In a case where Gap corporation exported "goods in the half-shaped shape used to set up the entire props by connecting each metal product in the shape of an empty water source to its upper and lower order, applied for refund of customs duties, etc. on raw materials for export under [Attachment Table] Article 50 (1) [Attachment Table] of the former Customs Act, and the head of the competent customs office, upon which the refund was made, classified the above goods under Article 7308 of the Tariff Schedules, and notified Gap company of the collection and payment of excessive customs duties, the case holding that the above goods cannot be classified as "s connected with pipes made of steel" under Article 7307 of the Tariff Schedules, and it is reasonable to classify them as "parts of structures made of steel" under Article 7308 of the former Customs Act.

Article 13 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (Amended by Act No. 10817, Jul. 14, 201); Articles 14 and 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export; Article 50(1) [Attachment Schedules] of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010); Articles 8(1) and 99(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Customs Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720, Feb. 29, 2008)

Thai Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheongn, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Busan Customs Office

Busan High Court Decision 2010Nu2616 decided May 13, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Article 13 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by Act No. 10817, Jul. 14, 201) and Articles 14 and 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by Act No. 10817, Jul. 14, 201) stipulate that the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service shall set and publicly notify a simple fixed amount refund rate for each export goods in order to simplify the procedures for refund of customs duties, etc. on raw materials for export in relation to the export goods by small and medium enterprises, and stipulates that the said simple fixed amount refund rate shall, in principle, be set on the basis of the item number of the export goods. In addition, Article 50(1) [Attachment Schedules] of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) sets the basic tariff classification of the export schedule.

In accordance with these regulations, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service publicly announces and implements a simplified fixed amount refund rate table (No. 2006-54, Dec. 28, 2006) that determines the amount to be refunded on the basis of the item numbers and tariff classification specified in the Tariff Schedules and the Integrated Schedules.

B. Meanwhile, the tariff classification for the legal purposes of subparagraph 1 of the General Rules on the Interpretation of Tariff Schedule of the first head provides that the tariff classification for the legal purposes of the first head shall be first determined in accordance with the terms of each head(s) or the main text(s) or related parts(s). Of Parts 15(non-metallicM and its products)(non-metallicM)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(7307; “the pipes made of steel with steel”(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s); “the parts of structures and structures made of steel and structures made of steel; the parts made of steel with steel processed for structures(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(15)(st)(s)(st)(i.e., the main text(s)(s)(2)(s)(st)(s)(i.e., the main text(s)(s)(15)(s)(s)(3),(s)(3)(s)(8)(s)(s)(3)(8)(s)(i.

In addition, Article 85(1) of the former Customs Act and Article 99(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Customs Act delegates the authority of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service to “Public Notice on Standards for Tariff Classification” (Notice No. 2006-53, Dec. 30, 2006) to the effect that goods generally recognized as parts of the goods from the general theory of Part 15 of the tariff schedule are classified as parts of the goods, but the parts are not parts of the goods, but parts themselves. In addition, Article 85(1) of the former Customs Act provides that “in cases where the parts correspond to the above “commercial parts,” the parts of the goods shall be classified as those falling under each of the following subparagraphs: “Public Notice on Standards for Tariff Classification” (No. 2006-53, the Korea Customs Service Notice No. 2006-13, Dec. 30, 2006).

C. Considering the above Tariff Schedules and the text and purport of the Harmonization of the HS Tariff Schedules, and the fact that the prior meaning of “for example” is “for many fields or purposes,” the goods should be used for various fields or purposes in the connected operations of steel, and if the goods are specially designed and manufactured to assemble specific metal structure, it cannot be classified as “the pipes connected to steel” under Article 7307 of the Tariff Schedules even if they are used to connect each other with the structure of the pipe pattern. Furthermore, it is reasonable to classify “the parts of the structure made of steel” under Article 7308 of the Tariff Schedules as “the parts of the structure made of steel” under Article 7308 of the Tariff Schedules. Furthermore, in order to assemble the metal structure, the equipment especially designed and manufactured for the assembling of the metal structure can not be classified as “the pipes connected to steel” under Article 7307 of the Tariff Schedules.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed. ① With respect to the assembly and installation of wind power generators, the Plaintiff exported from 200 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,00 m3,000 m3,000 m3,00 m3,00 m3,00 m3,00 m3,00 m3,00 m6 m3,00 m3,00 m6,00 m3,00 m3,00 m3,01,00 m2,01.

Examining the above facts in light of the relevant provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, the instant goods are specially designed and manufactured for assembling the individual props of wind power generators, which are metal-making structures, and cannot be classified as “the pipes made of steel” in Article 7307 of the Tariff Schedules. It is reasonable to classify the instant goods into “the parts of the structures made of steel” in Article 7308 of the Tariff Schedules.

3. In the same purport, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was lawful on the ground that the steel structure was the parts of the steel structure, and that the instant goods fall under the item code 7308.40-000 of the Tariff Schedules and the annexed Schedules, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant goods should be classified as item code 7307.91-0000 of the tariff schedule (it is justifiable in the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion (it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, but it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the tariff schedule as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, or by extensively interpreting or analogical interpretation in violation of the principle of no taxation without law, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. All arguments in the grounds of appeal are not acceptable.

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 Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)