994 F.Supp. 393 (CIT. 1998), 93-03-00159, Mita Copystar America, Inc. v. United States

Docket Nº:Court No. 93-03-00159.
Citation:994 F.Supp. 393
Party Name:MITA COPYSTAR AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Slip Op. 98-2.
Case Date:January 09, 1998
Court:Court of International Trade

Page 393

994 F.Supp. 393 (CIT. 1998)




Slip Op. 98-2.

Court No. 93-03-00159.

United States Court of International Trade.

Jan. 9, 1998

Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, L.L.P. (Steven P. Florsheim), New York City, for Plaintiff.

Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen.; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney-in-Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Barbara M. Epstein); Office of Asst. Chief Counsel, Intern. Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs Service (Beth C. Brotman), of counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Neville, Peterson & Williams (John M. Peterson and George W. Thompson), Washington, DC, for amici curiae Katun Corp., Xerox Corp.

Page 394



This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for rehearing and reconsideration. Plaintiff, Mita Copystar America ("Mita"), moves under USCIT R. 59(a) for a rehearing of Mita Copystar America, Inc. v. United States, (" Mita II "), 21 CIT 611, 966 F.Supp. 1245 (1997), holding that toner cartridges are properly classified as "chemical preparations for photographic uses," under subheading 3707.90.30, HTSUS (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States).

Plaintiff submits that in Mita II the Court erred in its analysis of the applicable law and, furthermore, that the Court's application of the law used in the decision came as a "complete and unpredictable surprise." Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Its Mot. For Reh'g. and Recons., at 3 (" Pl.'s Mem. "). For these reasons, plaintiff requests that the Court grant its motion for rehearing and reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion is denied.


The grant of a motion for rehearing, reconsideration or retrial under USCIT R. 59(a) is within the sound discretion of the court. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. United States, 14 CIT 582, 583 (1990) (citations omitted); Union Camp Corp. v. United States, 21CIT 371, ----, 963 F.Supp. 1212, 1213 (1997) (citation omitted). The purpose of a rehearing is not to relitigate a case. See BMT Commodity Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 854, 855, 674 F.Supp. 868, 869 (1987) (citation omitted). Rather, a rehearing only serves to rectify "a significant flaw in the conduct of the original proceeding." W.J.Byrnes & Co. v. United States, 68 Cust.Ct. 358, C.R.D. 72-5 (1972)...

To continue reading