관세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is recognized in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
(1) On the 6th page 17, the following shall be added:
[The plaintiff asserts to the effect that it is not reasonable to compare the price of the goods subject to state trade with the price of the goods subject to state trade because it is clear that the goods in this case fall short of the purchase specification of state trade. However, the evidence No. 1 stating the general difference between state trade and private trade is not sufficient to deem that the price difference between the goods in this case and the goods subject to state trade is recognized. In addition, in the case of the goods in this case where the state trade purchase specification is met or minor difference is found only when there is a reasonable reason to suspect the accuracy or accuracy (Evidence No. 15) among the goods in this case, it is difficult to recognize the return price of the plaintiff as the dutiable value because there is a reasonable reason to suspect the accuracy or accuracy of the return price of the goods).
In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that Article 33 of the Customs Act should have been preferentially applied to the goods for which the customs value is calculated by applying Article 35 of the Customs Act. In addition, it shall be based on an accounting report prepared in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles in order to determine the customs value based on the domestic sale price stipulated in Article 33 of the Customs Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du16998, Feb. 28, 2013). The evidence No. 9 submitted by the Plaintiff as the domestic sale price is merely an indication of the Plaintiff’s arbitrary preparation, but it does not have any objective basis, so it is impossible to calculate the customs value of the goods of this case by applying Article 33 of the Customs Act.