Whether the imposition of customs duties, etc. including foreign goods is justifiable

The case holding that it is reasonable to calculate the total price of goods at the price of foreign goods when imposing customs duties according to the ratio of foreign goods and domestic goods, and such calculation does not contravene the principle of double taxation or substantial taxation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

원고는 소외 ㅇㅇ주식회사와 사이에 화력발전소 건설에 사용되는 터빈 및 발전기를 공급하기로 하는 계약을 체결하고 이를 보세공장에서 제작하여 공급하였는데, 그 중요부품의 하나인 로터(Rotor)를 제작하여 미국 제너랄 일렉트릭(General Electric)사에 임가공 및 테스트를 위하여 수출하고 그곳에서 밸런스(Balance)조정과 링 기어부착등의 가공을 한 후 국내의 보세공장으로 재반입하여, 그 곳에서 위 로터를 재료로 하여 터빈과 발전기를 제작한 후 1994. 5. 31. 및 같은해 6. 2. 터빈등의 수입신고를 하면서, 국내에서 제작한 위 로터는 내국물품의 가격에 산입하고, 해외 테스트비용, 운송료, 보험료 등 해외에서의 부가분만 외국물품의 가격에 산입함으로써, 피고가 위 수입신고 내용대로 관세를 부과하였다가 관세청의 기업사후조사에서 위 로터는 외국물품으로 과세하여야 한다는 지적을 받고 1995. 2. 13. 위 로터의 가격을 외굴물품가격에 산입하여 원고에 대하여 추가로 관세 금 206,039,150원, 부가가치세 금 714,095,100원, 합계 금 920,134,250원의 부과처분을 한 사실은 각 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, in case where goods are manufactured and imported by using domestically producedrops as materials after being exported for testing and inspection, brought them into the bonded factory at home and then using them as such materials, it is in accordance with Article 101 of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4813, Dec. 23, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) only to the taxation of foreign goods by separating the parts which can be classified as foreign goods from among therops and the parts which can be classified as domestic goods from among therops and the parts which can be classified as foreign goods from among therops and the taxation of foreign goods is in line with the principle of equity and the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Determination

First, with respect to the relevant legal provisions, Article 101 of the Customs Act provides that when any work using foreign goods or domestic goods in any bonded factory as raw materials or materials is carried out, goods produced therefrom shall be deemed to be foreign goods arriving in Korea from any foreign country: Provided, That when domestic goods are used in combination with foreign goods after obtaining approval from the head of a customs office under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the commercial use of the quantity or price of the relevant foreign goods from among the goods generated therefrom shall be deemed to be foreign goods arriving in Korea from any foreign country. Article 34 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act provides that goods re-imported within one year (the period designated by the head of a customs office for goods prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy) after they are exported for the purpose of processing or repair shall be exempted from customs duties: Provided, That the same shall not apply to customs duties on the processed or repaired goods, and Article 2 (1) provides that "foreign goods shall be taken into Korea (in cases of goods passing through a bonded area, taking them into Korea from any foreign country)."

In light of the above relevant provisions, since the above route returned from the United States did not obtain an import license for goods arriving in the Republic of Korea from a foreign country, it is clear that the whole route is foreign goods and an empty goods manufactured using such materials are foreign goods. If the plaintiff can not immediately treat the portion produced in the Republic of Korea as domestic goods in application of Article 101 of the Customs Act, it is reasonable that the whole price of the route is included in the price of foreign goods when imposing customs duties according to the proportion of foreign goods and domestic goods under the same provision, and such result does not violate the principle of equity, the prevention of overlapping taxation, and the substance over form principle (if an import declaration of the route is filed and an import declaration of the route is filed, the difference in the above handling cannot be said to be the difference in the procedure simply because it is not the difference in the customs duty rate).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of customs duties, etc. of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

april 3, 1997