관세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. A. A company B (the representative C; hereinafter “B”) reported that the total amount of 69 tons of the growth of China from the Cheongdong Trade Limited Corporation (hereinafter “ exporters”) in China would be USD 612 per ton US dollars as shown below [Attachment 1], and submitted to the Defendant a letter of recommendation issued by the Korea Agricultural and Fishery Corporation, which submitted to the Defendant a letter of recommendation issued by the Korea Agricultural and Fishery Corporation, thereby making a customs clearance upon the application of 20% of the concession rate for agricultural, forestry, and livestock products.
[Attachment 1] Import declaration number ($6123,304,390 on March 27, 2012, D 23 D 23 612 3,304,390 on March 28, 2012, E 23 E 612 3,304,2303 April 3, 2012, F2363,335,410
B. On March 19, 2013, the Defendant discovered the fact that the price for the goods released from G’s account, not B, was collected, and investigated the fact that the owner of the goods released from G’s account. As a result, on March 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) changed the owner of the goods imported from the instant lecture into the Plaintiff; and (b) re-calculated the customs duties by applying 377.3% of the general duty rate to the instant lecture as indicated below [Attachment 2] and imposed a corrective notice and additional tax corresponding to the difference (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Attachment 2] The additional tax on D 62,37,350,350 59,032,960 on March 27, 2012 after the date of importation declaration, as of March 27, 2012, the additional tax on D 62,37,350 5,032,960 26,352,900 E 62,334,400 59,030,170 26,343,970 262,343, 970 262,922,640,640 59,587,23026,546,36,360 in total,650,79,242,970
C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 17, 2013 regarding the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 23, 2013.
On the other hand, while the Plaintiff was the actual owner and importer of the instant lecture operated by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was granted a tariff concession of 20%, which is the lower rate upon the recommendation of the tariff concession from the Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution Corporation when filing an import declaration of the instant lecture.