Whether a person who received a donation from a de facto customer of the imported goods without being stored in the bonded storage place has an interest in the Customs Duties Act

A taxpayer of imported goods under the Customs Act is a person who is not the person who has filed an import declaration but the person who received a donation from the actual consumer of the imported goods can not be the owner of the imported goods under the Customs Act, as well as a customs broker who has filed an import declaration of the goods or a person who has obtained a customs clearance permit under his/her own name, and thus, even if he/she is ultimately a consumer of the goods, he/she has a de facto economic interest and thus, is not a taxpayer under the Customs Act.

[Judgment of the court below] The court below's decision is delivered to the plaintiff 1 and 10 others.

The head of the Busan Customs Office shall sent the litigation performer, head of the tax office

Daegu High Court Decision 75Gu61 delivered on February 13, 1976

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

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs and their attorneys are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the person entrusted with import of the goods of this case is the non-party New Industries Co., Ltd. and the import agent was a customs clearance agent, and the plaintiff was merely a donation of the goods of this case from the non-party who was actually the actual consumer of the above goods. However, there is no circumstance that the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party is not a customs clearance agent or a person permitted for his own customs clearance constitutes an exception under Article 137 and Article 157 of the Customs Act. Thus, the plaintiff's disposition rejecting the request for the above customs clearance procedure is a person who did not meet the qualification requirements under the Customs Act which can obtain the import license of the above goods, regardless of whether they belong to the National Treasury of the above goods, and therefore, the actual consumer of the goods of this case was the non-party, the import agent of the non-party, the customs clearance agent of this case, and even if the plaintiff received the above goods from the non-party, the plaintiff cannot be said to be a new owner of the goods of this case or a new owner of this case.

Therefore, the above decision of the court below is not sufficient to take measures as stated in the above holding, provided that there is no error in the law regarding the defendant's measure refusing to request customs clearance against the plaintiff by the person who received the goods of this case from the above non-party. However, the decision-making theory that did not receive the plaintiff's claim based on the purport of the above opinion is eventually justifiable (see Supreme Court Decision 71Nu83, Oct. 11, 1971). Therefore, the decision of the court below is justified in its dissenting opinion that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles of the Customs Act or there is an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles of illegality in exercising the right to ask for explanation, incomplete hearing, and abuse

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)