The case holding that it is lawful for a national to determine the dutiable value on the basis of the minimum auction price at the first auction date in imposing customs duties on a foreign secondhand vessel which was knocked by the court in the procedure of ship auction.

The case holding that it is lawful to determine the dutiable value of the ship at the price reduced by the time of determining its dutiable value based on the minimum auction price on the first auction date, which is an appraisal price by a certified appraisal agency, on the ground that the above ship cannot be deemed to be an article exported or sold to our country provided for in Article 9-3 (1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993), since it cannot be determined by the method provided for in the above provision, and that it cannot be determined by the method provided for in Articles 9-4 through 9-7 of the Act, on the ground that the dutiable value cannot be determined by the method provided for in Article 9-8 of the Act, on the ground that the customs value of the ship is determined by the method provided for in Article 9-8 of the Act, on the ground that the above ship is not imported in accordance with import procedures

Articles 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-6, 9-7, and 9-8 of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 4674, Dec. 31, 1993); Article 3-9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14044, Dec. 31, 1993);

Plaintiff

Head of Busan Customs Office

Busan High Court Decision 96Gu4855 delivered on December 4, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and third grounds for appeal

Articles 9-3 through 9-7 of the former Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the dutiable value of imported goods shall be determined based on the price actually paid or payable by the buyer for the goods exported to our country. If it is impossible to determine the dutiable value in such a way, the dutiable value shall be determined based on the transaction price of the goods of the same kind and quality, the transaction price of similar goods, the domestic sale price and the calculation price, etc. in order. Article 9-8 of the Act provides that the dutiable value shall be determined based on the materials that can be used in accordance with the principles prescribed in Articles 9-3 through 9-7, and Article 9-3 through 9-7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1404 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "Decree"). Article 3-9 of the same Act provides that the following dutiable value of the goods shall be determined based on subparagraph 1-1-4 of Article:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff received the successful bid and acquired the ownership of the ship of this case, which is a foreign fishing vessel with a foreign nationality in the procedure of the auction of the ship at Busan District Court on April 23, 1993. The court below determined that the determination of the customs value of the ship of this case is legitimate on the ground that since the ship of this case is not imported in accordance with the import procedure provided for in the Act, it cannot be viewed as an article exported to our country provided for in Article 9-3 (1) of the Act because it does not constitute an article exported and sold in accordance with the import procedure provided for in Article 9-3 (1) of the Act, and that the customs value cannot be determined by the method provided for in Articles 9-4 through 9-7 of the Act, and therefore it cannot be determined by the reasonable criteria under Article 9-8 of the Act.

In light of the records and the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such recognition and judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. In addition, Article 4 subparagraph 8 of the Act provides that "the time of sale for goods sold under the law" shall be the time of determining the object of taxation. Thus, the ship of this case which was knocked according to the auction procedure under the Civil Procedure Act does not constitute "goods sold under this Act" and thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

2. On the second and fourth grounds

According to the relevant evidence and records, the appraiser's appraisal of the ship of this case at the commission of the auction court may be aware of the fact that the appraiser directly confirmed the status of the ship's hull, engine, design, etc. and conducted an appraisal in consideration of various matters affecting the price formation. Thus, the appraisal procedure or method cannot be deemed to have been erroneous as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The progress year of the ship of this case is 1966, counting from November 18, 1991, which was the base point of time of appraisal, and its age was 25 years, and it is apparent that the age was 25 years, and thus, it cannot be accepted the allegation in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)