89368 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices 

12 ‘‘Other Sugar’’ is defined Section II.F of the AD 

Agreement. 13See AD Agreement at Section VII.C.6. 14See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 6–8 

and fn. 47 and 59. 

15See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Administrative 

Protective Order, Service, and Other Procedures in 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 

88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29, 2023). 

16See 19 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

17We use the term ‘‘issue’’ here to describe an 

argument that Commerce would normally address 

in a comment of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

18See Administrative Protective Order, Service, 

and Other Procedures in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings; Final Rule, 88 FR 

67069 (September 29, 2023). 

Other Sugar 12 is tested for polarity by 

a laboratory approved by CBP upon 

entry into the United States and that the 

importers of record report the polarity 

test results for each entry to Commerce 

within 30 days of entry.13

After reviewing the information 

received from the respondent 

companies in their questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaire responses, 

we preliminarily determine that the 

respondents adhered to the terms of the 

AD Agreement during the POR and that 

the AD Agreement is functioning as 

intended. Further, we preliminarily 

determine that the AD Agreement 

continued to meet the statutory 

requirements under sections 734(c) and 

(d) of the Act during the POR. 

We were not able to complete our 

review of one respondent for one aspect 

of the AD Agreement, the requirement 

in Section VI to eliminate at least 85 

percent of the dumping found in the 

investigation, and we therefore intend to 

address this issue in a post-preliminary 

analysis. We find that we require 

additional information in order to 

complete our examination. Therefore, 

we will continue our examination after 

the issuance of these preliminary results 

as to whether the respondents complied 

with the requirement to eliminate at 

least 85 percent of the dumping found 

in the investigation during the POR, and 

we intend to issue a post-preliminary 

analysis addressing the issue as soon as 

practicable. 

For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our 

conclusions, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum. The 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a 

public document and is on file 

electronically via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Commerce also addresses certain issues, 

which require discussion of business 

proprietary information, in separate 

memoranda which we incorporate into 

the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum.14

Public Comment 

Commerce intends to issue a postpreliminary analysis memorandum 

subsequent to the publication of this 

notice with respect to the requirement 

to eliminate at least 85 percent of the 

dumping found in the investigation. 

Thus, Commerce will announce the 

briefing schedule to interested parties at 

a later date. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs on the deadline that 

Commerce will announce. Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed not later than 

five days after the date for filing case 

briefs.15 Interested parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding must submit: (1) a table of 

contents listing each issue; and (2) a 

table of authorities.16 As provided under 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior 

proceedings we have encouraged 

interested parties to provide an 

executive summary of their brief that 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. In this review, we 

instead request that interested parties 

provide at the beginning of their briefs 

a public, executive summary for each 

issue raised in their briefs.17 Further, we 

request that interested parties limit their 

executive summary of each issue to no 

more than 450 words, not including 

citations. We intend to use the executive 

summaries as the basis of the comment 

summaries included in the issues and 

decision memorandum that will 

accompany the final results in this 

administrative review. We request that 

interested parties include footnotes for 

relevant citations in the executive 

summary of each issue. Note that 

Commerce has amended certain of its 

requirements pertaining to the service of 

documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).18

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing must submit a written request to 

the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance, filed electronically via 

ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) 

the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

respective case briefs. An electronically 

filed hearing request must be received 

successfully in its entirety by 

Commerce’s electronic records system, 

ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. 

Commerce intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

the issues raised in any written briefs, 

not later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless 

extended. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 20, 2023. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Agreement 

IV. Preliminary Results of Review 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2023–28492 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–201–846] 

Agreement Suspending the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation on 

Sugar From Mexico; Preliminary 

Results of the 2022 Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily 

determines that the signatory, the 

Government of Mexico (GOM), and the 

respondent companies selected for 

individual examination, respectively, 

Compan ̃ı ́a Industrial Azucarera S.A. de 

C.V. and its affiliates and Ingenio 

Presidente Benito Juarez S.A. de C.V., 

were in compliance with the Agreement 

Suspending the Countervailing Duty 

Investigation on Sugar from Mexico, as 

amended (CVD Agreement) during the 

period of review (POR). Commerce also 

preliminarily determines that the CVD 

Agreement met the applicable statutory 

requirements during the POR. 

DATES: Applicable December 27, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill 

Buckles or Walter Schaub, Enforcement 

& Compliance, International Trade 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices 89369 

1See Agreement Suspending the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Sugar from Mexico, 79 FR 

78044 (December 29, 2014); see also Sugar from 

Mexico: Amendment to the Agreement Suspending 

the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 85 FR 3613 

(January 22, 2020) (collectively, CVD Agreement). 

2The members of the American Sugar Coalition 

are: American Sugar Cane League; American 

Sugarbeet Growers Association; American Sugar 

Refining, Inc.; Florida Sugar Cane League; Rio 

Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc.; Sugar Cane 

Growers Cooperative of Florida; and the United 

States Beet Sugar Association. 

3See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Request for 

Administrative Review,’’ dated December 20, 2022. 

4See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 88 FR 

7060 (February 2, 2023). 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Respondent Selection,’’ 

dated March 31, 2023. 

6Prior to July 1, 2016, merchandise covered by 

the AD Agreement was also classified in the HTSUS 

under subheading 1701.99.1010. Prior to January 1, 

2020, merchandise covered by the AD Agreement 

was also classified in the HTSUS under 

subheadings 1701.14.1000 and 1701.99.5010. 

7For a complete description of the Scope of the 

CVD Agreement, see Memorandum, ‘‘Decision 

Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 

2022 Administrative Review: Sugar from Mexico,’’ 

dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, 

this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

8See CVD Agreement at Section V. 

9 ‘‘Refined Sugar’’ is defined in Section II.L of the 

CVD Agreement. 

10 Id. at Section V.C. 

11 Id. at Section VI and Appendix I. 

12 Id. at Section VIII.B.1 and Appendix II. 

13 Id. at Section VIII.B.4; see also See Sugar from 

Mexico: Suspension of Antidumping Investigation, 

79 FR 78039 (December 29, 2014); and Sugar from 

Mexico: Amendment to the Agreement Suspending 

the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 85 FR 3620 

(January 22, 2020) (collectively, AD Agreement). 

14See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Administrative 

Protective Order, Service, and Other Procedures in 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 

88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29, 2023) (APO and 

Final Service Rule). 

15See 19 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

16We use the term ‘‘issue’’ here to describe an 

argument that Commerce would normally address 

in a comment of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

17See APO and Final Service Rule. 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 

(202) 482–6230 or (202) 482–0907, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Commerce and the GOM signed the 

CVD Agreement under section 704(c) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), which suspended the underlying 

countervailing duty investigation on 

sugar from Mexico, on December 19, 

2014, and which was subsequently 

amended on January 15, 2020.1

On December 20, 2022, the American 

Sugar Coalition and its members (the 

petitioners) 2 filed a timely request for 

an administrative review of the CVD 

Agreement.3 On February 2, 2023, 

Commerce initiated an administrative 

review for the period January 1, 2022, 

through December 31, 2022.4

On March 31, 2023, Commerce 

selected two companies as mandatory 

respondents, listed in alphabetic order: 

Compan ̃ı ́a Industrial Azucarera S.A. de 

C.V. and its affiliates and Ingenio 

Presidente Benito Juarez S.A. de C.V.5

In addition, the review covered the 

GOM, which is the signatory to the CVD 

Agreement. 

Scope of the CVD Agreement 

The product covered by this CVD 

Agreement is raw and refined sugar of 

all polarimeter readings derived from 

sugar cane or sugar beets. Merchandise 

covered by this CVD Agreement is 

typically imported under the following 

subheadings of the HTSUS: 

1701.12.1000, 1701.12.5000, 

1701.13.1000, 1701.13.5000, 

1701.14.1020, 1701.14.1040, 

1701.14.5000, 1701.91.1000, 

1701.91.3000, 1701.99.1015, 

1701.99.1017, 1701.99.1025, 

1701.99.1050, 1701.99.5015, 

1701.99.5017, 1701.99.5025, 

1701.99.5050, and 1702.90.4000.6 The 

tariff classification is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of this CVD Agreement is 

dispositive.7

Methodology and Preliminary Results 

Commerce has conducted this review 

in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(C) 

of the Act, which specifies that 

Commerce shall ‘‘review the current 

status of, and compliance with, any 

agreement by reason of which an 

investigation was suspended.’’ Pursuant 

to the CVD Agreement, the GOM agrees 

that subject merchandise is subject to 

export limits.8 The GOM also agrees to 

other conditions including limits on 

exports of Refined Sugar 9 and 

restrictions on shipping patterns for 

exports.10 The CVD Agreement also 

requires the GOM to issue contractspecific export licenses,11 submit 

compliance monitoring reports to 

Commerce,12 and institute penalties for 

non-compliance with certain key terms 

of the CVD Agreement and the 

companion Agreement Suspending the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Sugar from Mexico, as amended (AD 

Agreement).13

After reviewing the information 

received from the GOM and respondent 

companies in their questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaire responses, 

we preliminarily determine that the 

GOM and respondent companies 

adhered to the terms of the CVD 

Agreement during the POR and that the 

CVD Agreement is functioning as 

intended. Further, we preliminarily 

determine that the CVD Agreement 

continued to meet the statutory 

requirements under sections 704(c) and 

(d) of the Act during the POR. 

For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our 

conclusions, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum. A list of the 

topics discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum is included as 

the appendix to this notice. The 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a 

public document and is on file 

electronically via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), 

interested parties may submit case briefs 

to Commerce no later than 30 days from 

the publication of these preliminary 

results in the Federal Register. Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed not later than 

five days after the date for filing case 

briefs.14 Interested parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding must submit: (1) a table of 

contents listing each issue; and (2) a 

table of authorities.15

As provided under 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior 

proceedings we have encouraged 

interested parties to provide an 

executive summary of their brief that 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. In this review, we 

instead request that interested parties 

provide at the beginning of their briefs 

a public, executive summary for each 

issue raised in their briefs.16 Further, we 

request that interested parties limit their 

executive summary of each issue to no 

more than 450 words, not including 

citations. We intend to use the executive 

summaries as the basis of the comment 

summaries included in the issues and 

decision memorandum that will 

accompany the final results in this 

administrative review. We request that 

interested parties include footnotes for 

relevant citations in the executive 

summary of each issue. Note that 

Commerce has amended certain of its 

requirements pertaining to the service of 

documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).17


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
89370 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices 

1See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 

Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final 

Determination of No Shipments; 2019–2020, 87 FR 

20815 (April 8, 2022) (Final Results), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(IDM). 

2 Id., 87 FR at 20816. 

3See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 

639 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (CIT 2023) (Remand Order). 

4 Id. at 11–14. 

5 Id. at 16–20. 

6 Id. at 21–24. 7 Id. at 16. 8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United 

States, Consolidated Court No. 22–00138, Slip Op. 

23–87 (CIT June 9, 2023), dated August 15, 2023 

(Redetermination). 11 Id. at 7–10 and 20–21. 12 Id. at 10–16 and 21–32. 13 Id. at 17–19 and 33–40. 14 Id. at 40. 15 Id. 16See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 

Consol. Court No. 22–00138, Slip Op. 23–183 (CIT 

December 18, 2023). 17See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 

341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 18See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(Diamond Sawblades). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing must submit a written request to 

the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance, filed electronically via 

ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) 

the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

respective case briefs. An electronically 

filed hearing request must be received 

successfully in its entirety by 

Commerce’s electronic records system, 

ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. 

Commerce intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

the issues raised in any written briefs, 

not later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless 

extended. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 20, 2023. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Agreement 

IV. Preliminary Results of Review 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2023–28491 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–870] 

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

From the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Court Decision Not in Harmony With 

the Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; Notice of 

Amended Final Results 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 18, 2023, the 

U.S. Court of International Trade (the 

Court or CIT) issued its final judgment 

in Hyundai Steel Company v. United 

States, Consol. Court No. 22–00138, Slip 

Op. 23–183, sustaining the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) 

remand results pertaining to the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty (AD) order on certain 

oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from 

the Republic of Korea (Korea) covering 

the period September 1, 2019, through 

August 31, 2020. Commerce is notifying 

the public that the CIT’s final judgment 

is not in harmony with Commerce’s 

Final Results of the administrative 

review, and that Commerce is amending 

the Final Results with respect to the 

dumping margin assigned to AJU 

Besteel Co., Ltd. (AJU Besteel), Husteel 

Co., Ltd. (Husteel), Hyundai Steel 

Company (Hyundai Steel), and 

NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL). 

DATES: Applicable December 18, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Heaney or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–6312, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 8, 2022, Commerce 

published its Final Results in the 2019– 

2020 AD administrative review of OCTG 

from Korea.1 In this administrative 

review, Commerce selected two 

mandatory respondents for individual 

examination: Hyundai Steel and SeAH 

Steel Corporation (SeAH). Commerce 

calculated weighted-average dumping 

margins of 19.54 percent for Hyundai 

Steel, 3.85 percent for SeAH, and 11.70 

percent for the non-examined 

companies in the Final Results.2

Hyundai Steel, AJU Besteel, Husteel, 

and NEXTEEL challenged the Final 

Results on multiple grounds.3

In its Remand Order, the Court 

sustained Commerce’s determination 

with respect to three issues: the use of 

proprietary third-country sales 

information pertaining to SeAH in 

calculations related to Hyundai Steel; 4

adjustments of reported general and 

administrative expenses of Hyundai 

Steel and its U.S. affiliate, Hyundai 

Steel USA, Inc.; 5 and the application of 

neutral facts available to adjust Hyundai 

Steel’s reported further manufacturing 

costs to account for yield loss.6

However, the Court remanded three of 

Commerce’s determinations for 

Commerce to reconsider the issues and 

reexamine the administrative record: 

1. The calculation of Hyundai Steel’s 

constructed export price (CEP) profit 

(for which Commerce requested a 

voluntary remand).7

2. The calculation of Hyundai Steel’s 

constructed value (CV) profit and selling 

expenses.8

3. The calculation of Hyundai Steel’s 

CV profit cap.9

In its final results of redetermination 

pursuant to the Remand Order issued 

on July 16, 2021, Commerce 

reconsidered the three determinations 

listed above.10 In the Redetermination, 

Commerce: 

1. Revised the methodology of 

calculation of CEP profit to rely on 

Hyundai Steel’s actual sales data.11

2. Continued to use SeAH’s thirdcountry market sales to Kuwait in 

calculating the CV profit and selling 

expenses.12

3. Continued to use SeAH’s thirdcountry market sales to Kuwait in 

calculating the CV profit cap.13

As a result, Commerce recalculated 

the weighted-average dumping margin 

for Hyundai Steel, which changed from 

19.54 percent to 9.63 percent.14

Consequently, the dumping margin 

applicable to the non-examined 

companies AJU Besteel, Husteel, and 

NEXTEEL changed from 11.70 percent 

to 6.74 percent.15

On December 18, 2023, the CIT issued 

its final judgment in Hyundai Steel 

Company v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 22–00138, Slip Op. 23–183, 

fully sustaining Commerce’s 

Redetermination.16

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,17 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,18 the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1