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

A. The Plaintiff filed an import declaration with the head purpose of manufacturing and selling feed under the HS CAK and the tariff classification specified in the Harmonized Classification Schedule (hereinafter referred to as the “WTO”) on six occasions in total from October 17, 2006 to October 19, 2007 with the Defendant, each of which the Defendant accepted the import declaration under the HS 2304.0-0000 in HS 2304.000.

B. The Defendant requested the head of Busan Customs Office to analyze the instant goods, and the head of Busan Customs Office confirmed on November 7, 2007 that the instant goods fall under HS 2106.10-9010. However, according to the Plaintiff’s objection, the Tariff Classification Committee decided on January 25, 2008 that the instant goods were classified into HS 2309.90-9000.

C. Based on the above decision, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing each customs duty, etc. on the Plaintiff on each date, such as the written claim (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 16, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed it on February 10, 2009.

2. Ex officio determination

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In light of the following, the period of filing a lawsuit against a new lawsuit shall, in principle, be based on the time when the lawsuit is changed when the previous lawsuit is withdrawn and the new lawsuit is changed to have been instituted. However, in a case where the grounds for filing a lawsuit are alleged to have been erroneous in the entries of the claim in the complaint, if it is apparent that the entries of the claim are due to mistake in the entries of the specific administrative disposition, it cannot be viewed as a new claim where the parties subsequently amended and clarified the purport of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4341, Mar. 12, 191).

In this case, on May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on September 17, 2008 with the purport that "the imposition of KRW 49,577,680, value-added tax 4,957,770, and value-added tax 9,240,130, which the Defendant made to the Plaintiff on September 17, 2008, shall be revoked." On January 6, 2010, the modification of the purport of the claim is clearly recorded in the record, and it constitutes a case where the modification of the purport of the claim is made clearly by modifying the purport of the claim that erroneously states the date of each of the dispositions of this case. Thus, whether the period of the lawsuit of this case is complied with shall be determined as of May 11, 2009, which is the first filing date of the lawsuit, and the lawsuit of this case shall be lawful within 90 days from February 10, 2009.

3. Relevant statutes;

4. Omission of Statement 4. Whether each disposition of this case is legitimate or not. Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion of illegality in the tariff classification (1) The Defendant asserted that the instant goods were processed to the extent that the original characteristics of the materials were lost, and thus, the instant goods were classified as HS 2309 and each disposition of this case was taken. However, in light of the characteristics of the instant goods and their degree of processing, etc., it is difficult to view that there was a processing to the extent that the original characteristics of the materials were lost, and therefore, the instant goods should be classified as HS 2304

(2) The main contents of the explanation of the Tariff Schedules of the fact-finding HS are as follows:

In particular, this sub-paragraph 2106 includes:

(6) One-bred concentration, which is obtained by removing specific ingredients from the boundary of the sloping area, and used for strengthening the cross-condembing of prepared foodstuffs, and applied in texization, which is a sloping substance and a sloping substance. However, the n-tex credits are excluded from this subparagraph, regardless of whether it is fit for food (No. 2304), and the separate stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein 3504) are excluded from this subparagraph (No. 3504).

(b) Sub-paragraph 2304(a) is classified into solventss or compressative, and other solid residuess after being milked, in the rise as a solvent or compressative, and is classified into three categories. Such residuess are beneficial animal feed.

In addition, sub-sections suitable for food are included in this subparagraph, n-texed sub-sections.

The following shall be excluded from this Sub-paragraph:

(b) The concentration, i.e., the concentration obtained by removing the specific ingredients at the end of the sloping area, which includes animal feed (e.g., the vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative vegetative

The goods of this case were imported to use the goods of this case as the mixing feed for fish purposes after extracting the local area and putting them into effect on the remaining for the rise, mixing the micro-organism with a smelting body, dried and pulvered yellow powder.

The process of entry into force, heating, drying, etc. of the product of this case is to remove twit and carbon cargo that obstructs the fire extinguishing and absorption of feed, and in the event of entry into force through the above process, a considerable part of the large part of the white part of the high molecular shall be converted into Pepsisisid type, in which it is easy to fire and absorption, and the added scopto, scopto, and bre shall be converted into a scopic embryo.

As a result of observing the rise of the entry into force that is manufactured through the process similar to the instant goods, the surface changes, such as the proliferation of microorganisms, etc., through the process of entry into force, and the proliferation of microorganisms on the surface of the molecule in the rise, may be observed to observe the decomposition of the materials for stuffed by microorganisms.

(3) We examine the above facts and the following circumstances. The HS classification system is divided into one kind of goods obtained from the same raw material. Within each category, the method of vertical arrangement by raw material, semi-finished product, and finished product in order with the classification criteria. The name of HS 2304 stated in the HS 2304 in the tariff schedule as the "O-day, cases, and solid oil stay (whether or not they were pulvered or felt) obtained at the time of extraction by large oil". The above disposition is not provided for the cases where additional processing, such as entry into force, heating, drying, etc., such goods, etc., were lost, and the central customs analysis office analyzed that all the goods obtained from the same raw material, etc., were removed from the same kind of goods. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the above goods are not subject to entry into force in accordance with the feed classification criteria of the Korea Unified Animal Association, and thus, the above goods are not subject to entry into force upon the rise of 20 different characteristics of the above goods.

B. Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding retroactive taxation contrary to the good faith principle (1) is that general taxpayers, including the Plaintiff’s summary of the assertion, filed an import declaration of the instant goods with HS 2304 for a long time, and the Defendant also accepted them as they are, and thus, generally, a practice to recognize the instant goods from the taxpayer and the Defendant, who is the tax authority, as HS 2304 was constituted. However, each of the instant dispositions against the above practice constitutes retroactive taxation contrary to the good faith principle.

(2) In general, as a requirement for the application of the principle of good faith and the principle of protection of trust to the tax authority’s acts in tax and law relations, first, the tax authority must express a public opinion that is the object of trust to the taxpayer, second, the taxpayer’s trust that the expression of opinion is justifiable should not be attributable to the taxpayer; third, the taxpayer must trust the name of the opinion and engage in an act that is in breach of the above opinion list; fourth, the tax authority’s disposition that goes against the above opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer’s interest (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18401 Decided May 26, 2006).

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, 13, and Eul evidence No. 6, the court held that the plaintiff's import declaration of the goods of this case under HS 2304 for about one year and two months from August 25, 2006 to October 19, 207, and that the company such as ○○, etc. filed an import declaration of the goods of this case under HS 2304 on April 28, 2006 to November 22, 2007 under the name "OLCAKE" as HS 2304 on November 28, 2006, the court held that it is not clear whether the goods of this case are identical to "OLCAE" under the above evidence, i.e., whether the goods of this case were identical to the goods of this case for which the other company filed an import declaration under HS 2304, etc. as well as the plaintiff's goods of this case, it cannot be found that the above import declaration had not been accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims of the plaintiff in this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.