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

18 In these preliminary results, Commerce applied 

the assessment rate calculation adopted in 

Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the 

Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 

Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 

Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 

(February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for 

Reviews). 

19 Id. at 8102. 

20See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

21For a full discussion of this practice, see 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 

(May 6, 2003). 22See Order. 

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

0.5 percent), we will calculate importerspecific ad valorem antidumping duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of dumping calculated 

for each importer’s examined sales to 

the total entered value of those same 

sales in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1).18 Where the respondent 

did not report entered value, we will 

calculate the entered value in order to 

calculate the assessment rate. If the 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

the respondents listed above is zero or 

de minimis in the final results, or an 

importer-specific assessment rate is zero 

or de minimis in the final results, we 

will instruct CBP not to assess 

antidumping duties on any of their 

entries in accordance with the Final 

Modification for Reviews.19

For the companies that were not 

selected for individual review, we 

intend to assign an assessment rate 

based on the methodology described in 

the ‘‘Rate for Non-Examined 

Companies’’ section. The final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable.20

Commerce’s ‘‘automatic assessment’’ 

practice will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by companies included in these final 

results of review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know that the 

merchandise they sold to the 

intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading 

company, or exporter) was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

if there is no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction.21

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). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective for all shipments of the 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 

cash deposit rate for the exporters listed 

above will be that established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not 

participating in this review, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recently-completed segment of this 

proceeding in which the company was 

reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review or previous 

segment, but the manufacturer is, then 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recentlycompleted segment for the producer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other producers or 

exporters will continue to be 5.95 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the less-than-fair-value 

investigation.22 These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this review period. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in Commerce’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

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 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 Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Successor-in-Interest 

V. Companies Not Selected for Individual 

Examination 

VI. Discussion of the Methodology 

VII. Currency Conversion 

VIII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2022–00081 Filed 1–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–845] 

Agreement Suspending the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Sugar From Mexico; Preliminary 

Results of the 2019–2020 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement & Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) preliminarily determines 

that the respondents selected for 

individual examination, respectively, 

Impulsora Azucarera Del Tro ́pico, 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 Antidumping Duty 

Investigation on Sugar from Mexico, as 

amended (AD Agreement). Commerce 

also preliminarily determines that the 

AD Agreement continues to meet its 

statutory requirements under sections 

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

as amended (the Act). However, 

Commerce intends to address certain 

issues identified in this review by 

further discussing these issues with the 

signatory Mexican producers/exporters 

and the Government of Mexico (GOM), 

as appropriate. We may request 

consultations pursuant to the AD 

Agreement, as necessary, to resolve 

these issues. 

DATES: Applicable January 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sally C. Gannon or Jesse Montoya, 

Enforcement & Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2022 / Notices 933 

1See Sugar from Mexico: Suspension of 

Antidumping Investigation, 79 FR 78039 (December 

29, 2014) (AD Agreement). 

2See Sugar from Mexico: Amendment to the 

Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 85 FR 3620 (January 22, 2020) (AD 

Amendment) (collectively, as integrated into the AD 

Agreement, amended AD Agreement). 

3The members of the American Sugar Coalition 

are as follows: 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. 

4See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Sugar from Mexico: 

Request for Administrative Review,’’ dated 

December 17, 2020. 

5See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 86 FR 

8166 (February 4, 2021). 

6See Memorandum, ‘‘2019–2020 Administrative 

Review of the Agreement Suspending the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from 

Mexico As Amended; Respondent Selection,’’ dated 

March 23, 2021. 

7Prior to July 1, 2016, merchandise covered by 

the AD Agreement was classified in the HTSUS 

under subheading 1701.99.1010. Prior to January 1, 

2020, merchandise covered by the AD Agreement 

was classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 

1701.14.1000 and 1701.99.5010. 

8For a complete description of the Scope of the 

AD Agreement, see Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results 

of the 2019–2020 Administrative Review of the 

Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation on Sugar from Mexico, as Amended,’’ 

dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, 

this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

9See amended AD Agreement at Section VI and 

Appendix I. 

10 Id. at Section VI. 

11 Id. at Sections VII.B.1, VII.B.2, and VII.B.4. 

12 Id. at Section VII.C.4. 

13 ‘‘Intermediary Customer’’ is defined in Section 

II.N of the AD Agreement. 

14See AD Amendment at Section VII.C.5. 15 ‘‘Other Sugar’’ is defined Section II.F of the AD 

Amendment. 16See AD Amendment at Section VII.C.6. 17See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 6 

and footnote 47. 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

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

(202) 482–8211, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 19, 2014, Commerce 

signed the AD Agreement with a 

representative of Mexican producers/ 

exporters accounting for substantially 

all imports of sugar from Mexico, under 

section 734(c) of the Act, which 

suspended the antidumping duty (AD) 

investigation on sugar from Mexico.1 On 

January 15, 2020, the AD Agreement 

was amended.2

On December 17, 2020, the American 

Sugar Coalition (ASC) and its members 

(petitioners) 3 filed a timely request for 

an administrative review of the AD 

Agreement.4 On February 4, 2021, 

Commerce initiated an administrative 

review for the period December 1, 2019, 

through November 30, 2020.5

On March 23, 2021, Commerce 

selected two companies as mandatory 

respondents, listed in alphabetical 

order: Impulsora Del Tropico and 

Ingenio Huixtla.6

Scope of the AD Agreement 

The product covered by this AD 

Agreement is raw and refined sugar of 

all polarimeter readings derived from 

sugar cane or sugar beets. Merchandise 

covered by this AD Agreement is 

typically imported under the following 

headings of the HTSUS: 1701.12.1000, 

1701.12.5000, 1701.13.1000, 

1701.13.5000, 1701.14.1020, 

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 

1702.90.4000.7 The tariff classification 

is provided for convenience and 

customs purposes; however, the written 

description of the scope of this AD 

Agreement is dispositive.8

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.’’ In this 

case, Commerce and Mexican 

producers/exporters accounting for 

substantially all imports of sugar from 

Mexico, signed the AD Agreement, 

which suspended the underlying 

antidumping duty investigation, on 

December 19, 2014, and was 

subsequently amended on January 15, 

2020. Pursuant to the AD Agreement, 

each signatory producer/exporter 

individually agrees that it will not sell 

subject merchandise at prices less than 

the reference prices established in 

Appendix I to the AD Agreement.9 Each 

signatory producer/exporter also 

individually agrees that for each entry 

the amount by which the estimated 

normal value exceeds the export price 

(or the constructed export price) will 

not exceed 15 percent of the weighted 

average amount by which the estimated 

normal value exceeded the export price 

(or constructed export price) for all lessthan-fair-value entries of the producer/ 

exporter examined during the course of 

the investigation.10 The signatory 

producers/exporters also individually 

agree to provide documentation upon 

request from Commerce 11 and provide 

certifications each quarter 12 to allow 

Commerce to monitor the AD 

Agreement. In addition, the signatory 

producers/exporters agree to incorporate 

into their sales contracts with 

Intermediary Customers 13 the 

obligation that such customers will 

abide by the terms of the AD 

Agreement.14 Lastly, the signatory 

producers/exporters agree to ensure that 

Other Sugar 15 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.16

After reviewing the information 

received to date from the respondent 

companies in their questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaire responses, 

we preliminarily determine that the 

respondents have adhered to the terms 

of the AD Agreement and that the AD 

Agreement is functioning as intended. 

Further, we preliminarily determine 

that the AD Agreement continues to 

meet the statutory requirements under 

sections 734(c) and (d) of the Act. 

However, Commerce is exploring 

additional measures to help prevent 

reporting and recordkeeping issues with 

regard to certain transactions that may 

serve to diminish the effective 

monitoring and enforcement of the AD 

Agreement. Commerce intends to 

address certain issues identified in this 

review by discussing these issues with 

the signatory Mexican producers/ 

exporters and the GOM, as appropriate. 

We may request consultations pursuant 

to the AD Agreement, as necessary, to 

resolve these issues. 

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 is also addressing 

proprietary issues concerning each of 

the respondents in separate memoranda 

which we incorporate into the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum.17

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(3)(a) of 

the Act, Commerce verified the 

information relied upon in making its 

preliminary results. Normally, 

Commerce verifies information using 


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

18See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Administrative 

Review of the Agreement Suspending the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from 

Mexico: In Lieu of On-Site Verification 

Questionnaire,’’ dated November 23, 2021. 

19See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD 

Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR 

17006 (March 26, 2020); and Temporary Rule 

Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to 

COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 

41363 (July 10, 2020). 

20See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

21See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 22See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

1See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the 

Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 23192 (May 22, 2017) 

(Final Determination), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. 2See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the 

Republic of Turkey and Japan: Amended Final 

Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination for 

the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty 

Orders, 82 FR 32532 (July 14, 2017) (Amended 

Final Determination and Order). 3 Id., 82 FR at 32533. 4See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 

Endustrisi, A.S., and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve 

Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 

3d 1314 (CIT 2019). 

5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 

Istihsal Industrisi, A.S., et al., v. United States, 

Consol. Ct. No. 17–00204, Slip Op. 19–10, dated 

May 17, 2019 (First Redetermination), available at 

https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/19-10.pdf. 

standard procedures, including an onsite examination of original accounting, 

financial, and sales documentation. 

However, due to current travel 

restrictions in response to the global 

COVID–19 pandemic, Commerce is 

unable to conduct on-site verification in 

this review. Accordingly, we chose to 

verify the information relied upon in 

making the preliminary results through 

alternative means in lieu of an on-site 

verification. Commerce issued a 

questionnaire in lieu of on-site 

verification to each of the respondents 

in the review.18 Any issues that arose 

are addressed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum and in the 

accompanying proprietary 

memorandum for each respondent. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs are due 30 days from the 

publication of these preliminary results 

in the Federal Register. Rebuttal briefs, 

limited to issues raised in case briefs, 

may be submitted no later than seven 

days after the deadline date for case 

briefs. 

Note that Commerce has temporarily 

modified certain of its requirements for 

serving documents containing business 

proprietary information, until further 

notice.19 Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this investigation are encouraged to 

submit with each argument: (1) A 

statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities.20

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 

Commerce’s electric records system, 

ACCESS. An electronically filed request 

must be received successfully in its 

entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice.21 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. If a request for 

a hearing is made, Commerce intends to 

hold the hearing at a time and date to 

be determined.22 Parties should confirm 

by telephone the date, time, and 

location of the hearing two days before 

the scheduled date. 

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 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. 2022–00074 Filed 1–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–829] 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From 

the Republic of Turkey: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony With the 

Amended Final Determination in the 

Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation; 

Notice of Amended Final 

Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 4, 2020, the 

U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 

sustained the Department of 

Commerce’s (Commerce) third remand 

redetermination pertaining to the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of 

steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) 

from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). 

Commerce is notifying the public that 

the CIT’s final judgment is not in 

harmony with Commerce’s Amended 

Final Determination in the LTFV 

investigation of rebar from Turkey. 

Pursuant to the CIT’s final judgment, 

Commerce is amending the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

respondents Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 

Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas) and 

Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim 

Sanayi A.S. (Icdas), and all other 

producers and exporters of subject 

merchandise. 

DATES: Applicable September 14, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office VII, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–2371. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 22, 2017, Commerce 

published its Final Determination in the 

LTFV investigation of rebar from 

Turkey.1 Subsequently, on July 14, 

2017, Commerce published its 

Amended Final Determination and 

Order.2 As reflected in Commerce’s 

Amended Final Determination, 

Commerce calculated estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins of 

5.39 percent for Habas, 9.06 percent for 

Icdas, and 7.43 percent for all other 

producers and exporters of subject 

merchandise.3

Habas and Icdas appealed 

Commerce’s Final Determination, as 

amended by the Amended Final 

Determination, to the CIT. On January 

23, 2019, the CIT remanded the 

Amended Final Determination for 

Commerce to: (1) Reconsider its 

calculation of the plaintiffs’ duty 

drawback adjustment; and (2) 

reconsider the application of partial 

adverse facts available (AFA) to Icdas.4

On May 17, 2019, Commerce issued its 

first results of redetermination, in which 

it determined to: (1) Grant Habas and 

Icdas the full amount of duties that were 

drawn back or forgiven to U.S. price, 

and add the same per unit duty amount 

to normal value (NV) as a circumstanceof-sale (COS) adjustment; and (2) 

continue to find that the application of 

partial AFA to Icdas, concerning its 

failure to provide the manufacturer 

information for certain sales in the 

home market, was appropriate.5 As a 

result of the changes in the First 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE