw value (centrifugal basis) the latter year (table VII‐12).  

India was the leading consumer market for sugar during the period, accounting for 15 percent

of the world total in 2012/13.  The European Union followed India, with an 11‐percent market

share that year. The United States was the fifth‐leading global sugar market during the period,

with a 6‐percent market share in 2012/13. Mexico ranked eighth that year, with a market share

of 3 percent.  The growth in sugar consumption during the period was greatest in Indonesia (14

percent), followed by the United States (10 percent), the European Union (7 percent), and

Pakistan (5 percent).  Mexican consumption of sugar fell by 14 percent during the period, but

rebounded in 2011/12 and 2012/13 after falling the previous two years.  

Table VII-12 

Sugar: Global sugar consumption, by principal markets, marketing years 2008/09-2012/13 

Supplier 

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

(1,000 STRV, centrifugal basis) 

India 25,904 24,802 25,408 26,447 27,210

European Union 18,779 19,412 19,885 20,062 20,117

China 15,983 15,763 15,432 15,653 16,645

Brazil 12,842 13,007 13,228 12,676 12,346

United States 10,442 10,870 11,211 11,140 11,485

Russia 6,063 6,283 6,088 6,283 6,063

Indonesia 4,960 5,181 5,512 5,567 5,660

Mexico 5,834 5,087 4,566 4,727 5,009

Pakistan 4,602 4,519 4,685 4,740 4,850

Egypt 3,029 2,898 3,086 3,142 3,131

All other 60,721 62,022 61,528 63,887 67,902

Total 169,160 169,843 170,629 174,323 180,417

Source: USDA, FAS, PSD Online database, available at 

http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx (accessed April 23, 2014). 

Note.-- Includes human consumption only, beet and cane sugar. 

Table VII‐13 presents data on global sugar imports, showing sugar imports rose between

2008–2010 before falling during 2011–2013 to 35 million tons the latter year. China emerged as

the leading global sugar importer during the period and accounted for 14 percent of the total in

2013.  The European Union declined to second place among global sugar importers during the

period, with a 13 percent share in 2013.  The United States ranked fourth, with a 9‐percent

import market share in 2013.  Mexico is a minor global sugar importer.  Growth in global sugar

imports during 2008–13 was greatest in Asian markets, led by India (1,213 percent), China (483

percent), and Indonesia (228 percent).  Global sugar imports became more concentrated

among the 10‐leading markets during 2008 through 2013, as the global share for all other

markets declined by 60 percent during the period.
VII‐16

Table VII-13 

Sugar: Global sugar imports, by principal markets, 2008-2013 

Market 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Quantity (1,000 short tons, tel quel) 

China 860 1,173 1,947 3,218 4,130 5,011

EU28 

(External Trade) 

3,640 3,372 3,267 4,851 3,992 4,543

Indonesia 1,123 1,536 1,941 2,741 3,081 3,686

USA 2,867 2,731 3,193 3,803 3,329 3,203

South Korea 1,813 1,820 1,807 1,815 1,951 2,071

Malaysia 1,611 1,727 1,890 1,981 1,963 2,022

Algeria 1,209 1,337 1,351 1,710 1,844 1,974

Japan 1,544 1,431 1,220 1,469 1,350 1,545

India 106 2,436 1,825 83 809 1,393

Canada 1,451 1,161 1,144 1,283 1,234 1,233

All other 20,207 17,884 34,649 21,718 17,123 8,106

Total 36,429 36,607 54,236 44,672 40,806 34,786

Source: GTIS, Global Trade Atlas database, HS subheadings 1701.11, 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 

1701.19, and 1701.99. 
A‐1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES  

A‐3

The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its

website, www.usitc.gov.  In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order,

Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current

proceeding.   

Citation Title Link

79 FR 18697

April 3, 2014

Sugar From Mexico; Institution of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Investigations and Scheduling of

Preliminary Phase Investigations

https://federalregister.gov/a/

2014‐07420  

79 FR 22790

April 24, 2014

Sugar From Mexico: Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Investigation

https://federalregister.gov/a/

2014‐09362  

79 FR 22795

April 24, 2014

Sugar From Mexico: Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation

https://federalregister.gov/a/

2014‐09363  

B‐1

APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF THE PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE

B‐3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s preliminary conference:

Subject: Sugar from Mexico

Inv. Nos.: 701‐TA‐513 and 731‐TA‐1249 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: April 18, 2014 ‐ 9:30 am

Sessions were held in connection with these preliminary investigations in the Main

Hearing Room (room 101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC.

EMBASSY WITNESS:

Embassy of Mexico

Washington, DC

Kenneth Smith Ramos, Head of the Trade and NAFTA Office

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioner (Robert C. Cassidy, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA LLP)

Respondents (Irwin P. Altschuler, Greenberg Traurig, LLP)

             

        

In Support of the Imposition of      

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

American Sugar Coalition

    David Berg, President and Chief Executive Officer,

    American Crystal Sugar Company

    Brian F. O’Malley, President and Chief Executive Officer,

    Domino Foods, Inc.
B‐4

   

In Support of the Imposition of   

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued):

John Snyder, President, American SugarBeet Growers

    Association

    Todd Landry, Farmer, Loreauville Harvesting, LLC

         Robert C. Cassidy    )

         John D. Greenwald    )

                 ) – OF COUNSEL

         James R. Cannon, Jr.    )

         Jennifer A. Hillman    )

      

In Opposition to the Imposition of    

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Camara Nacional de Las Industrias Azucarera Y Al Alcoholera (Mexican Sugar Chamber)  

    Seth Kaplan, Senior Economic Advisor, Capital Trade

    Carlos Rello, Director General, Fondo de Empress Expropiadas  

    del Sector Azucarero (“FEESA”)

    Juan Cortina, President, Camara Nacional de la Industrias

    Azucareras y Alcoholeras (“Sugar Chamber”)

    Humberto Jasso, General Director, Cámara Nacional de las Industrias

    Azucareras y Alcoholera

    Rodolfo Cruz, Attorney, Cruz Abogados, S.C.

    Oscar Cruz, Attorney, Cruz Abogados, S.C.

    Christophe Armero, Beta San Miguel

      Irwin P. Altschuler    )  

          ) – OF COUNSEL

      Philippe M. Bruno    )
B‐5

In Opposition to the Imposition of   

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued):

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Sweetener Users Association

National Confectioners Association

International Dairy Foods Association

Barry Callebaut USA LLC

    Thomas Earley, Vice President, Agralytica

    Tim Jones, Senior Manager, Procurement & Operations, Just Born, Inc.

    Brad Hudgens, Economist, Georgetown Economic Services, LLC

      Paul C. Rosenthal    )

      John M. Herrmann    ) – OF COUNSEL

      Grace W. Kim     )

     

Covington & Burling LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

CSC Sugar LLC

    

     Paul J. Farmer, President and Chief Executive Officer,

       CSC Sugar, LLC

           David R. Grace    )  

          ) – OF COUNSEL

      Harvey M. Applebaum )

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Archer Daniels Midland Company

     Christopher M. Cuddy, President, Sweeteners and Starches

       Business, Archer Daniels Midland Company

           Warren E. Connelly    ) – OF COUNSEL
B‐6

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioner (John D. Greenwald and James R. Cannon, Jr., Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP)

Respondents (Paul C. Rosenthal, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)    
C‐1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Sugar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, crop years 2010-11 through 2012-13, Oct-Dec 2012-13, and Oct-Dec 2013-14

Partial year 

comparison

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2012-13 2013-14

2010-11 to 

2012-13

2010-11 to 

2011-12

2011-12 to 

2012-13

2012-13 to 

2013-14

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount................................................................... 10,738 10,719 11,659 2,727 3,093 8.6 (0.2) 8.8 13.4

Producers' share (fn1)............................................ 70.4 72.8 74.6 77.6 75.4 4.2 2.5 1.8 (2.3)

Importers' share (fn1):

Subject................................................................ 15.4 9.9 17.7 10.0 18.5 2.4 (5.5) 7.8 8.5

Nonsubject.......................................................... 14.3 17.3 7.7 12.4 6.1 (6.6) 3.0 (9.6) (6.3)

Total imports.................................................. 29.6 27.2 25.4 22.4 24.6 (4.2) (2.5) (1.8) 2.3

U.S. consumption value:

Amount................................................................... 7,990,761 8,482,828 7,720,911 2,008,710 1,820,562 (3.4) 6.2 (9.0) (9.4)

Producers' share (fn1)............................................ 70.6 74.7 80.1 80.9 81.1 9.4 4.1 5.4 0.1

Importers' share (fn1):

Subject................................................................ 15.8 10.0 13.5 8.8 14.1 (2.3) (5.8) 3.5 5.3

Nonsubject.......................................................... 13.6 15.3 6.4 10.3 4.8 (7.1) 1.7 (8.9) (5.4)

Total imports.................................................. 29.4 25.3 19.9 19.1 18.9 (9.4) (4.1) (5.4) (0.1)

Additional domestic value added as a ratio to the value of apparent U.S. consumption on:

Subject imports.................................................... 0.4 0.1 4.5 1.4 4.7 4.0 (0.3) 4.4 3.3

Nonsubject imports.............................................. 4.3 6.4 3.3 5.8 2.6 (1.0) 2.1 (3.1) (3.2)

Total imports.................................................. 4.7 6.5 7.8 7.3 7.4 3.1 1.8 1.3 0.1

U.S. imports from.--

Subject sources:

Quantity............................................................... 1,650 1,062 2,066 272 573 210 25.2 (35.6) 94.5 110.3

Value................................................................... 1,261,924 849,049 1,042,185 176,964 256,880 211 (17.4) (32.7) 22.7 45.2

Unit value............................................................ $765 $799 $504 $650 $448 212 (34.0) 4.5 (36.9) (31.0)

Ending inventory quantity..................................... 101 156 186 109 192 225 84.3 54.4 19.3 76.2

Nonsubject sources:

Quantity............................................................... 1,532 1,850 895 338 189 350 (41.6) 20.8 (51.6) (44.1)

Value................................................................... 1,086,181 1,298,815 497,767 206,235 87,963 351 (54.2) 19.6 (61.7) (57.3)

Unit value............................................................ $709 $702 $556 $611 $466 352 (21.6) (1.0) (20.8) (23.7)

Ending inventory quantity..................................... 133 241 109 124 58 365 (18.2) 81.0 (54.8) (53.1)

Total imports:

Quantity............................................................... 3,183 2,912 2,962 610 762 490 (6.9) (8.5) 1.7 24.9

Value................................................................... 2,348,105 2,147,864 1,539,952 383,199 344,843 491 (34.4) (8.5) (28.3) (10.0)

Unit value............................................................ $738 $737 $520 $628 $453 492 (29.5) (0.0) (29.5) (27.9)

Ending inventory quantity..................................... 234 397 295 233 250 505 26.0 69.5 (25.7) 7.3

U.S. processors' and refiners':

Average capacity quantity....................................... 12,536 13,402 13,346 4,012 3,952 191 6.5 6.9 (0.4) (1.5)

Production quantity................................................. 10,312 10,595 11,053 3,405 3,177 193 7.2 2.7 4.3 (6.7)

Capacity utilization (fn1).......................................... 82.3 79.1 82.8 84.9 80.4 219 0.6 (3.2) 3.8 (4.5)

Share of U.S. production using:..............................

Domestic raw sugar/sugar crop inputs................. 74.9 76.1 80.5 85.9 84.8 5.5 1.2 4.4 (1.1)

Mexican raw sugar/estandar inputs...................... 7.4 2.8 11.7 3.9 10.4 4.3 (4.6) 8.9 6.5

Nonsubject raw sugar inputs................................ 17.7 21.2 7.9 10.2 4.8 (9.8) 3.5 (13.3) (5.4)

Imported raw sugar/estandar inputs.................. 25.1 23.9 19.5 14.1 15.2 (5.5) (1.2) (4.4) 1.1

U.S. shipments produced from domestic raw sugar/sugar crop sources:

Quantity............................................................... 7,555 7,806 8,697 2,117 2,331 229 15.1 3.3 11.4 10.1

Value................................................................... 5,642,656 6,334,965 6,180,960 1,625,511 1,475,719 230 9.5 12.3 (2.4) (9.2)

Unit value............................................................ $747 $812 $711 $768 $633 231 (4.8) 8.7 (12.4) (17.6)

U.S. shipments produced from imported raw sugar/estandar from Mexico:

Quantity............................................................... 727 257 1,204 116 330 229 65.5 (64.6) 367.7 183.2

Value................................................................... 597,694 208,889 913,452 98,482 231,244 230 52.8 (65.1) 337.3 134.8

Unit value............................................................ $822 $812 $759 $846 $702 231 (7.7) (1.2) (6.5) (17.1)

of which estimated domestic value................... 35,899 10,676 346,781 28,987 86,140 229 866.0 (70.3) 3,148.4 197.2

of which estimated subject import value............ 561,795 198,214 566,672 69,495 145,104 229 0.9 (64.7) 185.9 108.8

U.S. shipments produced from imported raw sugar from nonsubject sources:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 230 *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** 231 *** *** *** ***

of which estimated domestic value................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

of which estimated nonsubject import value...... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 230 *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** 231 *** *** *** ***

Export shipments:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 230 *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** 231 *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity........................................ 815 956 1,110 1,737 1,405 229 36.2 17.3 16.1 (19.1)

Inventories/total shipments (fn1)............................. 8.0 9.2 10.2 16.7 12.3 229 2.2 1.2 1.0 (4.4)

Production workers................................................. 9,713 8,444 9,134 9,702 10,242 229 (6.0) (13.1) 8.2 5.6

Hours worked (1,000s)............................................ 20,262 18,177 19,824 5,506 5,812 229 (2.2) (10.3) 9.1 5.6

Wages paid ($1,000).............................................. 456,655 421,203 463,383 128,820 137,115 229 1.5 (7.8) 10.0 6.4

Productivity (short tons raw value per 1,000 hours). 508.9 582.9 557.6 618.4 546.6 229 9.6 14.5 (4.3) (11.6)

Unit labor costs....................................................... $44.28 $39.75 $41.92 $37.83 $43.16 229 (5.3) (10.2) 5.5 14.1

Contains Confidential Business Information

(Quantity=short tons raw value; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton raw value; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted)

Crop year October to December

Report data

Full crop year comparisions

Period changes

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

Sugar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, crop years 2010-11 through 2012-13, Oct-Dec 2012-13, and Oct-Dec 2013-14

Partial year 

comparison

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2012-13 2013-14

2010-11 to 

2012-13

2010-11 to 

2011-12

2011-12 to 

2012-13

2012-13 to 

2013-14

Net Sales:

Quantity............................................................... 10,704 10,800 11,451 2,720 2,923 229 7.0 0.9 6.0 7.5

Value................................................................... 8,485,821 9,066,487 8,407,088 2,203,559 1,895,682 230 (0.9) 6.8 (7.3) (14.0)

Unit value............................................................ $793 $839 $734 $810 $649 231 (7.4) 5.9 (12.5) (19.9)

Cost of goods sold (COGS).................................... 6,961,673 7,525,414 6,904,107 1,796,396 1,666,458 229 (0.8) 8.1 (8.3) (7.2)

Gross profit of (loss)............................................... 1,524,148 1,541,073 1,502,981 407,163 229,224 229 (1.4) 1.1 (2.5) (43.7)

SG&A expenses..................................................... 784,773 832,990 869,445 260,282 200,941 229 10.8 6.1 4.4 (22.8)

Operating income or (loss)...................................... 739,375 708,083 633,536 146,881 28,283 229 (14.3) (4.2) (10.5) (80.7)

Capital expenditures............................................... 316,405 291,025 318,333 49,555 71,072 229 0.6 (8.0) 9.4 43.4

Unit COGS............................................................. $650 $697 $603 $660 $570 229 (7.3) 7.1 (13.5) (13.7)

Unit SG&A expenses.............................................. $73 $77 $76 $96 $69 229 3.6 5.2 (1.6) (28.2)

Unit operating income or (loss)............................... $69 $66 $55 $54 $10 229 (19.9) (5.1) (15.6) (82.1)

COGS/sales (fn1)................................................... 82.0 83.0 82.1 81.5 87.9 229 0.1 1.0 (0.9) 6.4

Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).................... 8.7 7.8 7.5 6.7 1.5 229 (1.2) (0.9) (0.3) (5.2)

U.S. millers':

Average capacity quantity....................................... *** *** *** *** *** 191 *** *** *** ***

Production quantity................................................. *** *** *** *** *** 193 *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (fn1).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** 219 *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 230 *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** 231 *** *** *** ***

Export shipments:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 230 *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** 231 *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity........................................ *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Inventories/total shipments (fn1)............................. *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Production workers................................................. *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Hours worked (1,000s)............................................ *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Wages paid ($1,000).............................................. *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Productivity (short tons raw value per 1,000 hours). *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Unit labor costs....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Net Sales:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 230 *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** 231 *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS).................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Gross profit of (loss)............................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)...................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Capital expenditures............................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Unit COGS............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Unit SG&A expenses.............................................. *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Unit operating income or (loss)............................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

COGS/sales (fn1)................................................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).................... *** *** *** *** *** 229 *** *** *** ***

fn1.--Report data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points.

C-4

Contains Confidential Business Information

(Quantity=short tons raw value; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton raw value; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted)

Report data Period changes

Crop year October to December Full crop year comparisions
Table C-2

Sugar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market excluding ADM, crop years 2010-11 through 2012-13, Oct-Dec 2012-13, and Oct-Dec 2013-14

Partial year 

comparison

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2012-13 2013-14

2010-11 to 

2012-13

2010-11 to 

2011-12

2011-12 to 

2012-13

2012-13 to 

2013-14

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount................................................................... 10,738 10,719 11,659 2,727 3,093 8.6 (0.2) 8.8 13.4

Producers' share (fn1):

Included producers.............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Excluded producers............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All producers.................................................... 70.4 72.8 74.6 77.6 75.4 4.2 2.5 1.8 (2.3)

Importers' share (fn1):

Subject................................................................ 15.4 9.9 17.7 10.0 18.5 2.4 (5.5) 7.8 8.5

Nonsubject.......................................................... 14.3 17.3 7.7 12.4 6.1 (6.6) 3.0 (9.6) (6.3)

Total imports.................................................. 29.6 27.2 25.4 22.4 24.6 (4.2) (2.5) (1.8) 2.3

U.S. consumption value:

Amount................................................................... 7,990,761 8,482,828 7,720,911 2,008,710 1,820,562 (3.4) 6.2 (9.0) (9.4)

Producers' share (fn1)............................................

Included producers.............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Excluded producers............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All producers.................................................... 70.6 74.7 80.1 80.9 81.1 9.4 4.1 5.4 0.1

Importers' share (fn1):

Subject................................................................ 15.8 10.0 13.5 8.8 14.1 (2.3) (5.8) 3.5 5.3

Nonsubject.......................................................... 13.6 15.3 6.4 10.3 4.8 (7.1) 1.7 (8.9) (5.4)

Total imports.................................................. 29.4 25.3 19.9 19.1 18.9 (9.4) (4.1) (5.4) (0.1)

Additional domestic value added as a ratio to the value of apparent U.S. consumption on:

Subject imports.................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject imports.............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports.................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from.--

Subject sources:

Quantity............................................................... 1,650 1,062 2,066 272 573 210 25.2 (35.6) 94.5 110.3

Value................................................................... 1,261,924 849,049 1,042,185 176,964 256,880 211 (17.4) (32.7) 22.7 45.2

Unit value............................................................ $765 $799 $504 $650 $448 212 (34.0) 4.5 (36.9) (31.0)

Ending inventory quantity..................................... 101 156 186 109 192 225 84.3 54.4 19.3 76.2

Nonsubject sources:

Quantity............................................................... 1,532 1,850 895 338 189 350 (41.6) 20.8 (51.6) (44.1)

Value................................................................... 1,086,181 1,298,815 497,767 206,235 87,963 351 (54.2) 19.6 (61.7) (57.3)

Unit value............................................................ $709 $702 $556 $611 $466 352 (21.6) (1.0) (20.8) (23.7)

Ending inventory quantity..................................... 133 241 109 124 58 365 (18.2) 81.0 (54.8) (53.1)

Total imports:

Quantity............................................................... 3,183 2,912 2,962 610 762 490 (6.9) (8.5) 1.7 24.9

Value................................................................... 2,348,105 2,147,864 1,539,952 383,199 344,843 491 (34.4) (8.5) (28.3) (10.0)

Unit value............................................................ $738 $737 $520 $628 $453 492 (29.5) (0.0) (29.5) (27.9)

Ending inventory quantity..................................... 234 397 295 233 250 505 26.0 69.5 (25.7) 7.3

U.S. processors' and refiners':

Average capacity quantity....................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production quantity................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (fn1).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of U.S. production using:..............................

Domestic raw sugar/sugar crop inputs................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexican raw sugar/estandar inputs...................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject raw sugar inputs................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imported raw sugar/estandar inputs.................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments produced from domestic raw sugar/sugar crop sources:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments produced from imported raw sugar/estandar from Mexico:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

of which estimated domestic value................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

of which estimated subject import value............ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments produced from imported raw sugar from nonsubject sources:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

of which estimated domestic value................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

of which estimated nonsubject import value...... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventories/total shipments (fn1)............................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hours worked (1,000s)............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Wages paid ($1,000).............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Productivity (short tons raw value per 1,000 hours). *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit labor costs....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Contains Confidential Business Information

(Quantity=short tons raw value; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton raw value; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted)

Report data Period changes

Crop year October to December Full crop year comparisions

C-5
Table C-2--Continued

Sugar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, crop years 2010-11 through 2012-13, Oct-Dec 2012-13, and Oct-Dec 2013-14

Partial year 

comparison

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2012-13 2013-14

2010-11 to 

2012-13

2010-11 to 

2011-12

2011-12 to 

2012-13

2012-13 to 

2013-14

Net Sales:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS).................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit of (loss)............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capital expenditures............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit COGS............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit SG&A expenses.............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit operating income or (loss)............................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

COGS/sales (fn1)................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. millers':

Average capacity quantity....................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production quantity................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (fn1).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventories/total shipments (fn1)............................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hours worked (1,000s)............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Wages paid ($1,000).............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Productivity (short tons raw value per 1,000 hours). *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit labor costs....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Net Sales:

Quantity............................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value................................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value............................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS).................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit of (loss)............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capital expenditures............................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit COGS............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit SG&A expenses.............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit operating income or (loss)............................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

COGS/sales (fn1)................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

fn1.--Report data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points.

C-6

Contains Confidential Business Information

(Quantity=short tons raw value; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton raw value; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted)

Report data Period changes

Crop year October to December Full crop year comparisions
D‐1

APPENDIX D

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF MILLERS, PROCESSORS,  

AND REFINERS

D‐3

Table D-1 

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. millers, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 through 2012/13, 

October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

* * * * * * * 

Table D-2 

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Net Sales Quantity (1,000 STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp.1 *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 10,704 10,800 11,451 2,720 2,923 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Net Sales Value ($1,000) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp.1 *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 8,485,821 9,066,487 8,407,088 2,203,559 1,895,682 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.
D‐4

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Total COGS ($1,000) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal2 *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp.1 *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 6,961,673 7,525,414 6,904,107 1,796,396 1,666,458 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 1,524,148 1,541,073 1,502,981 407,163 229,224 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.
D‐5

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 SG&A expenses ($1,000) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 784,773 832,990 869,445 260,282 200,941 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal2 *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 739,375 708,083 633,536 146,881 28,283 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.
D‐6

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Raw material costs as a ratio to net sales (percent) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 60.5 61.9 58.2 59.3 61.2 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Direct labor costs as a ratio to net sales (percent) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 3.8 3.0 3.7 3.8 5.1 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.
D‐7

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Other factory costs as a ratio to net sales (percent) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal2 *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 17.8 18.1 20.2 18.5 21.6 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS as a ratio to net sales (percent) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal2 *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 82.0 83.0 82.1 81.5 87.9 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.
D‐8

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 SG&A expenses as a ratio to net sales (percent) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 9.2 9.2 10.3 11.8 10.6 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) as a ratio to net sales (percent) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 8.7 7.8 7.5 6.7 1.5 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.
D‐9

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Unit net sale value (dollars per STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 793 839 734 810 649 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit raw material costs (dollars per STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 479 520 428 480 397 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.        
D‐10

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Unit direct labor costs (dollars per STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 30 25 27 31 33 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit other factory costs (dollars per STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 141 152 148 149 140 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.
D‐11

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Unit COGS (dollars per STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 650 697 603 660 570 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit gross income or (loss) (dollars per STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 142 143 131 150 78 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the next page.
D‐12

Table D-2--Continued

Sugar: Results of operations of U.S. processors and refiners, by firm, 2012/13 years 2010/11 

through 2012/13, October-December 2012/13, and October-December 2013/14 

Firm 

Crop years October to December 

2010/11 20111/12 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 

 Unit SG&A expenses (dollars per STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 73 77 76 96 69 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) (dollars per STRV) 

AmCane Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

American Crystal *** *** *** *** ***

American Sugar Holdings *** *** *** *** ***

Archer Daniels Midland *** *** *** *** ***

CSC Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Imperial Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Sugar Refining *** *** *** *** ***

Michigan Sugar Co. *** *** *** *** ***

Minn-Dak Farmers Coop *** *** *** *** ***

So.Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

Amalgamated Sugar *** *** *** *** ***

Western Sugar Coop *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Sugar Corp. *** *** *** *** ***

Wyoming Sugar Growers *** *** *** *** ***

All firms 69 66 55 54 10 

All firms excluding melt houses *** *** *** *** ***

Note.—Changes to *** to the questionnaire response of *** were received too late to be used. These 

changes would have no effect on the industry presentation. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.