Slip Op. 10-103 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x CHANGZ HOU WUJ I

N FI NE CHEMI CAL : FACTORY CO., L TD. and JI ANGSU : J IANGHA ICHEMI CAL GROUP, L TD., :

: Plaintiffs, : : v. : : Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Jud ge UNI TED STATES, : Consol. Court No. 09-00216 : Def endant, : : and : : COMPASS CHEMI CAL : I NTERNATI ONAL , L L C, : : Def endant- Interve nor. :

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- x OP INION [The court denie s Plainti ffs’ Motion for Rehea ringand Rec onsideration.]

Dated: Septembe r 13, 2010 Riggle &Craven (

David J. Crave n ), for

Plaintiffs. Tony W est , Assistant Attorney

Gene ral; Jeanne

E. Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCa rthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates De partment of J ustice ( Antonia R. Soares ); Ahran Kang McCloskey , Attorney-I nternational, Of Counsel, Off ice of the Chief Counsel for

Import Administration, United St ates De partment of Commerc e, for Def endant. Mondial Trade Compliance Servic es &Solutions Inc . ( Jeffrey S. Levin ), for Def endant- Interve nor. Ba rzilay , J udg e: Plaintiffs Chang zhou W ujin Fine Chemica l Fac tory Co., L td., and J iang su J iang hai Chemical Gr oup, Ltd. (tog ether , “Plaintiffs”), move pursuant to Rule 59 forConsol. Court No. 09-00216 P age 2

rec onsideration of this cour t’s August 5, 2010 opinion i n the above -ca ptioned case
. See

1 Changzhou W

ujin Fine Chem. Factory Co. v . United States , Slip Op. 10-85, 2010 W L3239213 (CI T Aug . 5, 2010). Specific ally , Plaintiffs claim that the court e rre d in sustaining the U.S. Depa rtment of Commerce ’s (“ Commerce” ) adjustment of the U .S. price in 1-Hy droxye thylidene- 1, 1-Diphosphonic Ac id from the People’ s Republic of China , 74 Fe d. Reg
. 10,545 (De p’t of Commerce Mar. 11, 2009) (final de termination) (“ Remand D etermination ”), to
acc ount for an industry

standard sa les commission. P ls. Mot. 1; see Changzhou W ujin Fine Chem. Factory

Co. , 2010 WL32392139, at *3. For the re asons g iven below, the c ourt denies Plaintiffs’ motion. I. Stand ard of Review Whether to g rant a

motion for rehe aringunder U SCI T Rule 59 “lies within the sound discretion of the court.” USEC, Inc. v . United States , 25 CI T 229, 230, 138 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1336 (2001) ( citations omitt ed). The court will not g rant a rehe aringmere ly

to allow a losing party to relitigate a c ase. Id. , 138 F. Supp. 2d at 1336-37 ( citations omitt ed). The moving pa rty instead must show that the court c ommitt ed “a fundame ntal or sig nificant” err or in the orig inal proce eding
. Id. II. Discussion Plaintiffs assert that “the sole fac tual basis” for Commerce’ s use of a

n industry -wide standard sa les commission is a Febr uary 28, 2008 aff

idavit citing to a c ommissi on pay ment by NanjingUniversity

of Chemical Te chnolog y Chang zhou W ujin W ater Quality Stabiliz er F actor

y , L td. (“Wujin W ater ”). Pls. Mot. 2; see Pls. Mot . App. 1. As all par ties conce de, howe ver, dur ing
Familiarity

with the proce dural posture of this case is presumed. 1Consol. Court No. 09-00216 P age 3

the investig ation Commerce f ound that Wuji n Water did not pay a commission duringthe per iod of re view. Pls. Mot. 2; Def. Resp. 2-3. Consequently , Plaintiffs maintain that “the only fac tual basis in the aff

idavit in support of the ty pical industry

commission was expressly proven to be incorre ct” a

nd that the cour

t must reverse its previous aff irmation of Commerce ’s inclusion of the sales c ommissi on in the U.S. price. Pls. Mot. 2. Unfortunately

for Plaintiffs, whe n Commerce ma de its determination to include the sa les commission in t he U.S. price , Commerce did not re ly upon the Fe bruar

y 28, 2008 aff

idavit. Rather, it base d its conclusion on a re vised aff idavit submit ted on Marc h 26, 2008, befor e the investigation init iation. Remand D etermination at 6 & n.23; see Def . Resp. App. 2. In addition to the information provided in the e arlier aff idavit, the revised a ffidavit states that the a ffiant imported subject mer chandise from firms other than Wujin W ater

for whic h it paid a sales commission and that “[t] he . . . commission rate is ty pical of othe r trade rs/broker s exporting to the United States.” D ef. Resp. A pp. 2 (bra ckets in orig inal). In other wor ds, that Wuj in Water did not pay

a commission does not deprive Commerc e of the substantial evidence require d to support its determination that an industry standard sa les commission ex ists. See Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States , 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 ( Fe d. Cir. 1984) (“Substantial evide nce on the rec ord
means more than a mer e scintilla and such r eleva nt evidence as a r easona

ble mind might ac ceptConsol. Court No. 09-00216 P age 4

as ade quate to support a c onclusion, takinginto account the e ntire re cord, inc luding whatever fairly detra cts from the substantiality of the e vidence .” (quotation marks omitted)). III. Conclusi on The c ourt DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for rec onsideration.
Dated: Septembe r 13, 2010 /s/ J udith M. Barzil ay New Y ork, Ne w York J udith M. Barzil ay , J udg e