The case holding that the collection of reduced customs duties is lawful where imported machinery subject to reduction of customs duties is used for other purpose

Although gold-type manufacturing business operated by the plaintiff is an industry subject to reduction under attached Table 1 of Article 11-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4027 of Dec. 26, 1988) and is imported goods publicly notified by the Minister of Finance and Economy, if the plaintiff is operating various kinds of brewing manufacturing business other than gold-type manufacturing business, and if the plaintiff produces, after importing the above machinery, a brewing engineer which is not related to the manufacture of gold-type manufacturing, he/she may immediately collect the reduced customs duties after using the machinery for other purpose or continuously not using it for the corresponding purpose.

Article 28 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4027 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 11-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Pung Business Corporation

Head of Bupyeong-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu3375 delivered on September 5, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 28 (1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4027 of Dec. 26, 1988) provides that when goods publicly notified by the Minister of Finance and Economy are imported from among goods difficult to be manufactured in Korea as facilities, machinery and basic equipment and facilities required for the type of business prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy from among the machinery industry, customs duties may be reduced, and Article 28 (4) of the former Customs Act provides that when the goods whose customs duties have been reduced pursuant to the above paragraph (1) are used for other purposes (including the case where the goods are not used continuously for the relevant purpose) within the period prescribed by the

Therefore, even if the gold-type manufacturing business operated by the Plaintiff is the type of business subject to reduction under the attached Table 1 of Article 11-2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act, which was delegated by the above Act, and the numerical control type ling machine imported by the Plaintiff constitutes imported goods publicly notified by the Minister of Finance and Economy, if the Plaintiff uses the machinery of this case for purposes other than the gold-type manufacturing business after importing it, or fails to use it for that purpose, the reduced

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence 6, the plaintiff asserted that the machinery of this case is naturally used in the process of manufacturing gold paper, and it is completed through 16 manufacturing process. Among them, the machinery of this case is used in confirming the precision of gold type by one process, and even according to the witness operation testimony, the plaintiff does not use the machinery of this case for any purpose other than the gold paper manufacturing business, since it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff continued to use the machinery of this case for any purpose other than the gold paper manufacturing business unless it has been used for the correction of gold paper type.

Nevertheless, the court below did not clearly state whether the Plaintiff was equipped with 16 fair facilities for the manufacture of gold papers and continued to manufacture gold papers, but did not state that the Plaintiff’s testimony to operate the said new witness, which is a managing director, was only 224,967,250 won from June 2, 198 to October 11, 198, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion without any specific reason by recognizing only the fact that the Plaintiff was producing a gold punishment of 20 won. Ultimately, the court below did not err in misapprehending the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)