The case holding that the grounds for additional collection of exempted duties have occurred

It is reasonable to interpret that if the goods are sold by auction to others by means of the exercise of the security right by providing the goods imported as security by person as security for claims, it is reasonable to interpret that the goods are transferred by auction without the approval of the customs collector, and in this case, there was a reason to additionally collect the exempted customs duties

Customs Act (Law No. 2162) Article 28

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu162 delivered on February 14, 1978

Plaintiff

Head of Busan Customs Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of taxes of KRW 2,66,197 against the Plaintiff on June 19, 1974, of KRW 932,967, and of KRW 446,391, and the imposition of taxes of KRW 4,045,55 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The goods listed in the attached list were originally introduced under the condition that Non-party 1 performed the duty of export for five years from the date of introduction into two occasions on June 4, 1969 and February 24, 1970. Under the approval of the defendant on October 12, 1970, the plaintiff was performing the duty of export under the above non-party's transfer from the above non-party, while operating a bonded processing plant. After that, the plaintiff was successful in the Korean Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. on November 23, 1972 due to the auction conducted on November 23, 1972 and transferred the goods to non-party 3 or non-party 3 through the non-party 3 through the non-party 2 through the commercial bank without the prior approval of the defendant, and there was no dispute between the plaintiff and the non-party 3 or non-party 3 through the non-party 3 or non-party 3, the defendant did not exercise the duty of export under the provision of Article 28 (3) of the Customs Act.

The plaintiff asserts that even if the plaintiff transferred the goods before the transfer without the defendant's approval, it is not possible to impose the additional collection for the above reasons. The non-party Korean commercial bank sold the goods to the non-party 2 on November 23, 1972, and until the non-party 2 purchased them on July 1973, since the non-party 3 was well aware of the fact that the non-party 4 was exempted from the duty of export until the first half of the year 1973, since the non-party 3 was fully fulfilled the duty of export until the first half of the year 1973, although the non-party 3 was fully discharged the duty of export, the non-party 47,853 was exempted from the duty of export due to the non-party 3's failure to perform the duty of export as the non-party 1's failure to perform the duty of export. Thus, the defendant's additional collection is illegal.

However, according to each description of No. 5-1, No. 5-2, No. 6-2, No. 7-2, and No. 1,2, and No. 3 of No. 5-2, No. 5-5, No. 5-2, No. 6-7, No. 7-2, and No. 7-3, the Plaintiff may recognize that the goods of this case are offered as security for loan obligations to the non-party Korean commercial bank of the non-party company on March 20, 1971 and the execution of the right of security of the non-party Korean commercial bank on March 28, 1972 and the ownership transfer registration was made on September 21, 1972. According to Article 28(2) of the Customs Act, the goods for which customs duties were exempted pursuant to paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Plaintiff may use or transfer them for purposes other than those of each subparagraph of paragraph (1) of the same Article within five years from the date of entry into force.

However, without the prior approval of the head of customs office, the Plaintiff provided the goods of this case as a debt security for loans to the non-party Korean commercial bank, and eventually sold them at the auction to the non-party Korean commercial bank. Accordingly, it can be recognized that there was a reason for the collection of customs duties exempted under Article 28 (3) of the Customs Act. Whether the goods were subject to a separate disposition for transfer without permission, or whether the goods were transferred before and after the light of the goods, and are used for the manufacture of the goods, and thus, the above reason for the collection of customs duties is not extinguished (it is not recognized that the duty exemption condition was fully fulfilled after the transfer of the goods by the prior approval of the Plaintiff).

Therefore, the case where the Defendant transferred the duty-free goods to the Plaintiff without the approval of the customs collector and imposed the customs duties, etc. exempted under Article 28(3) of the former Customs Act is legitimate. Thus, the Plaintiff’s instant claim on the premise that the said duty-free goods are illegal is dismissed, and this decision is delivered as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)