[Case Number] Trial 2013 0293 (Law No. 25, 2014)
[Items] Customs Duty [Types of Determination]
[Summary of the Decision] It is difficult to accept the argument that even if the payment of goods was made in the name of the third party and the interest in the return was attributed to the claimant, it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable reason to exempt the additional tax in light of the claimant's act
[Related Acts] Article 30 of the Customs Act
The appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of disposition;
A. The claimant, from November 17, 2008 to March 7, 2013, was a person who imports, cultivates, sells, and operates OO trees at two risk, and entered into a verbal contract for importing OO trees from three companies, such as "OO", etc. (hereinafter "sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub
B. On June 21, 2013, in the course of a customs investigation with a claimant on June 21, 2013, the agency has transferred the price of the goods at issue from October 17, 2008 to March 6, 2013 under the name of a third party, such as the claimant himself/herself, his/her spouse, etc., and his/her family members and branch members, etc., and has transferred the amount of US$O to seven recipients, such as "OOO" designated by an individual for the purpose of remittance (hereinafter referred to as "oO"), etc. on the basis of the fact that he/she has transferred the amount for remittance to seven recipients, such as "OOO" designated by the exporter, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "oO"), and on the grounds that the claimant filed a complaint with the office on July 22, 2013, on the charge of violating Article 270 (Customs Evasion, etc.) of the Customs Act. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2013>
C. The claimant appealed and filed a petition for trial on September 23, 2013.
2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;
A. The claimant's assertion
The exporter voluntarily prepared a seal stamp at a low price without consultation with the claimant, and the import clearance agent (hereinafter referred to as the "import agent") of the OO made an import declaration based on the said seal stamp, and the claimant was not fully aware of the fact that the goods at issue were reported at low price, and the disposition of issues, such as additional tax, should be revoked.
(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;
The actual price of goods has been reported at a low price on the basis of a bulletin published at a lower price than the actual price when an individual lends the name of a third party and pays it as a transmission fee.
In domestic affairs, even if the claimant was not aware of the fact of low-end return, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable reason that does not cause any negligence on the part of his/her duty, and thus, the imposition of penalty tax is legitimate and reasonable.
3. Hearing and determination
A. Key issue
1. The reason why the exporter, etc. has reported the low price of the disputed goods at a price lower than the actual price without prior consultation with the claimant and sent it to the import reporter. Since the import reporter had made an import declaration on the basis of such a seal, the propriety of the claim to request a change, recognizing the fact that the import declaration was made based on such seal.
(2) Whether the imposition of additional tax is legitimate following the evasion of customs duties.
(b) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;
(1) Customs Act;
Article 38-3 (Correction and Correction) (1) A taxpayer may, if the amount of tax returned and paid falls short of the amount of tax, file a revised return (limited to the period from the date the period for correction expires until the expiration of the period specified in Article 21 (1)), as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In such cases, the taxpayer shall pay the relevant customs duties by no later than the day following the date the revised return is filed.
Article 42 (Additional Tax) (2) Where a taxpayer files a provisional return in an unjust manner (referring to any manner prescribed by Presidential Decree, in which a taxpayer breaches his/her duty to report the tax base or amount of customs duties on the basis of the concealment or pretending of all or part of the fact forming the basis of the duty base or calculation of the amount of customs duties) the head of a customs office shall collect as an additional tax an amount obtained by summing up an amount equivalent to 40/
Article 241 (Declaration on Export, Import or Return) (1) In order to export, import or return goods, the name, standard, quantity and price of the goods concerned, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall be reported to the head of the relevant customs office.
Any of the following persons among those who have filed import declarations under Article 270 (Offense, etc. of Evasion of Customs Duties) (1) and (2) or 244 (1) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years, or by a fine not exceeding the higher amount between five times the amount of evaded customs duties or the cost of the relevant goods. In such cases, the cost of the goods referred to in subparagraph 1 shall be limited to the cost of the goods equivalent to the rate of the evaded customs duties to the whole amount of customs duties out
1. A person who imports any dutiable value, customs duty rate, etc. without filing a false report or filing a false declaration in order to affect the determination of duties;
(ii)Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act;
Article 39 (Additional Tax) (2) The cases where no additional tax is imposed under the proviso of Article 42 (1) of the Act shall be as follows:
5. Where there is any justifiable reason for the taxpayer for a shortage, etc. of the returned and paid tax amount.
(4) "Manner prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 42 (2) of the Act means any of the following manners:
1. Preparation or receipt of a false certificate or false document, such as a double invoice and double contract;
4. Manipulation or concealment of acts or transactions which become grounds for the imposition of customs duties;
C. Facts and determination
(1) According to the results of the investigation submitted by the agency, since the import price for the imported goods is the price for the relevant imported goods, the import declaration amount of the goods and the price for the goods should coincide with that for the imported goods, the difference between the import declaration amount and the price for the goods is US US$ as shown below.
The difference between the amount of import declaration and the amount of imported goods.
(2) Any person who intends to import goods in accordance with Article 241 of the Customs Act shall file a declaration with the head of the relevant customs office on the name, standard, quantity and price of the goods in question and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the price of the goods in question is the price actually paid or payable by the buyer under Article 30 of the same Act. In the event that the taxpayer under-reported the price of the goods in an unjust manner, 40% of the shortage of customs duties shall be collected as the penalty tax under Article 42(2) of the same Act. Article 39(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the act of filing a false certificate, such as a double invoice and double contract, or the act of filing, receiving, or trading, which forms the basis for the imposition
(3)First of all, considering the fact that a third party, such as the exporter or the importer, etc., belongs to the claimant, and there is no reason to report the price of the goods at a low price without the claimant's request or there is no request from the claimant, the claimant's assertion that the claimant did not recognize the fact of low price declaration of the goods at issue is difficult to accept.
(4) Next, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax-related Acts in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and a taxpayer’s intentional intent or negligence is not considered. However, in cases where there is a circumstance where a taxpayer could be deemed to have not been aware of his/her duty, or where there is a circumstance where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the performance of his/her duty to do so, or where there is a justifiable reason that it is difficult for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duty to do so, it cannot be excessively imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7886, Jan. 10, 2003). If the applicant and the importer receive a seal issued at a low price and the taxpayer received goods for reasons of transfer different from the fact, and thus, the taxpayer’s intentional act or negligence cannot be deemed to constitute a justifiable reason for the imposition of additional tax in cases where there is no justifiable reason for the taxpayer to receive false certificate or fraudulent documents.
This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Article 131 of the Customs Act and Articles 81 and 65 (1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes because the petition for adjudication has no merit as a result of the review.