beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of penalty tax of KRW 69,292,550 against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2013 is revoked.
2. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that is established on November 26, 2008 and engaged in the bottle business, the manufacture and sales of glass products, and the EMHAS SDD (hereinafter “MHD”) is a company that manufactures and exports the “spawn type machinery” in the Malaysia’s factory, having its head office in Sweden.
B. On October 13, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) submitted to the head of Busan customs office a certificate of origin (No. 2010/A/K/020; hereinafter “the instant certificate of origin”) on September 30, 2010 issued by the International Ministry of Trade and Industry of Malaysia (hereinafter “MITI”); and (b) submitted a certificate of origin on September 30, 2010 (No. JB2010/K/020; hereinafter “the instant certificate of origin”) to the head of Busan Customs office; (c) applied the Framework Agreement on Trade in Goods under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Member Countries of the Association of Southern Asian Nations (hereinafter “FTA”).
C. On July 30, 2012, the Defendant requested MIT to verify the origin of the instant goods to verify the origin of the instant goods and the application of conventional tariffs, and on March 12, 2013, MITI’s response was made to the effect that “The instant certificate of origin should be indicated as a value-added standard (RVC 47.08%) due to the error in the Korea-ASEAN FTA, on the part of the Defendant, on the part of the following: “The instant certificate of origin should be indicated in the documents issued by MITI Rolu that meet the origin standards of the Korea-ASEAN FTA; or on the other hand, on the part of the Defendant, due to the error in MITI lulululu, the standard of determining the origin of the instant goods should be indicated as a value-added standard (hereinafter “the reply to the result of the instant verification”).”
Accordingly, the defendant's response to the results of the verification in this case by MIT shall be the deadline for response to the verification (2 months) and the verification procedure as stipulated in Rule 14 (1) of Appendix 1 of Annex 3 of the Korea-ASEAN FTA.