[1] The meaning of the dutiable value under Article 4-6 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act, which provides for the method of calculating anti-dumping duties

[2] The meaning of the arm's length price under Article 10 of the former Customs Act (=the ordinary trade price)

[1] Article 4-6 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 140 of May 12, 2000) (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy), which provides for the imposition of anti-dumping duties pursuant to Article 10 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6046 of Dec. 28, 1999; hereinafter the same) which provides for the imposition of anti-dumping duties, imposes an amount calculated by multiplying the dutiable value by the rate determined within the scope of dumping rate calculated by a specific formula if the customs duties are imposed at a fixed rate (However, the customs duties calculated under Article 10 of the former Customs Act shall not exceed the dumping margin, i.e., the difference between the arm's length price and the dumping price), and there is no legal basis to regard the dutiable value differently from the arm's length price.

[2] Anti-dumping duties shall not exceed the dumping margin, which is the difference between the normal price and the dumping price, in accordance with Article 10 of the former Customs Act. However, the term "normal price" in this context means the ordinary transaction price of the goods of the same kind consumed in the exporting country of the goods in question [Article 4-6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17048 of Dec. 29, 200)], and the minimum price under Article 198-35 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of August 19, 198, i.e., the price promised to the Korean government that the exporter would not sell the goods to the importer in Korea at a lower price.

[1] Articles 9 (see current Article 15), 9-3 (see current Article 30), and 10 (see current Article 51) of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 6046, Dec. 28, 1999); Article 4-6 (1) 1 (see current Article 17) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 140, May 12, 2000) / [2] Article 10 (1) (see current Article 51 (1)) of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 6046, Dec. 28, 199); Article 4-6 (1) (see current Article 58 (1)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17048, Dec. 29, 200)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Cho Chang-ho

Busan High Court Decision 2000No346 delivered on November 16, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding that the actual import price between the Placo net listed in [Attachment No. 1 and No. 2] No. 1 and No. 2 as indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance among the facts charged in this case is not not more than 370$ pert. It is reasonable in finding that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Article 4-6 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6046 of Dec. 28, 1999; hereinafter the same shall apply) which provides for the imposition of anti-dumping duties pursuant to Article 10 of the former Customs Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of May 12, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) where foreign goods are imported at a fixed rate or lower are subject to substantial injury to the domestic industry, or substantial delay of the establishment of the domestic industry is confirmed through an investigation and it is deemed necessary to protect the domestic industry, the customs duties calculated pursuant to Article 10 of the former Customs Act shall be imposed by multiplying the dumping rate within the scope of the dumping rate computed by a specific formula if the customs duty is imposed at a fixed rate or lower (Article 10 of the former Customs Act shall not exceed the difference between the arm's length price and dumping price, i.e., the above provision of Article 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act shall not be justified in light of Article 16 of the grounds for appeal.

3. According to the records, the court below's decision that recognized the first instance court's determination that the amount of customs duties paid by the defendant by multiplying the quantity of goods imported by the defendant by 25.95% of the customs duty rate was justifiable after calculating the total amount of customs duties to be paid by the defendant by multiplying the duty rate by 25.95% is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of anti-dumping duties and the evaded tax amount as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Meanwhile, such anti-dumping duties shall not exceed the dumping margin which is the difference between the arm's length price and dumping price pursuant to Article 10 of the former Customs Act. However, the "normal price" generally refers to the ordinary transaction price of the goods in question which are consumed in the country supplying the goods in question [Article 4-6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17048 of Dec. 29, 200) and the lowest price in Korea's domestic market price is not accepted as the lowest price in Korea's domestic market price.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)