[관세부과처분취소][공1974.5.1.(487),7798]
Whether the duty exempted may be levied before the provision of Article 37-2 of the Customs Act is newly established in the event that goods are used for any purpose other than the purpose of use by the Agreement on Private Relief Activities between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America.
No customs duties may be collected until the provision of Article 37-2 of the Customs Act (Act No. 2423, Dec. 30, 1972) is newly established for any purpose other than the purpose of use of goods introduced as a tax-free goods pursuant to the Agreement with the United States of America (Entry into force May 2, 1955).
Article 28(3) of the former Customs Act, Article 37-2 of the Customs Act
[Defendant-Appellant] The Korea Federation of the 7th Gan Jae-Jeng, a foundation
Head of Incheon Customs Office
Seoul High Court Decision 72Gu534 delivered on October 10, 1973
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the Agreement on Non-Governmental Relief Activities between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America (Entry into force May 2, 1955), there is no ground that the duty exempted may be levied again if the goods are used for purposes other than the purpose of use.
The provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 28 of the Customs Act is clear by the legal text that it cannot be applied to the goods introduced under the above agreement as in this case, and the provision of Article 37-2 of the Customs Act is newly established only after the imposition of the customs duty in this case under the Act No. 2423, Dec. 30, 1972, and it cannot be applied to this case.
If so, in the absence of legal basis, the importing licensing authority would have granted import licenses on the condition that the imported goods would not be transferred to Korea nationals. Moreover, there is a fact that the Plaintiff expressed its intent to request the Korean nationals to approve the transfer of the exempted goods to Korea, and the Plaintiff would not be a ground for imposing a duty-free additional collection on the grounds that it would have paid the duty-free goods in the relevant authorities.
Therefore, in the above purport, the original judgment that determined that the Defendant’s imposition of the customs duty of this case against the Plaintiff is an unlawful disposition without any ground is justifiable, and the theory of lawsuit is nothing more than an independent opinion that can not be adopted.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed without merit, 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 Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)