[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap corporation's professional projector imported under Article 50 (1) [Attachment Table] of the former Customs Act was paid customs duties, etc. under Article 8528.69 of the Tariff Schedules, and again filed a request for correction with the head of the competent customs office that the above professional projector constituted Article 8528.61 of the Tariff Schedules, but the disposition of rejection was rendered, the above professional projector must be classified as other professional projector under Article 8528.69 of the above

In light of the language and text of the Tariff Schedules and the purport of Article 16 of the Customs Act that provides for the imposition of customs duties according to the nature and quantity of goods at the time of the import declaration, in order for a professional project operator, who is an imported goods, to be classified under Article 8528.61 of the Tariff Schedules, the automatic data processing system should be used exclusively or mainly in light of the structure, function, characteristics, etc. at the time of import declaration. In other cases, the tariff schedule should be classified under Article

[2] In a case where Gap corporation's professional projector imported by Gap corporation is classified under Article 50 (1) [Attachment Table] of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 9261 of Dec. 26, 2008), and filed an import declaration, and the customs duties, etc. related thereto were paid again, and the above professional projector filed a request for correction with the head of the competent customs office, but the rejection disposition was issued, the case holding that the above professional projector cannot be deemed to be used exclusively or mainly for the automatic data processing system, and thus, it is reasonable to classify it as other projector under Article 8528.69 of the above Tariff schedule

1. Article 50(1) [Attachment Table] of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 9261 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides for “the use exclusively or mainly for the automatic data processing system referred to in Article 8471” as “the use exclusively or mainly for the automatic data processing system referred to in Article 8528.69” and “other” as “the projector who does not fall under subparagraph 61 of Article 8528.61 shall be classified as a projector under Article 8528.69.

In light of the language and text of the Tariff Schedules and the purport of Article 16 of the Customs Act that provides for the imposition of customs duties according to the nature and quantity of goods at the time of the import declaration, in order for a professional project operator, who is an imported goods, to be classified under Article 8528.61 of the Tariff Schedules, the automatic data processing system should be used exclusively or mainly in light of the structure, function, characteristics, etc. at the time of the import declaration, and otherwise, if not, the tariff schedule should be classified

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

① The instant protocol projector imported by the Plaintiff is installed in front with a siren projector, which is connected to automatic data processing machines, such as computers, as well as with the inputer who connects the images to the screen, and also has S-Videso inputs, or compliance video inputs, etc., which connects cables, only with video images, such as NTSC, SECM, PAL methods, etc., which are input from video reproduction devices, such as video or DVD display, without any separate structural device or additional operation, may print out the images and voice by obtaining video signals, such as NTSC, SECM, PAL methods, etc.

② The Plaintiff’s product description contains 500:1 pro projector’s scisfacisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisf

③ L CDs used in the projector of this case have 1,024 x 768 graphics, a basic maritime map, which is the basic maritime map used for the IBM computer or its compatibility computer. Such maritime map is not only the sea level to the extent that there is no particular problem in general broadcasting or general DV film appreciation, but also the high-sea broadcasting or film image, which exceeds the basic maritime map, can be reproduced through various functions owned by the projector of this case.

3. Examining these facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant protocol projector is not only equipped with the structure and function required for expanding and dumping data signals and video signals, which are input from various sources, such as video or DVD display, as well as automatic data processing equipment, such as computers, on the external screen in the optimal form, but also cannot be deemed to be used exclusively or mainly for the automatic data processing system, given the characteristics that can be easily converted and used. Therefore, it is reasonable to classify them as other protocol projector under Article 8528.69 of the Tariff Schedules.

Therefore, the lower court’s conclusion that the instant disposition, which classified the projector as another projector under No. 8528.69 of the Tariff Schedules, was lawful, is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the tariff classification of the Tariff Schedules, contrary to what is alleged in

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)