Seoul High Court 2009Nu10231 revocation of the disposition imposing customs duties, etc.

November 3, 2009

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

Each imposition of KRW 835,190,460, value-added tax, KRW 838,157,020, additional tax, and KRW 268,708,590, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on January 30, 2007, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that " while importing by proxy the same manner as above," the part of "for the convenience of the importing company" in the fourth and sixth acts of the fourth and fourth acts of the court of first instance is deleted, and there is room for misunderstanding by stating "for the convenience of the importing company," but the whole process of the taxation of this case is that the defendant imposed the tax of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the goods." However, considering the whole process of the taxation of this case, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in each corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for changing the following parts: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts changed;

(16) Article 19(1) of the Customs Act provides that “A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be liable for duty payment.” The main sentence of subparagraph 1 provides that “the owner of the imported goods for which import declaration was made” means the actual owner of the imported goods. However, whether a person is the actual owner of the imported goods shall be determined by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the method of negotiating with an exporter; (b) the establishment of a letter of credit; and (c) the payment of the import price; and (d) the ownership of the imported goods in question; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff submitted documents regarding the import declaration to the effect that the actual owner of the imported goods was not eligible for duty payment; and (b) the Plaintiff cannot be found to be liable for duty payment based on the empirical rule-based evidence that the Plaintiff submitted to the owner of the imported goods for the purpose of proving that the import declaration was not subject to duty payment, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff had no capacity to prove the fact that the import declaration was not subject to duty payment.”

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition based on the premise that the owner of the imported goods of this case is the Plaintiff is unlawful is without merit.

(2) As to the assertion on the violation of the principle of determining dutiable value, Article 30(1) of the Customs Act provides that the dutiable value of the imported goods 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 sold to be exported to Korea (Provided, That the addition of the amount under each of the following subparagraphs must be based on objective and quantity data), and if there is no such data, the dutiable value shall be determined by the method under Articles 31 through 35 of the Customs Act. Article 31 of the Customs Act provides the method of determining the dutiable value based on the transaction price of the goods of the same kind and quality, Article 32 of the Customs Act provides the method of determining the dutiable value based on the transaction price of the similar goods, Article 34 of the Customs Act provides for the method of determining the dutiable value based on the domestic sale price, Article 30 of the Customs Act provides for the method of determining the dutiable value based on the domestic sale price, and Article 35 of the Customs Act provides that the dutiable value of the goods whose dutiable value can be determined based on the same basis.

On the other hand, the defendant, while conducting the follow-up examination of the imported goods of this case, deemed that the plaintiff reported the import price at a low price and demanded the plaintiff to prepare the actual unit price for the imported goods. The plaintiff's response to the submission of the statement of price declaration and the certificate of unit price for the import clearance to the defendant is without dispute between the parties or recognized as above. The plaintiff's act of submitting the certificate of unit price for the import clearance clearance system to the defendant is in accordance with Article 30 (4) of the Customs Act. The defendant recognized the import price stated in the certificate of unit price for the import clearance system submitted by the plaintiff as the dutiable value, and it is difficult to recognize that the documents such as the certificate of unit price for the import clearance system submitted by the plaintiff were prepared by the defendant's strong pressure or revolving. The defendant's submission of the documents such as the certificate of unit price for the import clearance system is not consistent with the method of determining the dutiable value under Articles 31 through 35 of the Customs Act. Thus, no error exists in determining the dutiable value of the above evidence No. 13, and evidence No. 281.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s calculation of the land freight at the 40’s 40’s cNY 7,700 capital (134 won/ kilograms) based on CNY 7,700 capital (134 won/ kilograms) based on the 40’s container container ( Incheon port of loading at the port of China) based on the 1,200 US dollars (168 won/ kilograms) based on the 1,200’s container (168 won/ kilograms) based on the 10’s container, which is also lawful pursuant to Article 30(4) of the Customs Act and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is legitimate pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Customs Act and the 26’s 27’s 1 through 5, and 40’s shore freight and maritime freight are not found to be in violation of the principle of taxation decision under the Customs Act.