Anti-dumping duty turns on the operative notification, and prior exclusions or port practice do not defeat the levy.

Anti-dumping duty is determined by the operative notification and the governing sunset review findings, and the relevant product description must be taken from those later instruments where they state that the product under consideration remains the same as in the original investigation. The earlier exclusion of reflective glass from the original investigation did not control the later levy, and alleged duty-free clearance of similar goods at other ports could not invalidate a notification-based assessment. Reflective glass was therefore not shown to fall outside the goods covered by the anti-dumping notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether reflective glass was excluded from the description of float glass so as to render the levy of anti-dumping duty without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The earlier notifications issued in the original anti-dumping investigation had excluded reflective glass from the scope of float glass, but the later sunset review notifications did not carry that exclusion and stated that the product under consideration remained the same as in the original investigation. The final anti-dumping notification referred to heading 70.05 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the Court held that the relevant description for the levy was the one contained in the later review notifications. Alleged clearance of similar goods at other ports without duty could not control the legality of the notification-based levy.

Conclusion: Reflective glass was not shown to be excluded from the goods covered by the anti-dumping notification, and the levy was not held to be jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: For anti-dumping duty, the taxable description must be gathered from the operative notification and review findings governing the levy, and an omission or different treatment elsewhere does not invalidate a levy that is otherwise supported by the notification.

---