Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2022 / Notices 935 

6See First Redetermination at 21. 

7See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 

Endustrisi, A.S. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 

1195 (CIT 2019) (Second Remand Order). 

8See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 

Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United Stated, Consol. Ct. 

No. 17–00204, Slip Op. 19–130, dated January 15, 

2020 (Second Redetermination), available at https:// 

enforcement.trade.gov/remands/19-130.pdf. 

9 Id. at 4. 

10See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 

Endustrisi, A.S. v. United States, 439 F. Supp. 3d 

1342 (CIT 2020) (Third Remand Order). 

11See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazler 

Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United Stated, Consol. Ct. 

No. 17–00204, Slip Op. 20–51, dated July 1, 2020 

(Third Redetermination), available at https://

enforcement.trade.gov/remands/20-51.pdf. 

12 Id. at 5. 

13See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 

Endustrisi, A.S. v. United States, 470 F.Supp. 3d 

1363 (CIT September 4, 2020). 

14See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

15See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

16See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 

Endustrisi, A.S. v. United States, 470 F.Supp. 3d 

1363 (CIT September 4, 2020). 

Redetermination, Commerce calculated 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margins of 4.98 percent for Habas, 8.66 

percent for Icdas, and 7.03 percent for 

all other producers and exporters of 

subject merchandise.6

On October 17, 2019, in its Second 

Remand Order, the CIT sustained 

Commerce’s duty drawback adjustment 

as applied to export price, but remanded 

Commerce to recalculate NV without 

making a COS adjustment in the same 

amount. The CIT also sustained 

Commerce’s use of partial AFA with 

respect to Icdas.7

On January 15, 2020, Commerce 

issued its second results of 

redetermination, in which it 

recalculated each respondent’s NV 

without making the COS adjustment 

related to duty drawback.8 In addition, 

Commerce made an adjustment to cost 

in the amount of the duty forgiven 

divided by the production data to arrive 

at the annual average per-unit import 

duty burden, which was added to the 

cost of production. Commerce 

continued to adjust the full amount of 

duties drawn back to U.S. price as in the 

First Redetermination. As a result of the 

changes to our duty drawback 

methodology in the Second 

Redetermination, Commerce calculated 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margins of 4.08 percent for Habas, 4.17 

percent Icdas, and 4.13 percent for all 

other producers and exporters of subject 

merchandise.9

On April 17, 2020, in its Third 

Remand Order, the CIT granted 

Commerce’s request for voluntary 

remand and ordered Commerce to 

include Inward Processing Certificate 

(IPC) #36 in its duty drawback 

calculation for Habas.10 On July 1, 2020, 

in the third results of redetermination, 

Commerce revised Habas’ duty 

drawback calculation to include IPC 

#36, which had mistakenly been 

omitted previously.11 As a result of this 

revision to Habas’ duty drawback 

calculation in the Third 

Redetermination, Commerce calculated 

an estimated weighted-average dumping 

margin of 3.96 percent for Habas, and 

4.07 percent for all other producers and 

exporters of subject merchandise. Icdas’ 

weighted-average dumping margin 

remained at 4.17 percent calculated in 

the Second Redetermination.12 On 

September 4, 2020, the court sustained 

Commerce’s Third Redetermination.13

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,14 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,15 the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

held that, pursuant to section 516A of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), Commerce must publish a notice 

of court decision that is not ‘‘in 

harmony’’ with a Commerce 

determination and must suspend 

liquidation of entries pending a 

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

September 4, 2020 judgment constitutes 

a final decision of the Court that is not 

in harmony with Commerce’s Amended 

Final Determination.16 Thus, this notice 

is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken and 

section 516A of the Act. 

Amended Final Determination 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, Commerce is amending its 

Amended Final Determination. The 

revised estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins are as follows: 

Exporter or producer 

Weighted-average 

dumping margin 

(percent) 

Cash deposit 

(adjusted for 

subsidy offsets) 

Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S ................................................................................... 3.96 3.92 

Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S ...................................................................................... 4.17 4.00 

All Others ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.07 3.90 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because there have been subsequent 

administrative reviews for Habas and 

Icdas, the cash deposit rate will remain 

the rates established in the most 

recently completed administrative 

reviews for these companies. The cash 

deposit rate for all other producers and 

exporters is revised from 7.26 percent in 

the Amended Final Determination and 

Order to 3.90 percent, as a result of the 

final court decision. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and 

(e), 735(d), 736(a), 751(a) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 30, 2021. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00107 Filed 1–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–053] 

Certain Aluminum Foil From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final 

Determination of No Shipments; 2019– 

2020 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) finds that exporters of 

certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) 

from the People’s Republic of China 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
936 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2022 / Notices 

1See Certain Aluminum Foil from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, and Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments; 2019–2020, 86 FR 35747 (July 7, 2021) 

(Preliminary Results), and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

2See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Aluminum Foil 

from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review,’’ dated October 28, 2021; 

see also Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Aluminum Foil 

from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review,’’ dated December 14, 2021. 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic 

of China; 2019–2020,’’ dated concurrently with, and 

hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum). 

4We incorrectly stated in the Preliminary Results 

that this administrative review covers 14 companies 

that were not selected for individual examination. 

The correct number is 11 companies. 

5See Certain Aluminum Foil from the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order, 83 FR 17362 (April 19, 2018) (Order). 

6See Memorandum, ‘‘Zhongji Analysis for the 

Final Results’’ (Zhongji Final Analysis 

Memorandum); Memorandum, ‘‘Final Results 

Surrogate Value Memorandum’’ (Final Results 

Surrogate Value Memorandum), both dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

7For details on the changes made since the 

Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

8See Preliminary Results, 86 FR at 35747. 

9We received interested party comments that 

certain company names contained minor spelling 

errors in the Preliminary Results, and we have 

corrected the spellings for these final results. See 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. 

10See Non-Market Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 

FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (Assessment Practice 

Refinement). 11See Preliminary Results Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum at 10–14. 12See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 11. 

13See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10. 

14See Preliminary Results, 86 FR at 35748. 

(China) made sales of subject 

merchandise at prices less than normal 

value during the period of review (POR) 

April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020. 

DATES: Applicable January 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scarlet Jaldin or Michael J. Heaney 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) 482–4275 or (202) 482–4475 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Commerce published the Preliminary 

Results on July 7, 2021.1 On October 28, 

2021, and December 14, 2021, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), Commerce extended the deadline 

for issuing the final results, until 

December 30, 2021.2 For a complete 

description of the events that occurred 

since the Preliminary Results, see the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

The administrative review covers two 

mandatory respondents: (1) Jiangsu 

Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., (HK) 

Ltd.; Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination 

Materials Stock Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu 

Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., Ltd.; 

and Jiangsu Huafeng Aluminum 

Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

Zhongji), and (2) Jiangsu Alcha 

Aluminum Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Alcha). 

The administrative review also covers 

11 other companies that were not 

selected for individual examination.4

Scope of the Order 5

The merchandise covered by the 

Order is aluminum foil from China. For 

a full description of the scope, see the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in interested parties’ 

briefs are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. A list of the 

issues raised by interested parties and to 

which we responded in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is provided in 

the appendix to this notice. The Issues 

and 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 http://

access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

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

FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our review of the record and 

comments received from interested 

parties, we made certain changes to the 

preliminary margin calculation for 

Zhongji,6 and consequently, to the rate 

assigned to the non-examined, separate 

rate respondents.7

Final Determination of No Shipments 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

preliminarily determined that Jiangsu 

Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock 

Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Teemful 

Aluminium Co., Ltd.; and Hangzhou 

Five Star Aluminium Co., Ltd. had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR.8 We received no 

information to contradict this 

determination.9 Therefore, we continue 

to find that these companies had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR and will issue 

appropriate liquidation instructions that 

are consistent with our ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification for these final 

results.10

Separate Rate Respondents 

In the Preliminary Results, we found 

that each of the following companies 

demonstrated its eligibility for separate 

rate status: (1) Zhongji; (2) Alcha 

International Holdings Limited; (3) 

Dingsheng Aluminum Industries (Hong 

Kong) Trading Co.; (4) Hangzhou 

Dingsheng Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (5) 

Hunan Suntown Marketing Limited; (6) 

Shanghai Huafon Aluminum 

Corporation; (7) Suntown Technology 

Group Limited; (8) Xiamen Xiashun 

Aluminum Foil Co., Ltd,; and (9) 

Yinbang Clad Materials Co., Ltd. 

(Yinbang Clad).11 We received 

comments with respect to Shanghai 

Huafon Aluminum Corporation; we find 

that this company was incorrectly 

included in the preliminary list of 

companies eligible for a separate rate, 

and we have removed this company for 

the final results.12 We also received 

comments that certain company names 

were incorrectly identified in the 

Preliminary Results, and we have 

corrected the spellings of these 

company names for these final results.13

We received no other argument since 

the issuance of the Preliminary Results 

that provide a basis for reconsideration 

of these determinations. 

Therefore, we find for these final 

results that the following companies 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate rate status: (1) Zhongji; (2) 

Alcha International Holdings Limited; 

(3) Dingsheng Aluminium Industries 

(Hong Kong) Trading Co., Limited (a.k.a 

Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Trading Co., Ltd.); (4) Hangzhou 

Dingsheng Import&Export Co., Ltd. 

(a.k.a. Hangzhou Dingsheng Import and 

Export Co., Ltd.); (5) Hunan Suntown 

Marketing Limited; (6) Suntown 

Technology Group Corporation Limited 

(a.k.a. Suntown Technology Group Co., 

Ltd.; (7) Xiamen Xiashun Aluminum 

Foil Co., Ltd, and (8) Yinbang Clad 

Materials Co., Ltd. (Yinbang Clad). 

Rate for Non-Examined Separate Rate 

Respondents 

As noted in the Preliminary Results,14

the statute and Commerce’s regulations 

do not address what rate to apply to 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2022 / Notices 937 

15Rate applicable to the non-examined separate 

rate respondents, as discussed above. 

16See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement 

of Change in Department Practice for Respondent 

Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and 

Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy 

Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 

FR 65963 (November 4, 2013). 

17See Order, 83 FR 17362. 

18See Zhongji Final Analysis Memorandum at 

Attachment 2. 

19 Id. 

20See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

respondents not selected for individual 

examination when Commerce limits its 

examination in an administrative review 

pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the 

Act. Generally, Commerce looks to 

section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 

provides instructions for calculating the 

all-others rate in an investigation, for 

guidance when calculating the rate for 

non-selected respondents that are not 

examined individually in an 

administrative review. Section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the allothers rate should be calculated by 

averaging the weighted-average 

dumping margins for individually 

examined respondents, excluding rates 

that are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts available. Where the 

rates for the individually examined 

companies are all zero, de minimis, or 

based entirely on facts available, section 

735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that 

Commerce may use ‘‘any reasonable 

method’’ to establish the all-others rate. 

In this review, we calculated a rate for 

Zhongji that is not zero, de minimis, or 

based entirely on facts available, and we 

have continued to assign the rate 

calculated for Zhongji to the companies 

not selected for individual examination 

but that are eligible for a separate rate. 

Final Results of Review 

Commerce determines that the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margins exist for the period April 1, 

2019, through March 31, 2020: 

Exporter 

Final 

weighted-average 

dumping margin 

(percent) 

Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., (HK) Ltd./Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Stock Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Zhongji 

Lamination Materials Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Huafeng Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd ...................................................................... 62.02 

Review-Specific Rate Applicable to the Following Companies 15

Alcha International Holdings Limited ......................................................................................................................................... 62.02 

Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Limited (a.k.a Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) 

Trading Co., Ltd.) ................................................................................................................................................................... 62.02 

Hangzhou Dingsheng Import&Export Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. Hangzhou Dingsheng Import and Export Co., Ltd.) ........................... 62.02 

Hunan Suntown Marketing Limited ........................................................................................................................................... 62.02 

Suntown Technology Group Corporation Limited (a.k.a. Suntown Technology Group Co., Ltd .............................................. 62.02 

Xiamen Xiashun Aluminum Foil Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................. 62.02 

Yinbang Clad Materials Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... 62.02 

Disclosure 

Commerce intends to disclose the 

calculations performed in connection 

with these final results of review to 

parties in this review within five days 

after public announcement of the final 

results, or, if there is no public 

announcement, within five days of the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

China-Wide Entity 

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce 

found that Jiangsu Alcha and SNTO 

International Group Limited (SNTO) did 

not establish eligibility for a separate 

rate because SNTO did not file a 

separate rate application or certification 

with Commerce, and because Jiangsu 

Alcha failed to respond to our standard 

NME antidumping questionnaire. No 

interested party commented on 

Commerce’s preliminary determination 

with respect to Jiangsu Alcha and 

SNTO. Therefore, for these final results, 

we determine these companies to be 

part of the China-wide entity. 

Commerce’s policy regarding 

conditional review of the China-wide 

entity applies to this administrative 

review.16 Under this policy, the Chinawide entity will not be under review 

unless a party specifically requests, or 

Commerce self-initiates, a review of the 

entity. Because no party requested a 

review of the China-wide entity in this 

review, the entity is not under review 

and the entity’s rate (i.e., 105.80 

percent) is not subject to change.17

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce 

has determined, and U.S Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review. 

Commerce intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 

days after the date of publication of the 

final results of this review in the 

Federal Register. If a timely summons is 

filed at the U.S. Court of International 

Trade, the assessment instructions will 

direct CBP not to liquidate relevant 

entries until the time for parties to file 

a request for a statutory injunction has 

expired (i.e., within 90 days of 

publication). 

For each individually examined 

respondent in this review which has a 

final weighted-average dumping margin 

that is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.5 percent), we will calculate 

importer- (or customer-) specific perunit duty assessment rates based on the 

ratio of the total amount of dumping 

calculated for the importer’s (or 

customer’s) examined sales to the total 

sales quantity associated with those 

sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(l).18 We will also calculate 

estimated ad valorem importer-specific 

assessment rates with which to 

determine whether the per-unit 

assessment rates are de minimis.19

Where either the respondent’s weightedaverage dumping margin is zero or de 

minimis, or an importer- (or customer- 

) specific assessment rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties.20

For the respondents which were not 

selected for individual examination in 

this administrative review and which 

qualified for a separate rate, the 

assessment rate will be equal to the rate 

assigned to them for the final results 

(i.e., 62.02 percent). For the companies 

identified as part of the China-wide 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
938 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2022 / Notices 

21For a full description of this practice, see 

Assessment Practice Refinement, 86 FR 65694. 

1See Agreement Suspending the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Sugar from Mexico, 79 FR 

78044 (December 29, 2014) (CVD Agreement). 

2See Sugar from Mexico: Amendment to the 

Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty 

Investigation, 85 FR 3613 (January 22, 2020) (CVD 

entity, we will instruct CBP to apply a 

per-unit assessment rate of 105.80 

percent to all entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR which 

were produced or exported by those 

companies. Pursuant to a refinement in 

our non-market economy practice, for 

sales that were not reported in the U.S. 

sales data submitted by companies 

individually examined during this 

review, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate entities associated with those 

sales at the rate for the China-wide 

entity. Furthermore, where we found 

that an exporter under review had no 

shipments of the subject merchandise, 

any suspended entries that entered 

under that exporter’s case number (i.e., 

at that exporter’s cash deposit rate) will 

be liquidated at the rate for the Chinawide entity.21

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for shipments of 

the subject merchandise from China 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

companies identified in the chart above, 

the cash deposit rate will be equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

established in the final results of this 

review; (2) for previously investigated or 

reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese 

exporters not listed above that have 

received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of this proceeding, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

existing exporter-specific cash deposit 

rate published for the completed 

segment of the most recent period; (3) 

for all Chinese exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate for the 

China-wide entity; and (4) for all nonChinese exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own separate rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

Chinese exporter that supplied that nonChinese exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers Regarding 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this POR. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in Commerce’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties has occurred and 

the subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders (APO) 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to parties subject to APO of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 

which continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials, or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of administrative review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 30, 2021. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

V. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Selection of Surrogate Country 

Comment 2: HTS Classifications for Certain 

Material Inputs and By-Products 

Comment 3: Ocean Freight 

Comment 4: Double Remedies Adjustment 

Comment 5: Sales to Foreign Trade Zones 

Comment 6: Differential Pricing 

Methodology 

Comment 7: Calculation of Zhongji’s 

Margin 

Comment 8: Separate Rate Margin 

Comment 9: Selection of Individually 

Examined Respondents 

Comment 10: Correction of Company 

Names 

Comment 11: Review of Shanghai Huafon 

Aluminum Corporation 

VI. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2022–00080 Filed 1–6–22; 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 2020 Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement & Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) preliminarily determines 

that the signatory, the Government of 

Mexico (GOM), and the respondent 

companies selected for individual 

examination, respectively, Impulsora 

Azucarera Del Tropico, S.A. de C.V. 

(Impulsora Del Tropico) and its affiliate 

and Ingenio Huixtla SA de C.V. (Ingenio 

Huixtla) and its affiliates are in 

compliance with the Agreement 

Suspending the Countervailing Duty 

Investigation on Sugar from Mexico, as 

amended (CVD Agreement), except for 

certain instances of inconsequential 

non-compliance. Commerce also 

preliminarily determines that the CVD 

Agreement continues to meet its 

statutory requirements under sections 

704(c) and (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), during the POR. 

However, Commerce intends to address 

certain issues identified in this review 

by discussing these issues with the 

GOM and Mexican producers/exporters, 

as appropriate. We may request 

consultations pursuant to the CVD 

Agreement, as necessary, to resolve 

these issues. 

DATES: Applicable January 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sally C. Gannon or David Cordell, 

Enforcement & Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–0162 or 

(202) 482–0408, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 19, 2014, Commerce 

signed an agreement under section 

704(c) of the Act, with the GOM, 

suspending the countervailing duty 

(CVD) investigation on sugar from 

Mexico.1 On January 15, 2020, the CVD 

Agreement was amended.2


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE