1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Import declaration number against the plaintiff on October 5, 2009 by the defendant against the plaintiff on 40463-07-080368U and 40463-07-10026U is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff imported MMX Mole used as a mobile phone part and supplied it to a mobile phone manufacturer. On August 30, 2007 and October 1, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid customs duties 2,188,620 won, value-added tax, 218, 850, 457, 280 won, total of 864,7050 won, which is the import declaration number (4063-068, 40463-07-1,0026) of the above product (hereinafter “the instant product”).

B. On July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the rectification of the amount of duty on the ground that the instant goods ought to be classified as HS 28517.70-1020 (0% of the concession rate), which is the item number of the mobile phone parts under the Tariff Schedules (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the Defendant rejected it on October 5, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same applies), and the purport of the whole pleadings. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not. The plaintiff's assertion falls under the part exclusively used for a specific mobile phone, not the "dong Cable" of the Tariff Schedules, in terms of its form or function, and thus, falls under the part exclusively used for a specific mobile phone, it should be classified into HS 200, which is the item number of a mobile phone.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The goods of this case are goods which combine Dogri lines with PFA (FA) and which combine Dogri lines with Domina Cable (MCX, Microax) and 40 Domina Cable (MCX), thereby causing external exposure to PFA, and the length of Dogri cable is different depending on goods.

(2) The Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to ○○○○-2000 as parts of the IMF-2000, and the instant goods play a role in delivering the output signal, video information, etc. of the LROM screen by linking the said mobile phone with the upper and lower parts of the said mobile phone.

(3) In relation to Article 50 [Attachment] of the Customs Act, the term “the cable” as classified in Tariff Schedule No. 8544 of the Tariff Schedule provides that “the cable shall include copper cables, regardless of whether or not connected persons are attached.”

[Recognizing the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole tariff schedule . (1) According to Article 50 [Attachment Schedules of Tariff Schedules] related to the interpretation of the Tariff Schedules, general rules 1 of the Tariff Schedules provide that the tariff classification shall, in principle, be determined according to the terms of each subparagraph and the relevant parts or notes. Note 2 of Part 16 (Recording 2 of the recording apparatus, electrical equipment and parts thereof, tape recorder and television reproduction apparatus, sound recording apparatus, and parts and accessories thereof) shall be classified into the corresponding subparagraph, and Article 84 or 85 (a) of the parts which are goods included in any of the specified subparagraphs of subparagraph (b) shall be used exclusively or mainly for a specific machine, regardless of the item number 85.70 or 85 of the Act.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, the number of its units must be classified into 0 Kphones-1 and the number of its units shall be classified into 0 or 80 mobilephones. However, in light of the degree of processing of the parts and the type of the goods classified under the above subparagraph, only those parts of 0 or 3 different from those of the particular machine that can not be classified under the above subparagraph should be classified into 0 or 4. In other words, the above evidence and evidence No. 4, and No. 21 or No. 254 are described as follows, and the article of this case shall be classified into 0 cellphones-1 and shall be classified into 0 cellphones-1 and shall be classified into 0 cellphones-1 and shall be classified into 0 cellphones-1 and shall be classified into 0 cellphones-1 and shall not be found to have any other characteristics of the article of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.