beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of penalty tax of KRW 5,351,690 against the Plaintiff on October 17, 2012 is revoked.
2. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 5, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) imported feed generated after the first entry into force in the manufacturing process of Posiju (hereinafter “the product of this case”) into the name of “Wine Legol”; (b) the trade name of “Grape Pomce” and “Grape Pomce”; and (c) imported the goods into the customs statistics integration (amended by Act No. 11602, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) published under Article 85(1) and attached Schedules of Tariff Rates, Article 98(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the customs statistics integration (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 2013-1, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) published under Article 98(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and (d) the basic tariff rate of 100% or 200% of the average tariff rate of Korea or Korea.”
B. On August 11, 2011, the Defendant, upon receipt of the import declaration, requested the Central Customs Analysis Agency to analyze the instant goods for the accurate determination of the item number of the instant goods, and the Central Customs Analysis Agency sent two opinions on the product numbers of the instant goods (the opinion that it should be classified as HS Article 2307.00-900 and the opinion that it should be classified as HS Article 2308.00-900). On August 16, 2011, the Defendant asked the Customs Assessment Board of Korea pursuant to Article 7(4) of the Detailed Regulations on the Implementation of Tariff Classification Affairs. On May 18, 2012, the Customs Assessment Board asked the instant goods to the Customs Assessment Board of Korea for the analysis of the instant goods, and on May 18, 2012, the Central Customs Analysis Agency determined whether the instant goods are plant, plant, plant, plant, and by-products (limited to those that are not applied in the HS Article 2308.0-9000.).
(hereinafter referred to as "No. 2307.00-000" and "No. 2308.0000" respectively shall be construed as "No. 2307" and "No. 2308.
Accordingly, the defendant on October 17, 2012 the goods of this case against the plaintiff.