In a case where: (a) Party A filed a request for customs correction to refund the customs duties paid in excess on the grounds that the said goods constitute “performance of pigs” provided for in Article 18(1) of the Customs Duties Rates on the grounds that the said goods fall under the “performance of pigs” provided for in Article 18(1) of the Customs Duties; and (b) the head of the competent customs office rejected the request, on the grounds that the said goods constitute “performance of pigs” of the tariff rate of 25%, the case holding that the said goods constitute “performance of pigs” and thus, the rejection disposition is unlawful.

In a case where: (a) a retailer of agricultural and livestock products filed a request for customs correction to refund customs duties paid on the ground that the above goods fall under “raw salves of edible meat” as prescribed by the tariff rate of 25%; (b) the head of the relevant customs office rejected such request on the grounds that the head of the relevant goods constitute “raw salves of pigs” as prescribed by the tariff rate of 18%; (c) since the head of the relevant goods are interpreted to refer to the parts of the bones of pigs from front and bones of pigs to their bones (the parts 2-4cm away from their upper boness and bones; and (d) other goods which were frozen of pigs fall under the general rules of tariff schedule 3, since the total quantity of the said goods constitutes “raw salves of pigs,” the head of the relevant customs office’s determination of the tariff classification or other goods constituting “raw salves of pigs,” the head of the relevant customs office has no choice but to determine the head of the relevant tariff classification or other goods.

Article 85 of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010); Article 99(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21305, Feb. 4, 2009)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Byung-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Sung-nam Customs Office

April 13, 2012

1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition of correction of KRW 66,205,137 against the Plaintiff on November 11, 2010 is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 23, 2009 to August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff, a wholesaler of agricultural and livestock products, cut off the parts of the bones of pre-explosion (from the boundary of the bones of pre-explosion and the bones of headed timber up to 2-4§¯) from the pre-explosion of pigs, and paid 236,446,800 won on the basis of the tariff schedule by classifying the livestock products (the reported number No. 21266-09-03164 U. 58; hereinafter referred to as the “goods in this case”).

B. On September 14, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification to the effect that the instant imported goods fall under “satisf of pigs” stipulated in HS K 0206.49-1000 (rate 18%) under the Tariff Schedules, and thus, the Plaintiff would have refunded customs duties of KRW 66,205,137, which was paid in excess of the pertinent tax rate, out of the amount payable, but the Defendant rejected the request on November 11, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the said request was dismissed on June 9, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's refusal of the plaintiff's request for correction on the premise that the goods of this case fall under HSK 0203.29-9000 (other swines) other than HSK 0206.49-1000 (which are not HSK 0203.29-900) under the Tariff Schedules, the defendant's refusal of the plaintiff's request for correction on the premise that the goods of this case fall under HSK 0203.29-900 (other pigss) (other pigss

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that according to the “Standards for the slaughter and treatment of livestock and for milk collection” under Article 2 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Processing of Livestock Products Act, “the front bridge of swine meat shall be cut off between the upper bones of verteas and the upper bones of verteas.” Accordingly, the Tariff Classification Committee deliberated on and decided that the frozen swine meat containing the upper bones of verteas of April 3, 2007 constituted HS KK 29-9000 (other swine meat, rate 25 per cent), since the instant goods, including the upper bones of verteas of swine, constitute HSK 203.29-9000 (other pigs).

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

(1) We examine the facts that the instant goods were cut from the front ray of pigs to the bones of crypted livestock products. We examine whether the said goods should be classified into HS KK 203.29-9000 (other swine meat) and HS K 20206.49-1000 (edible meat).

(2) 갑 제2, 5 내지 11호증(가지번호 포함), 을 제4, 6호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 물품의 수입신고필증에는 그 거래품명 및 모델이 ‘PORK FRONT FEET’(돼지 앞발)로 기재되어 있는 점, ② 농림부(현 농림수산식품부) 소속 기관인 농촌진흥청 축산기술연구소에서 발간한 ‘소 및 돼지고기 부분육 분할 정형 지침서(1997년)’에 나온 돼지 도체(도살한 돼지의 가죽, 머리, 내장 따위를 떼어 낸 나머지 몸뚱이를 말한다) 골격도에는 앞발목뼈, 앞발허리뼈 및 앞발가락뼈가 함께 앞발뼈를 이루며 전완골과 이어져 있는 것으로 도시되어 있고, 돼지고기 부분육의 구분 및 정형요령에 관하여 “부산물인 앞족발(단족)의 경우, 앞다리 전완골과 앞발목뼈 사이 관절을 절개하여 생산한다.”라고 기재되어 있는 점, ③ 국내외 비교해부학교과서, 세계대백과사전을 비롯한 여러 문헌에서도 ‘가축의 앞발’이 앞발목뼈, 앞발허리뼈, 앞발가락뼈로 구성된다고 규정하고 있는 점, ④ 식육의 부위를 정의하고 있는 농림수산식품부 고시인 ‘식육의 부위별·등급별 및 종류별 구분방법’에서는 돼지고기의 대분할육 중 앞다리 부위를 ‘상완골, 전완골 및 어깨뼈(견갑골)를 감싸고 있는 근육들로서 갈비를 제외한 부위’로 정의함으로써 앞발목뼈를 포함한 앞발뼈 전부를 앞다리 부위에서 제외하고 있는 점, ⑤ 피고가 이 사건 처분의 근거로 제시한 축산물가공처리법 시행규칙 제2조 [별표 1]의 ‘가축의 도살·처리 및 집유의 기준’은 축산물의 위생적인 관리를 위하여 가축의 도축방법을 정해 놓은 것에 불과하여 관세율표상 HSK 0206.49-1000호(식용설육)에 포함되는 ‘돼지의 족’의 범위를 정하는 기준으로는 적합하지 아니한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 관세품목분류위원회가 2007 4. 3. 돼지의 앞발가락뼈에서부터 전완골 부분이 약 5㎝가량 포함된 수입물품에 관하여 앞발목뼈와 앞발허리뼈 사이가 절단되지 아니하였다는 이유로 위 물품이 HSK 0206.49-1000호(식용설육)이 아닌 HSK 0203.29-9000호(기타의 돼지고기)에 해당한다는 결정을 한 바 있으나, 관세품목분류위원회는 관세법상 품목분류 적용기준의 심의기관에 불과하고( 관세법 제85조 제2항 ), 관세청장이 위 결정이유에 설시된 구분기준을 관세법 제85조 제1항 및 위 법 시행령 제99조 제1항 에 따라 별도로 지정하여 고시한 바도 없으므로, 관세품목분류위원회가 제시한 위 구분기준에 대외적인 구속력이 존재한다고 보기는 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 관세율표상 HSK 0206.49-1000호(식용설육)에 해당하는 ‘돼지의 족’은 앞발가락뼈에서 앞발허리뼈를 거쳐 앞발목뼈에 이르는 부위까지를 뜻하는 것으로 해석되므로 이 사건 물품은 그 전체 부위가 위 ‘돼지의 족’에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다.

(3) Furthermore, even if the upper and upper boness of pigs among the goods of this case constitutes HSK 0206.49-1000 (l.e., edible meat) under the Tariff Schedules, not HSK 0203.29-900 (other swine meats) under the Tariff Schedules, each heading or state of the Tariff Schedules, which is the basis for the tariff classification of imported goods, does not separately provide for how to tariff classification should be applied in cases where the upper and upper boness of pigs corresponding to the “swins of pigs” and the upper and upper boness of pigs corresponding to the “other pigss of pigs” as the goods of this case, as in the tariff Schedules that are the basis for the tariff classification of imported goods. Thus, the goods of this case should be classified in accordance with subparagraphs 2(b) and 3 of the aforementioned General Rules, since the tariff classification cannot be determined under subparagraph 1 of the General Rules on the Interpretation of Tariff Schedules.

Article 3 of the General Rules on the Interpretation of Tariff Schedules provides that "if the same product is deemed to be classified into more than one category, the tariff classification shall be subject to the following provisions," while item (a) provides that "if it is not possible to classify under item (a), the heading expressed in the agreement shall take precedence over that generally expressed," and item (b) provides that "if possible, the goods not classified under item (a) or (b) shall be considered to be composed of materials or components giving the essential characteristics of the said goods, and if possible, the goods not classified under item (c) (a) or (b) shall be classified in the final subparagraph in the order of the same classification."

According to the above tariff classification criteria, the HS K 0206.49-1000 (Fishish meat) and the HS K 0203.29-9000 (other swine meat) which can be the product of this case under the tariff schedule are different in its classification criteria and scope, so the product of this case cannot be classified according to the above item (a) or (c) as it constitutes a case where the product cannot be classified under the above item (a) or (b) or (c). The product of this case is attached only to the upper bones of the swine corresponding to the "satch of the swine" and the upper bones of the upper bones of the swine (2-4cm) and its intrinsic characteristics are close to the "other swine of the swine" under the tariff schedule, and even if it is impossible to determine its characteristics, the position of the article of this case is 00-400 (Fishish 290-1900) or (3) of the HS after its order.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for rectification of customs duties on the ground that the instant goods were not “the satisfaction of pigs” under the Tariff Schedules, and thus, were unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Yoon Jin-han (Presiding Judge)