The case holding that the amount equivalent to the discount on the imported patriotic service (A/S) portion shall not be included in the taxable value.

The case holding that the amount equivalent to the discount amount shall not be included in the taxable value on the ground that the imported patriotic service (A/S) parts are not limited to the disposition or use as stipulated in Article 9-3 (3) 1 and 2 of the Customs Act, or that the establishment of the transaction or the determination of the price is not affected by any condition or circumstance that cannot be converted into the amount.

Article 9-3 (1) and (3) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4982 of Dec. 6, 1995)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Shin-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Ulsan Customs Office

Busan High Court Decision 96Gu6196 delivered on July 2, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 9-3 of the Customs Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 4982 of December 6, 1995 provides that the customs value of imported goods in paragraph (1) shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the amount under each of the following subparagraphs to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer for the goods exported to our country, such as commission and brokerage fees to be borne by the buyer (excluding the case prescribed by the Presidential Decree), and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that where the disposal or use of the relevant goods is restricted (excluding the case prescribed by the Presidential Decree), "where the establishment of transaction of the relevant goods or the determination of the price of the relevant goods is affected by any condition or circumstance that cannot be converted into the amount of money," the transaction price under paragraph (1) shall not be the customs value of the relevant goods, and shall be the transaction price under Articles 9-4 through 9-8 of the Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of December 31, 193).

The lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff did not use the goods at a discount rate or at a discount rate for the goods imported by Nonparty 1 and the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate, based on the following facts: (b) the Plaintiff did not use the goods at a discount rate or the goods sold at a discount rate for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate for the goods imported by Nonparty 1; and (c) the Plaintiff did not use the goods at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods purchased at a discount rate for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods purchased at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold at a discount rate for the goods sold at a discount rate or for the goods sold.

In light of the above, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the determination of customs value of imported goods, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)