Main Issues
Whether the products in a powder state, the content of which is merely 11 percent of the weight-based raw materials of natural fruits, are taxable goods prescribed in Articles 1 and 3-7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act.
Summary of Judgment
It is reasonable to say that the content of natural fruits in category 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act, which are taxable goods, is entirely manufactured as natural fruits or natural vegetables or is manufactured as a principal ingredient of such raw materials, and it is reasonable to say that the content of natural fruits is only 11 percent of the weight, and is not the above taxable goods.
[Reference Provisions]
Class 3 of Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act
Plaintiff-Appellee
Samhwa Food Co., Ltd.
Defendant-Appellant
The director of the tax office
original decision
Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu520 decided Feb. 4, 1986
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act provides that the goods shall be subject to taxation of the special consumption tax by stipulating that the products are manufactured as natural fruits or natural vegetables or are manufactured as their principal ingredients, or are concentrationd so that they can be consumed directly or for drinking. As such, the goods that the Plaintiff manufactured and taken out as determined by the court below do not constitute taxable goods of Types 1 and 3 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act if the contents of natural fruits are merely 11 percent of the weight of the raw materials. The judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to incomplete deliberation or the interpretation of taxable goods, contrary to the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.
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 Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)