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

A. From December 8, 2014 to April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an import declaration of the New River (hereinafter referred to as “instant river”) from B (hereinafter referred to as “sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

B. As a result of examining the import declaration price of the instant lecture, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s declared price on the ground that there is a significant difference from the transaction price of similar goods, and the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot resolve any reasonable doubt about the accuracy or truth of the declared price, and determined the dutiable value based on the reported price of similar goods pursuant to Article 32 of the Customs Act, and notified each of the correction of customs duties of KRW 275,157,790 (attached Form 1 to 7; hereinafter “instant Disposition 1”) on July 27, 2015, and customs duties of KRW 104,610,880 (attached Form 1 to 8 through 10 on September 18, 2015; hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”) on September 18, 2015.

C. On October 15, 2015 and December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against each of the dispositions in this case, and filed an appeal on each of the instant dispositions, and the Tax Tribunal joined the appeal and subsequently dismissed all of the appeals on June 30, 2016.

On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff received the above decision.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-2 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) transaction of agricultural products may cause a big difference in the transaction price depending on the difference between the circumstances and conditions, the Defendant concluded that the reported price of the instant lecture was significantly lower than the transaction price of similar goods, and cannot resolve the suspicion without undergoing sufficient investigation.