관세 등 경정청구 거부처분 취소 청구의 소
1. Customs duties of 393,165,070 won, value-added tax of 39,316,520 won, revised interest of 2,068 on December 15, 2017, imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
From November 15, 2016 to January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff imported “Automic Wlaging Machry” from Denmark B (hereinafter referred to as “ exporters”), and filed an application for prior application of conventional tariffs pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases of the Customs Act for the Implementation of Free Trade Agreements (hereinafter referred to as “Special Cases of Free Trade Agreements”), and filed an import declaration by applying the conventional tariff rate of 0% between the Republic of Korea, the European Union, and its member countries (hereinafter referred to as “Korea-EU FTA”), and the Defendant accepted the application.
CD EF GH head on March 21, 2017, pursuant to Article 51 of the Directive on the Management of Origin Investigations under the Free Trade Agreement, the head of the relevant customs office notified the Plaintiff of a letter of guidance stating that the Plaintiff shall conduct an autonomous inspection as to whether the application of conventional tariffs for each of the said goods is appropriate, and that the Plaintiff shall file a revised report or revised report by April 14, 2017 if the FTA applied the conventional tariffs erroneously.
On April 15, 2017, the Plaintiff confirmed that, as a result of the verification of the documents related to the import declaration, an exporter was erroneous in the origin declaration stating the “J”, which is the customs registration number assigned to the exporter and importer by the European Union countries, instead of the exporter’s “I” in the commercial invoice, while exporting each of the said goods.
Accordingly, on April 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an amendment report by applying 8% basic tariff rate to each of the above goods, and additionally paid KRW 502,040,40,000, which is the difference with customs duties, etc. to which conventional tariffs are applied.
On December 15, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a re-issuance of an origin declaration stating the exporter’s approved exporter number from the exporter of each of the goods, and subsequently corrected the error, and on December 15, 2017, indicated the Defendant Nos. 1 through 5, excluding one case (C) for which the ex post facto application period for conventional tariffs