[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22790-22793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09362]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-201-846]


Sugar From Mexico: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATED: Effective Date: April 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaitlin Wojnar at (202) 482-3857, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On March 28, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of 
sugar from Mexico, filed in proper form, on behalf of the American 
Sugar Coalition and its members (collectively, Petitioners).\1\ The CVD 
Petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition with 
respect to Mexico.\2\ Petitioners are domestic processors, millers, and 
refiners of sugar and growers of sugar cane and sugarbeets. On April 1, 
2014, the Department requested information and clarification for 
certain portions of the CVD Petition.\3\ On April 2, 2014, the 
Department requested information and clarification for certain general 
portions of the AD and CVD Petitions.\4\ Petitioners filed their 
responses to these requests on April 7, 2014.\5\ In response to a phone 
conversation with the Department on April 9, 2014,\6\ Petitioners filed 
a second response supplementing the Petition on April 10, 2014.\7\ On 
April 14, 2014, Petitioners made another submission modifying the scope 
of the Petition.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Imports of Sugar From Mexico, dated March 28, 2014 (CVD Petition or 
Petition).
    \2\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Sugar From Mexico, dated March 28, 2014 (AD Petition).
    \3\ See Letter to Robert C. Cassidy, Jr. from Mark Hoadley, 
dated April 1, 2014 (CVD Supplemental Questions).
    \4\ See Letter to Robert C. Cassidy, Jr. from Mark Hoadley, 
dated April 2, 2014 (General Issues Supplemental Questions).
    \5\ See Response to CVD Supplemental Questions, dated April 7, 
2014 (CVD Supplement); Response to General Supplemental Questions, 
dated April 7, 2014 (General Issues Supplement).
    \6\ See Phone Call With Petitioners Ex Parte Memorandum, dated 
April 9, 2014.
    \7\ See Second General Issues Supplement to Petitions, dated 
April 10, 2014 (Second General Issues Supplement).
    \8\ See Supplement to the Scope of the Petition, dated April 14, 
2014 (Scope Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that the Government of Mexico 
(the GOM) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of 
sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) with respect to imports of sugar 
from Mexico, and that imports of sugar from Mexico are materially 
injuring, and threaten material injury to, the domestic industry 
producing sugar in the United States. The Department finds that 
Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry 
because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 
771(9)(C), (E), (F), or (G) of the Act, and that Petitioners 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation 
of the investigation Petitioners are requesting.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition,'' 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2013, through 
December 31, 2013.

Scope of Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is sugar from Mexico. For 
a full description of the scope of this investigation, see ``Scope of 
Investigation'' at the Appendix of this notice.

Comments on Scope of Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed 
scope in order to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would 
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic 
industry is seeking relief.\10\ As discussed in the Preamble to the

[[Page 22791]]

regulations,\11\ we are setting aside a period for interested parties 
to raise issues regarding product coverage. The period of scope 
comments is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity 
to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the 
issuance of the preliminary determinations. All comments must be filed 
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on May 7, 2014, which is 
twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any 
rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 14, 2014. All 
such comments must be filed on the records of the CVD investigation, as 
well as the concurrent AD investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See General Issues Supplemental Questions; see also General 
Issues Supplement at 3-8; Phone Call with Petitioners Ex Parte 
Memorandum, dated April 9, 2014; Second General Issues Supplement at 
1-4; Scope Supplement.
    \11\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).\12\ An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted from the 
electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in 
paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets United, Room 
1870, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the established deadline.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For general filing requirements, see 19 CFR 351.303.
    \13\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b). For details regarding the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 
2011). Information regarding IA ACCESS assistance can be found at 
https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at 
https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic 
%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
invited representatives of the GOM for consultations with respect to 
the Petition.\14\ Consultations were held with the GOM on April 11, 
2014.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Letter of Invitation Regarding Countervailing Duty 
Petition on Sugar from Mexico, dated April 1, 2014.
    \15\ See Consultations with the Government of Mexico Ex Parte 
Memorandum, dated April 11, 2014 (Consultations Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) if there is a large number of producers in 
the industry, the Department may determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. In investigations 
involving processed agricultural products, such as the instant 
investigation, the Act allows the Department also to include growers or 
producers of the raw agricultural product within the definition of the 
industry upon satisfaction of certain conditions.\16\ Thus, to 
determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the 
statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who 
produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade 
Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ``the 
domestic industry'' has been injured, must also determine what 
constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. 
While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory 
definition regarding the domestic like product,\17\ they do so for 
different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. 
In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations 
of time and information. Although this may result in different 
definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the 
decision of either agency contrary to law.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See section 771(4)(E) of the Act. For a full discussion of 
this provision of the Act and the Department's analysis, see 
Attachment II--Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Sugar from Mexico (CVD Initiation Checklist) at 
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Sugar from Mexico. The CVD 
Initiation Checklist is dated concurrently with, and hereby 
incorporated into, this notice and on file electronically via IA 
ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available in 
the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department 
building.
    \17\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \18\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 
(C.I.T. 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 
F. Supp. 639, 644 (C.I.T. 1988), aff'd, 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 
1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 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 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we determined that sugar, as defined in the scope of the 
investigation, constitutes a single domestic like product and we 
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To 
establish industry support, Petitioners provided their production of 
the domestic like product in crop year 2012/2013,\20\ and compared this 
to the total production of the domestic like product for the entire 
domestic industry.\21\ We relied upon data

[[Page 22792]]

Petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Data on the domestic sugar industry are gathered and 
presented by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a 
crop year basis to reflect the annual cycle of planting, growing, 
harvesting, and processing sugar. The crop year begins on October 1 
and ends on September 30. Petitioners contend that data on a crop 
year basis more accurately reflects the production of sugar than 
would data presented on a calendar year basis. In addition, 
Petitioners note that all producers of sugar report their data to 
USDA on a crop year basis. See General Issues Supplement at 12.
    \21\ See Petition at Exhibit I-6; General Issues Supplement at 
9-16, Exhibits II, and Exhibit III; and Second General Issues 
Supplement at Attachment IA.
    \22\ See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2014, we received comments on industry support from 
the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA).\23\ We also received 
comments on industry support from Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 
\24\ and Camara Nacional de Las Industrias Azucarera Y Al Alcoholera 
(Camara) \25\ on April 11, 2014. Petitioners responded to the letters 
from GMA, ADM, and Camara on April 15, 2014.\26\ In its consultations 
with the Department, the GOM raised the issue of industry support.\27\ 
On April 15, 2014, we received additional comments on industry support 
from the GMA.\28\ For further discussion of these comments, see the CVD 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Letter from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 
dated April 11, 2014. We note that this letter is dated April 11, 
2014; however, it was received by the Department on April 10, 2014.
    \24\ See Letter from Archer Daniels Midland Company, dated April 
11, 2014.
    \25\ See Letter from Camara, dated April 11, 2014.
    \26\ See Letter from Petitioners, dated April 15, 2014.
    \27\ See Consultations Memorandum.
    \28\ See Letter from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 
dated April 15, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, 
we determine that Petitioners met the statutory criteria for industry 
support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic 
producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product.\29\ Based 
on information provided in the Petition, the domestic producers (or 
workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in sections 771(9)(C), (E), (F), or (G) of the Act and they 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
countervailing duty investigation that they are requesting the 
Department initiate.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Mexico is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Mexico materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. Petitioners allege that subject 
imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 
771(24)(A) of the Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Petition at 31 and Exhibit I-15; see also General 
Issues Supplement at 17-18 and Exhibit VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depression 
or suppression, lost sales and revenues, forfeitures and USDA purchases 
that remove surpluses of domestically produced sugar from the market to 
stabilize prices, decline in payments to growers and farmers, and 
decline in financial performance.\33\ We have assessed the allegations 
and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material 
injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations 
are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Petition at 3-4, 19-20, 28-55, Exhibit I-3, Exhibit I-
4, Exhibit I-13, and Exhibits I-15 through I-21; see also General 
Issues Supplement at 15-19, Exhibit I.A, and Exhibits VI through 
VIII; Second General Issues Supplement at 5-7 and Attachment 3; and 
Scope Supplement at 2 and Attachment 1.
    \34\ See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Sugar from 
Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on 
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner 
supporting the allegations. In the Petition, Petitioners allege that 
producers/exporters of sugar in Mexico benefited from countervailable 
subsidies bestowed by the government. The Department examined the 
Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 
702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether 
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of sugar from Mexico receive 
countervailable subsidies from the government.
    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on certain 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the attached CVD 
Initiation Checklist.
    A public version of the initiation checklist is available on IA 
ACCESS.

Respondent Selection

    For this investigation, the Department intends to select 
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for 
U.S. imports of subject merchandise during the POI under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers: 
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. We intend to release the 
CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties 
with access to information protected by APO shortly after the 
announcement of this case initiation.
    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such 
applications may be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo/. 
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. EDT on the seventh calendar day after 
publication of this notice. Comments must be filed in accordance with 
the requirements discussed above in the ``Filing Requirements'' section 
of this notice. If respondent selection is necessary, we intend to base 
our decision regarding respondent selection upon comments received from 
interested parties and our analysis of the record information within 20 
days of publication of this notice.

[[Page 22793]]

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been 
provided to the GOM via IA ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will 
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each 
known exporter (as named in the Petition), as provided in 19 CFR 
351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of sugar from Mexico are materially injuring, 
or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\35\ A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two 
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: the definition of 
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for 
the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule 
identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted 
in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of 
allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors 
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration 
under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the 
Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described 
in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual 
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) 
the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted 
to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the 
record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already 
on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or 
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather 
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits 
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These 
modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 
10, 2013, and thus are applicable to this investigation. Please review 
the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this 
investigation.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\36\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that the Department issued a final rule 
with respect to certification requirements, effective August 16, 2013. 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials as well as their 
representatives. All segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on 
or after August 16, 2013, including this investigation, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final 
Rule.\37\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \37\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also the 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
the following: http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension of Time Limits

    On September 20, 2013, the Department published Extension of Time 
Limits, Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), which modified 
one regulation related to AD and CVD proceedings regarding the 
extension of time limits for submissions in such proceedings (19 CFR 
351.302(c)). These modifications are effective for all segments 
initiated on or after October 21, 2013, and thus are applicable to this 
investigation. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm prior to 
requesting an extension.

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should 
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the 
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: April 17, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix--Scope of the Investigation

    The product 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/c13-1-4-6(16)8(18)9(19)11(21-4)23-12(3-15)10(20)7(17)5(2-
14)22-12/h4-11,13-20H,1-3H2/t4-,5-,6-,7-,8+,9-,10+,11-,12+/m1/s1, 
the InChl Key for sucrose is CZMRCDWAGMRECN-UGDNZRGBSA-N, the U.S. 
National Institutes of Health PubChem Compound Identifier (CID) for 
sucrose is 5988, and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Number of 
sucrose is 57-50-1.
    Sugar 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.
    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.

[FR Doc. 2014-09362 Filed 4-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P