Us Mexico Suspension Agreement Sugar

Oct
2021
13

posted by on Uncategorized

On June 14, 2017, the Ministry published for notice draft amendments to the agreements as initialled by the signatories. The Department considered the rebuttal comments and comments received by interested parties when the amendments to the agreements were concluded. The amendments apply to all contracts for sugar from Mexico for the export limit period from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018 and to all contracts for sugar from Mexico (regardless of the export limit period) exported from Mexico on or after October 1, 2017. “The result of these changes has been to give a competitive advantage to a segment of the U.S. sugar industry (U.S. cane sugar refineries) at the expense of CSC Sugar and others, for whom costs intensify when sugar needs to be processed with lower purity,” CSC said. The final amendments will ensure that sugar suspension agreements, in line with the USDA sugar program, continue to promote stability in the U.S. sugar market. Commerce conducted this verification in accordance with Section 751(a)(1)(C) of the Act, which provides that commerce must “verify the current status and compliance with any agreement that has suspended an investigation.” In this case, Commerce and GOM signed the CVD agreement on December 19, 2014. In accordance with the CVD Agreement, GOM has agreed to export restrictions on Start Printed Page 6907merchandise, as provided for in the CVD Agreement.

[11] The goM also agreed to other conditions, including restrictions on refined sugar [12] and the issuance of specific export certificates (subsequently amended in specific contracts). [13] The amendment to the CVD Convention also made certain changes to the M GO licensing system and the polarity of the sugar to be exported. [14] The 2014 agreements provide for a review every five years, which the D.O.C. has previously indicated would begin in December of this year, although results are only expected in a few months. The U.S. government and sugar producers stated that the agreement should be upheld, but the court stated that “although the defendant asserts that CSC Sugar was not biased because it “actively participated in the administrative proceedings,” the defendant does not respond to the fact that Commerce`s total non-compliance with Section 1677f (its registration requirements) effectively prevented CSC Sugar: comment on ex parte materials and discussions carried out by the trade during the CVD (counterweight). Obligation) to modify the negotiations. “This is the first decision in which a suspension agreement of any kind has been overturned,” the company said. . .

.