2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a domestic corporation established by the ○○○ and the bepanty of Japan by investing in 1:1, and the ○○○○ Limited Liability Corporation (hereinafter “Limited Liability Corporation”) is a corporation established by ○○○ and the Ma○○○○ Co., Ltd. on or around 2005 to China.

B. From December 22, 2008 to February 25, 2009, through Limited Construction, the Plaintiff imported various clothes, raws, etc., including 411120850389U, and 36 U.S. (hereinafter “instant goods”) indicated in the separate sheet, and reported and paid fees (the total amount of 7% of the goods; hereinafter “instant fees”) paid to Limited Corporation (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the dutiable value, as stated in the separate sheet payment duty and additional tax.

C. From December 21, 2010 to February 1, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for the refund of customs duties and surcharges on the instant fee (the part of the attached list (request for correction) and the item in the column of the additional tax (request for correction)) among the customs duties and value-added tax paid as above on the ground that “the instant fee should be deducted from the dutiable value as a purchase fee” with the Defendant several times from February 21, 201.

D. On February 18, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract with limited construction works and production management agency for the Plaintiff’s obligation to maintain quality that the Plaintiff owes to the owner of the trademark right, which goes beyond the scope of the services of the purchasing agent as referred to in the Decision 2.1 of the WT Customs Technology Committee, and thus, dismissed the claim for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it does not fall under the purchase commission as referred to in the proviso of Article 30(1)1 of the Customs Act.

E. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 18, 201, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on December 28, 201.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 4 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The plaintiff's argument is unlawful since the plaintiff's limited liability company, as the plaintiff's purchasing agent, colors the producer of the goods, delivers the plaintiff's instructions concerning the design, availability, and location of the goods to the producer, delivers the plaintiff's instructions concerning the goods manufactured by the producer, conducts the quality inspection of the finished goods, and takes measures to correct defects in the event of defects, the fees paid by the plaintiff to the limited liability company fall under the purchase commission under the proviso of Article 30 (1) 1 of the Customs Act. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On February 28, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on limited construction works and production management (hereinafter “instant contract”). From around that time, the Plaintiff imported the instant goods, etc. through limited construction works up to that time. The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

An agent contract for production management: A specialized contractor for a limited construction project (hereinafter referred to as “A”): A and B shall perform a contract for the production management of goods to be imported under the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “B”), Article 1 (Purpose), A and B, thereby ensuring the efficiency of the management of goods by entrusting the management of goods produced in China to China, and A shall undertake a business partnership for both parties’ interests by collecting fees for the management of goods produced in China.

Article 2(Scope and Coverage)The scope of production management for A shall be the production place of the goods the import of which is requested by B and the goods designated by B.

Article 3 (Responsibility and Obligations) (1) A shall manage the quality of the goods in the production place at a certain level, and manage them so that importation may be carried out according to the terms and conditions of the import contract of the goods. If importation is not carried out according to the terms and conditions of the import contract, it shall be deemed that the production management of the goods has not been properly carried out, and Eul may be responsible

(2) If it is deemed that a problem is likely to arise in the production process, A shall immediately notify B thereof and both parties shall cooperate to solve the problem.

3. A shall conduct inspections prior to shipment so that the goods required by B may be imported, and shall notify B of the result thereof. In such cases, if any defect occurs in the goods, the reduction shall take corrective measures for the defective goods. When finding any defect after shipment, A is obliged to take follow-up measures after importation, and shall resolve the defect in accordance with mutual agreement.

(4) A shall be liable to take follow-up measures for imported goods sold.

(5) A shall be responsible for managing subsidiary materials and all kinds of supplies provided by B.

Article 4 (Fees for Production Management Agency) The calculation of fees for production management agency shall be 7% of the total amount of the goods in the commercial invoice, and the rate of fees may vary under mutual negotiations, depending on the circumstances. From March 1, 2006, the amount of fees shall be applied from the warehouse after the date of application.

2) The Plaintiff, under the instant contract, instructed a limited company to take measures such as quality control, management of production schedule, resolution of problems related to production, and transportation charges, etc., and the limited company fulfilled such measures.

In addition, the plaintiff and limited liability corporation consulted on the estimation and unit price of the original group.

3) At the time of import of the instant goods, the Plaintiff supplied or procured labels, labels, bags, raw materials, etc. to limited companies or local factories as follows:

A) The Plaintiff supplied the entire label and lag to the limited company, and the limited company delivered it to the local factory as it is, and where there is a shortage after the factory confirmed the quantity, the company visited the limited company and received additional supply from the Plaintiff.

B) In the case of a prime ordinary contract, local factories produce goods by directly ordering the main contractor in China and, in the case of a certain main unit, the Plaintiff will request a limited company to select the main contractor and then the local factory will produce the goods by ordering the main contractor. The cost of the raw materials shall be paid by the Plaintiff after the local factory bears the burden of the local factory.

(c) In ordinary cases of subsidiary materials and trade, local factories are procured by directly ordering subsidiary materials companies in China, but the Plaintiff shall be supplied if there are quality and other circumstances (such as logs or development costs are low compared to Korea).

[Grounds] In light of Article 30(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010) and Article 8 of the WTO New Valuation Convention, the customs value of imported goods shall be calculated on the basis of the price actually paid or payable by the buyer as the price for imported goods, and the commission and brokerage fee to be paid by the buyer shall be added, but the purchase commission shall be excluded.

In addition, according to the WCO Section 2.1 of the year of the WCO Customs Valuation Technology Committee, a purchasing agent is a person who acts for a buyer's account and collects samples and arranges insurance, transportation, storage, delivery, etc. to a seller, and the buyer pays the buyer's agent for the services on behalf of the buyer in purchasing the goods.

In full view of the above provisions, if there are commissions, etc. included in the calculation of the dutiable value by the tax authority, to be recognized as a purchase commission that is not subject to addition to the dutiable value, the act of purchase agency and the payment of money is required to be made for the purchase service. In addition, in light of the provisions of the proviso of Article 30(1)1 of the Customs Act and Article 8 of the WTO New Evaluation Convention, the existence of the purchase agency and the fact that the money is the price for the purchase service shall be proved by the assertion. Even if the existence of the purchase agency can be recognized, if the amount of the purchase commission is unclear, or if the purchase agent can not separately calculate the purchase commission even though the amount of the purchase commission is included in the cost other than the purchase commission, the full amount of the money can not be recognized as the purchase commission (this legal principle provides that if Article 17-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act amended on April 1, 2011 includes the purchase fee paid to the purchase agent, it shall be further clear that the amount can be calculated separately.

2) In light of the above provisions and the legal principles as seen above, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff paid fees to the limited company for the service of production management of the goods of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff according to the contract of this case. Even if the limited company engaged in the Plaintiff’s act of buying agency, the fees of this case paid by the Plaintiff include production management commission in addition to the purchase commission, and there is no data that can be calculated separately, and the entire fees of this case do not constitute purchase commission.

① The name of the instant contract is “production management agency contract,” and most of the terms of the contract are related to production management, including the quality maintenance of goods produced in the Chinese factory, the implementation management of import contract, the cooperation to solve problems in the production process, and the management of subsidiary materials and all kinds of supplies paid by the Plaintiff.

② Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff performed services, such as quality control, production schedule management, etc., with limited liability, including not only performing the Plaintiff’s instructions but also delivering labels and tags to local factories or participating in the selection of the original contractor upon the Plaintiff’s request. Such services exceed the scope of activities of the purchasing agent.

③ The reason why the purchase commission is excluded from the dutiable value is that if the buyer directly or indirectly sends the buyer and negotiates the purchase from a foreign country, their travel expenses or benefits are not included in the product price at the buyer’s expense, and the cost of employing an overseas agency performing the same role in commercial transactions is not included in the product price. The instant fee is based on the nature that the price of the goods should be included in the price of the goods as the price for the service for the production management agency of limited

④ Although it is reasonable to view that the limited company is in charge of manufacturing, shipping, etc. goods in China and is also engaged in some of its purchasing agents, it cannot be deemed that the limited company is engaged in the same business as above by incidental to the production management agency business.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on the same premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.