The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 5, 2018 to July 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an import declaration with the exporter “B,” “C,” “D,” etc. located in China (hereinafter “the instant exporter”) on the A-year gold metal 1,485 tons (hereinafter “instant goods”) from the exporter “B,” “D,” etc. located in China (hereinafter “instant exporters”), and cleared customs by reporting the item number under the HS Article 7217.30-900, which is classified as “the lines that gold off or attempted other non-metallic metals.”

B. As a result of the investigation of customs duties with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant reported the item number classified as HS 7217.20-00 (provisional anti-dumping duties 8.12%) at the time of the import declaration of the instant goods to HS 7217.30-900 (provisional anti-dumping duties 0%) and deemed that the Plaintiff evaded customs duties of KRW 101,896,890 (hereinafter “instant customs duties”), on June 26, 2019, deeming that the Plaintiff was evading customs duties of KRW 101,896,890 (hereinafter “instant customs duties”), value-added taxes of KRW 10,189,710, penalty taxes of KRW 56,596,300, total of KRW 168,682,900 (tax rate 0%) and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 168,900.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) the correction and notification of 56,596,300 additional tax amounting to 56,59.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 12, 2019, but the appeal was dismissed on February 26, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff’s erroneous declaration of the item number of the instant product was made by negligence on the part of a customs service corporation employee who performed customs clearance as an agent, and the Plaintiff did not falsely declare the customs duty rate, etc. to evade provisional anti-dumping duties, and thus, the Plaintiff should not impose additional duties on such Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant neglected the duty of ex post facto examination to clarify the item number, etc. of the goods on which the declaration was filed, as it