A. According to the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

(1) After purchasing Hydythal ethyl starch (hydroxythy sect; hereinafter referred to as the “instant goods”) 250 kilograms, the Plaintiff prepared an import declaration statement on June 28, 1996, stating the tariff classification (product Nos. 350500, 22,578,028, and the customs duty rate of 8% from Japan to import from Seoul Customs office through Seoul Customs office. On the same day, the Plaintiff submitted an import declaration statement on June 28, 1996, stating that the customs value of the instant goods was 3505.10-500, the customs value of which was 22,578,028, and the customs clearance procedure for the instant goods was completed by paying customs duties and value-added tax on the instant goods after obtaining an import license from the head of Seoul Customs office. The instant goods were imported to use them as raw materials for pharmaceutical homicide (blood products) developed by the Plaintiff.

(2) The goods of this case were prior to the amendment by Act No. 4982 of Dec. 6, 1995, although the original judgment was prior to the amendment by Act No. 5194 of Dec. 30, 1996. The Act was enforced as of July 1, 1996 under Article 1 of the Addenda of Act No. 4982. Since the import declaration was made on June 28, 1996, it shall be applied before the amendment by Act No. 4982 of the above Act. The former Customs Act shall be applied to the import of the goods of this case. Article 7 (3) of the former Customs Act (the original judgment of the court below was prior to the amendment by Act No. 5194 of Dec. 30, 1996) and Article 7 (3) of the former Food Industry Promotion Act (the former Customs Act shall be amended by Presidential Decree No. 15204 of Dec. 31, 1996).

(3) However, as the Plaintiff pointed out that the pertinent goods are subject to import restrictions at the time of submitting the import declaration document to the customs office, and did not require a separate correction or lack of documents, the Plaintiff submitted a certificate of manufacture permission to prove that the imported goods are subject to import restrictions and received the above import declaration document without any objection by the public official in charge.

(4) After the import declaration on the goods of this case was received without any objection at the public official in charge as above, the Plaintiff deemed that 8%, which is the basic rate of customs duty, is applied to the goods of this case without gathering the specific contents of the above concession rate, and used them as raw materials for manufacturing medicines, and on March 18, 1997, which was nine months after the expiration of the nine months thereafter, the head of the Seoul Customs Office under the Defendant’s control issued a notice on the determination of the tax amount returned and paid by the Plaintiff on March 18, 1997 that upon the filing of the import declaration on the goods of this case, 420%, which is the above high concession rate of customs duty, should be applied, on the ground that the said recommendation was not submitted, and that the said high concession rate of customs duty should be applied.

(5) The Plaintiff did not additionally pay the above tax amount of KRW 112,55,970 until the above payment period. Accordingly, when the Plaintiff was denied customs clearance of other goods intended to import, it paid KRW 118,183,760, including additional tax, to April 9, 1997.

(6) The Plaintiff filed a request with the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service to the effect that it was unlawful to correct the amount of customs duties after the lapse of eight months after customs clearance when the Plaintiff did not raise any objection during the import license phase without making a proper examination. However, on June 10, 1997, the Plaintiff filed a request for a new judgment with the National Tax Tribunal but was dismissed on November 28 of the same year.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) Article 17 (1) of the former Customs Act provides that "any person who intends to import goods (excluding goods notified by the head of any customhouse under Article 17-2) shall file a declaration on payment of customs duties with the head of any customhouse at the time of filing an import declaration under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; and Article 17 (2) of the same Act provides that "the head of any customhouse shall, upon receipt of a declaration on payment of customs duties under paragraph (1), examine the matters stated in the import declaration and the matters to be confirmed under this Act after the import declaration is granted: Provided, That where the declared amount of customs duties is deemed difficult to secure claims or it is deemed inappropriate to examine the amount of customs duties after the import declaration is granted, it shall be examined before the import declaration is granted; and Article 17 (4) provides that "the head of any customhouse may, when the declared amount of customs duties is deficient, file a declaration on revised under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree"; Article 17 (5) provides that "the head of any customhouse shall collect the amount of customs duties reduced or decreased amount of customs duties under paragraph (10)."

(2) In addition, Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties Act provides that a person who intends to file a declaration on import pursuant to Article 17(1) of the same Act shall submit a declaration on import to the head of the relevant customs office by stating the tariff classification, tariff rate, amount to be paid, the amount of reduction or exemption of customs duties, the amount of reduction or exemption, legal basis, etc. as stated in the tariff schedule of the relevant goods, and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Customs Duties Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 607 of Dec. 31, 1996) provides that the goods for which an examination of the amount of customs duties is conducted prior to the import license pursuant to the proviso of Article 17(2) of the former Customs Act

C. Judgment of the Supreme Court

(1) In full view of the above relevant laws and regulations, in cases where the method of declaration and payment is applied as seen in the instant goods, it can be seen that, unless the goods subject to prior tax assessment are the goods subject to prior tax assessment, the determination of the amount of tax should be made after the import license, only the formal requirements, which provide that the matters to be stated in the import declaration are written and the documents attached to the import declaration [the price declaration, invoice, packing statement, copy of the bill of lading, and the bill of lading approval (the imported goods)] are completed, and the examination of the amount of tax must be made after the import declaration. As such, the purpose of legislation is to include important and complicated matters such as the assessment of dutiable

(2) Therefore, when the head of a customs office receives a declaration, he/she shall examine the matters stated in the import declaration, and the said declaration constitutes an element of determining the amount of tax, as well as the tariff classification, tax rate, and amount of tax stated in the tariff schedule of the relevant goods. As such, it shall be deemed that the said declaration requires a substantive examination after the import license. Furthermore, the said recommendation is not necessarily a document that must be attached to the import declaration at the time of receipt of the import declaration for customs clearance with respect to the necessary documents related

(3) Therefore, the customs collector shall examine whether the pertinent goods are subject to the concession tariff rate, whether the said written recommendation has to be prepared to be subject to the basic tariff rate, and whether the said written recommendation has been actually prepared after the import license. On the contrary, the customs collector cannot be deemed to have the duty to examine the said written recommendation prior to the import license (the import declaration prior to the acceptance of the import declaration pursuant to the expression of the court below) and to demand the supplement

(4) In addition, the court below held that the request for the supplementation of the above recommendation prior to the receipt of the import declaration is a request for the supplementation of the required documents naturally known in the process of examining the tariff classification and tariff rate as stated in the import declaration rather than a specific examination of the declared duty amount, and thus, it does not go against the legislative intent of the ex post facto examination of the declared duty amount for prompt customs clearance under the Customs Act. However, even if the customs duty rate is the core contents of the examination of the customs duty amount along with the customs duty amount, it cannot be deemed that there is a duty to examine at the time of receipt of the import declaration whether the customs duty rate stated in the import declaration complies with the statutes, and the above recommendation cannot be deemed a required document that can naturally be seen by the customs collector at the time of receipt of the import declaration at the time of formally confirming the entries in the import declaration at the stage of examining the customs duty rate.

(5) In addition, the lower court determined that even though the Plaintiff stated the basic tariff rate in the import declaration, thereby causing damage to the instant goods by being deprived of an opportunity to reduce the amount of tax or to reduce damages caused by returning the instant goods by using them as raw materials for manufacturing medicines, etc., the lower court determined that, if the Plaintiff was aware that the said recommendation was necessary, it would have been issued with the said letter of recommendation if the Plaintiff had been issued, or could not submit it, that the amount of tax would have been 16,80,630 won in excess of 5 times the dutiable value of the instant goods would have been reduced or would have caused damage to the instant goods by being deprived of an opportunity to reduce the amount of tax or by returning the goods at the same time, etc., but, if customs duties were to be imposed and collected in the form of additional duty return and payment, the lower court determined the amount of tax under its own responsibility by the taxpayer, and could not reduce the amount of additional tax by ascertaining that the taxpayer under-reported return and payment of additional tax was made by the customs collector.

(6) If so, at the time of receipt of import declaration of the instant goods, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case, premised on the premise that the instant goods are subject to concession tariff rate application, basic tariff rate application, etc., and that there was an obligation to examine whether the said written recommendation should be prepared, and accordingly, there was an obligation to demand supplementation of the said written recommendation, shall not be exempted from dismissal, on the ground that there is no reason to further examine it.

(7) On the contrary, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duty of care of the customs collector at the time of receiving the import declaration and filing the declaration, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without considering the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are premised on the defendant's liability for damages, and without any further reasons, it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)