[1] The case holding that the tariff classification in accordance with the Tariff Schedules is justifiable for the device with a function to identify whether semiconductors are inferior

[2] The case holding that the imposition of customs duties does not violate the principle of good faith on the grounds that the approval system for the application of usage tariff rates under Article 83 of the former Customs Act and Article 97 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act merely confirms whether the actual usage of goods whose applied tariff rates varies according to their purposes under the principle of duty payment and that the customs collector does not have to examine the propriety of the tariff classification and the amount of customs duties prior to its approval, even if the customs collector accepted the import declaration in granting the application for the application for the application of usage tariff rates by the reporter who applied a specific item number for the imported goods, the approval cannot be deemed to have expressed the public opinion that the tariff classification of the goods is appropriate as reported by the reporter, or that it

[1] Articles 49 and 50 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6777 of Dec. 18, 2002); Article 98 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1783 of Dec. 30, 2002) / [2] Articles 5, 6, 38, and 83 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 677 of Dec. 18, 2002); Articles 32 and 97 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17833 of Dec. 30, 2002)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Kim Jong-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seoul Customs Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu13528 delivered on April 7, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the tariff classification in accordance with the Tariff Schedules

The court below, after compiling the selected evidence, found the facts as stated in its reasoning. The goods of this case are those having the function of early screening defective goods by transmitting them to the waferer by means of file in the state of electricity at the time of output and electric current at the time of early screening and printing, and by transmitting them to the waferer, to the waferer, which are directly measured devices, the condition of electric current, which serves as the basis for calculating the measured quantity. The goods of this case are "any other equipment for measuring or inspecting electrical quantity, which is used for the measurement or inspection, for semiconductor or inspection, for the measurement or inspection of semiconductors" of Part 18, Chapter 90, Item No. 90, Item No. 82-000, Item No. 90, Item No. 18, Item No. 90, Item No. 18, Item No. 9030, Item No. 000 of the Tariff Schedules. In light of the relevant statutes and the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.

2. As to the violation of the principle of good faith

The court below determined that the approval system for the application of the usage tariff rate under Article 83 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6777 of Dec. 18, 2002) and Article 97 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act only confirm whether the actual use of goods, the applicable tariff rate varies according to the purpose under the principle of duty payment and payment, and it does not require the customs collector to examine the appropriateness of the tariff classification and tax amount prior to his approval, and in fact, even if the defendant approved the application for the application of the usage tariff rate with respect to the goods of this case by applying the item No. 9031,80-9091 in accordance with the tariff schedule and accepted the import declaration, it cannot be said that the defendant expressed a public opinion or formed the plaintiff's trust about the goods of this case, and therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case does not violate the principle of trust and good faith. The judgment of the court below is just in light of the relevant statutes and the records, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as the principle of trust and good faith.

3. Conclusion

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.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)