The decision of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service on the tariff classification by an application for prior re-examination as prescribed in Article 7-2 of the former Customs Act and the legal nature of the decision

Article 7-2 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 2000) (see current Article 86 of the Customs Act)

Data Company (Attorney Choi Fixed-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Seoul Customs Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu4590 delivered on May 13, 2005

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The decision of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service and the decision of modification on the classification of goods upon a prior request as prescribed by Article 7-2 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 2000) shall be based on the legal interpretation and enforcement of the Customs Duties Act, which determine whether the imported and exported goods fall under any item of the tariff schedule, and the decision of modification thereof shall be based on the legal interpretation and enforcement of the Customs Duties Act, and shall not be based on the general binding legal order with respect to the rights

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the tariff classification of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service is not subject to statutory order, and there is no error in matters of law such as the legal nature of the decision of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service and the principle of unreasonable pay.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's failure to inform the product numbers of the goods of this case violates the principle of good faith. Further, it cannot be deemed that the defendant knew the product numbers of the goods of this case, and it is just in light of the relevant statutes and the records, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the principle of good faith in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion on the grounds that the defendant did not have any duty to notify the plaintiff of the product numbers

3. As to the third ground for appeal

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below's finding facts as stated in its holding, it is just to determine that dealing differently with other importers than the plaintiff, who believe that the plaintiff determined the import price and the sales price of the goods of this case on the premise of the burden of customs duties, etc. and decided whether to import goods on the premise that they are duty-free goods, does not go against the principle of equity. There is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the principle

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)