Whether an importer can take a duty-free measure only when the importer's application for a duty-free measure is required where the imported goods fall under the goods subject to re-import exemption under Article 34 (1) of the Customs

In full view of the purport of Article 34 subparag. 1 of the Customs Act, Article 16(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, and Article 29(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if imported goods constitute goods subject to re-import exemption under Article 34 subparag. 1 of the Customs Act, the tax authority may take a duty-free measure upon application for the duty-free measure concerning the import of the goods, and it does not require the duty-free measure even if there is no application

Article 34 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act, Article 16 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, Article 29 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Busan Customs Office

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu5793 delivered on April 21, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Article 34 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act provides that customs duties on goods re-imported within one year after they are exported for processing or repair purposes may be exempted under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That customs duties on processed or repaired goods shall be excluded; Article 16 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides that a person who intends to be exempted from customs duties pursuant to the Act, other Acts, or a treaty shall file an application stating the following matters with the head of the relevant customs office prior to the import license of the goods: Provided, That where the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service determines, he may apply for the reduction or exemption in a simplified manner; Article 29 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act provides that a person who intends to be exempted from customs duties pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act shall submit an application stating the facts of processing or repair issued by a processing or repairman in addition to the matters falling under each subparagraph of Article 16 (1) of the Decree, along with documents evidencing the fact of such processing or repair and documents substituting such application.

According to the records, the plaintiff asserted that he reported only the processing cost except the raw material price as the dutiable value in accordance with the purport of Article 34 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act in importing Lighting for the festival of this case, which is a processed product, from China, as the dutiable value, and cannot be viewed as any assertion or evidence as to the fact that he applied for the duty exemption under Article 34 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act. Thus, even though the court below did not deliberate and decide on the re-import exemption, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on re-import exemption, or by failing to deliberate. The argument in the grounds of appeal is without merit.

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)