주식회사 화승네트웍스 외 1인 (소송대리인 법무법인 케이씨엘 담당변호사 진혜원)

Head of Busan Customs Office

October 29, 2010

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

피고가 2009. 3. 30. 원고 주식회사 화승네트웍스에 대하여 한 관세 1,147,443,720원(소장 기재 1,147,589,627원은 착오로 보인다)의 경정처분 및 같은 날 원고 주식회사 화승엑스윌에 대하여 한 관세 406,746,390원의 경정처분을 각 취소한다.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 2008 to May 5, 2008, the Plaintiffs imported aluminium (hereinafter “the instant goods”) from LINY UNGGGT AI YUD COMDDDD (hereinafter “the instant goods”), and filed a declaration with the Defendant on the product number (the HSK) 7601.10-000 Aluminium (rate 1 per cent), and the Defendant accepted it.

나. 그 뒤 피고는 기획심사를 거쳐 이 사건 물품이 알루미늄의 괴가 아니라 관세율 8%인 품목번호 7606.11-9000의 알루미늄의 판 또는 쉬트에 해당한다고 결정한 다음, 2009. 2. 23. 품목분류 오류를 원인으로 누락된 관세와 부가세 및 가산세로, 원고 주식회사 화승네트웍스(이하 ‘원고 화승네트웍스’라 한다)에 대하여 14건 합계 1,147,589,627원, 원고 주식회사 화승엑스윌(이하 ‘원고 화승엑스윌’이라 한다)에 대하여 3건 합계 406,798,111원을 각 증액경정할 예정이라는 내용의 기업심사 결과 통지서를 송달하였다.

C. On March 30, 2009, the Defendant issued each notice of payment on the additional tax amount to the Plaintiffs along with the notice of correction of each tax amount (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). Specific amounts are as follows (the amount of the final notice is less than the estimated amount set forth in B.).

본문내 포함된 표 ？ ？ ？ ？ (단위 : 원, 부가세 등 포함) 구분 수입신고일 경정전 세액① 경정후 세액② 추가세액(②-①) 품목번호 7601.10-0000 (세율 1%) 품목번호 7606.11-9000 (세율 8%) ？ 원고 화승네트웍스 2008. 4. 17 30,104,440 54,130,040 24,025,600 2008. 4. 17 89,192,380 160,365,640 71,173,260 2008. 4. 25 90,901,450 163,374,290 72,472,840 2008. 4. 28 94,444,840 169,714,140 75,269,300 2008. 5. 10 154,553,210 277,539,680 122,986,470 2008. 5. 13 93,235,350 167,399,600 74,164,250 2008. 5. 14 250,028,630 448,889,230 198,860,600 2008. 5. 28 128,070,790 229,751,130 101,680,340 2008. 5. 30 63,648,660 114,149,680 50,501,020 2008. 5. 30 39,565,460 70,954,060 31,388,600 2008. 5. 30 198,130,030 355,313,160 157,183,130 2008. 5. 31 83,480,250 149,707,910 66,227,660 2008. 5. 31 12,838,650 23,023,960 10,185,310 2008. 5. 31 115,116,010 206,441,350 91,325,340 합계 1,443,310,150 2,590,753,870 1,147,443,720 원고 화승엑스윌 2008. 5. 19 97,388,780 174,797,940 77,409,160 2008. 5. 20 224,803,520 403,465,190 178,661,670 2008. 5. 31 189,927,180 340,602,740 150,675,560 합계 512,119,480 918,865,870 406,746,390

D. Each of the plaintiffs' requests for review against the Board of Audit and Inspection was dismissed on June 4, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, and 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

1) Even if the instant goods appear in form or sheeting, they are not combined and are bound to be used as raw materials, and thus, they cannot be viewed as the sheet or sheeting. Considering that the opinion of licensed customs brokers and the unit price of the instant goods is similar to the aluminium ingot, and that if applying the tax rate of 8%, the Plaintiffs did not have any reason to import the instant goods, 1% of the instant goods shall be applied by deeming the instant goods as alaluminium ingum under the Tariff Schedules.

2) The Plaintiffs imported Aluminum in the form of Jinch, immediately before the import of the instant goods, and if we look at only in the form, Jinluminum constitutes the alinium 8% (tax rate) or Aluminum zinum zinum zinum (tax rate of 3%). However, in consideration of the fact that the use thereof is a raw material, the Defendant classified Jinlumin as Aluminum zinum zinum and imposed a customs duty of 1% on the instant goods. The Plaintiffs trusted that the Defendant would make the same judgment on the instant goods, and further reversed the instant goods if the Defendant classified the instant goods into Aluminum zinum zinum zinum with a tax rate of 1% (1%) through the documents and on-the-spot inspection, it violates the principle of

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) 원고 화승네트웍스는 2008. 3. 4. 중국으로부터 봉 모양의 알루미늄에 구멍을 뚫은 형태의 이른바 진공 빌레트를 수입하면서, 피고에게 거래품명을 가공하지 않은 알루미늄 관(ALUMINIUM TUBE SHAPED TYPE, UNWOROUGHT), 알루미늄 성분 99.7% 이상, 품목번호를 7601.10-0000으로 신고하였고, 피고는 이를 그대로 수리하였다.

2) 원고 화승네트웍스는 2008. 4. 21.부터 2008. 5. 29.까지 10회에 걸쳐 중국의 제지앙 알루미늄(ZHEJIANG GKO ALUMINIUM CO, LTD)으로부터 표면과 두께가 고르지 않은 알루미늄 쉬트를 수입하면서, 피고에게 거래품명을 가공하지 않은 알루미늄 쉬트(ALUMINIUM SHEET TYPE, UNWOROUGHT), 알루미늄 성분 99.7% 이상, 품목번호를 7601.10-0000로 신고하였고, 피고는 이를 그대로 수리하였다.

3) The instant goods are at least 9.7% of Aluminium ratio, less than 0.1% of Aluminium (SI), less than 0.15% of iron (FE) and other originals are less than 0.05%, and the thickness is equal in rectangular forms with no strong contribution on the crossing. The size is 10mm x 1,240mm x 1,500mm (dumm, width, length order, omitted) x 10mm x 1,240mm x 1,00mm.

4) On May 29, 2008, the 5th Customs Service Tariff Classification Committee of Korea Customs Service decided on May 29, 2008, as follows: the size 50mm x 600mm x 1,00mm x 100mm x 500mm x 1,100mm x 1,100mm x alumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumum, which is 7606.11-9000 items number.

5) The fact that the plaintiffs imported aluminium as raw materials in the form of Jindog, sheet, and sheet as above, China imposed 15% export taxes on its raw materials export company to regulate the export of raw materials, and China exported them in the form of Jindog to avoid export tax burden. China's government began to impose export tax on Jindog as raw materials, and export companies processed and shipped in a board or sheet.

6) After each disposition of the instant case, the Plaintiffs reported to the item number No. 7606.11-9000, while importing aluminium same as the instant goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 through 7 (including provisional number), the non-party witness's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Tariff classification of the instant goods

According to Article 16 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 9410 of Feb. 6, 2009), customs duties are imposed according to the nature and quantity of the goods at the time of filing an import declaration. According to Chapter 76 of the Tariff Schedules [Attachment Table] of the same Act, “Aluminium and its products”, “Aluminium which is not mixed” is classified into the item number 7601.10-000 and 1% of the tariff rate; and “Aluminium which is not mixed (limited to those the thickness of which exceeds 0.2mm)” is classified into 7606.11-9000 and applied 8% of the tariff rate; “Aluminium which is not mixed with a thickness of 10/100 or more of the total width of 10/9 of the tariff schedule; and “Aluminium which is not combined with a thickness of 10/10 or more of the total thickness of 10/9 of the tariff schedule.

The above Schedules of Tariff does not classify aluminium which is not combined as a condition-free aluminium, but is classified as Aluminium in accordance with the case, sheet, and space. This is based on the classification criteria of the degree and form of the processing. The use or purpose of use is not considered.

According to the above relevant provisions and facts, the goods of this case fall under ① a flat board with a thickness of 0.2mm, the thickness of which exceeds 0.2mm and the width of which does not exceed 1/10, and thus, the product number No. 7606 of the Tariff Schedules falls under “Aluminium, sheet, and dust” under Article 7606 of the Tariff Schedules, and ② The product contents of Aluminium are 9.7%, and the contents of steel and hydrogen do not exceed 1% and are less than 0.1%, and the product contents do not fall under the category of “Aluminium with a little weight of 11” under Article 7606, and ③ since the content of Aluminium does not fall under 9.99% of the total weight, the product classification of the goods of this case falls under the category of “Aluminium with a different weight of 7606.11, and thus, the product classification of the goods of this case cannot be seen to fall under the product classification of the product of this case.

On the other hand, the lower court's precedent presented by the plaintiffs is related to the case where a product manufactured with a general weapon is converted into a subdivision for cremation, and the purpose of classifying the product as a general weapon according to the structure, etc. is to be classified as a subdivision for cremation. Accordingly, even if following the above purpose, the product of this case constitutes a board or sheet for aluminium.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2) Whether it violates the principle of trust protection

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual, second, that the public opinion statement of an administrative agency is justifiable and trusted, there is no cause attributable to the individual, third, that individual should have trusted and trusted that opinion statement of the administrative agency, third, that administrative agency should have done any act in violation of the above opinion statement, and fourth, that administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the above opinion statement, thereby infringing on the interest of the individual who trusted that opinion statement of the opinion statement of the administrative agency. If any administrative disposition satisfies these requirements, it is illegal (Supreme Court Decision 2006Du10931 Decided January 17, 2008).

If a taxpayer reports and pays customs duties on his/her own at the time of filing an import declaration, it cannot be deemed that it was based on the head of a customs office’s disposition of imposition, and it is merely an act of fact that the tax authority receives the amount of customs duties upon the taxpayer’s declaration in the method of tax payment (Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1184 delivered on December 6, 196).

In light of the above legal principles and the facts of recognition, Jindo has a form entirely different from the goods of this case, and the thickness and surface of Aindominum is bound to be classified into Aindozinum in terms of the degree and form of processing. Since the acceptance of import declaration on each of the above goods is merely a factual act, the acceptance of import declaration on each of the above goods cannot be deemed a public opinion statement that is the subject of trust in each of the dispositions of this case. Since the plaintiff was well aware that the goods of this case are treated as raw materials, not raw materials, in China, or as a sheet or sheet, it cannot be said that the goods of this case in Korea using the tariff classification system can be identified in advance as a product. Thus, there is no reason to believe that there is no reason for the acceptance of import declaration.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the dispositions of this case violates the principle of trust protection is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Do-type (Presiding Judge) Maximum Do-type correspondence

A judge is unable to sign due to education and training of fixed number of judges;