of an independent board of directors directing Taifa’s activities in contradiction to how Taifa originally reported its ownership and management to the Department ... there is insufficient record evidence to support a conclusion that Taifa operated under central government control.” Third Remand Results, at 6. Although Gleason now asks the court to reconsider its earlier ruling on lack of evidence supporting central government control, no parties challenge Commerce’s current determination on this issue as unsupported. See Gleason Cmts., at 2-4; Taifa Cmts., at 4. There is no statutory compulsion of a country-wide rate, and in this case the record shows no necessity for using such a rate. But cf. Watanabe Grp. v. United States, Slip Op. 10-139, 2010 WL 5371606, *4-5 (CIT Dec. 22, 2010) (<HOLDING>). Whether or not Commerce may in some cases
holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate holding affidavit insufficient when it failed to state when affiant received information from informant when informant obtained information or when described incident took place holding that it may not holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract holding that commerce may select the prcwide rate when it received no information whatsoever from respondent