A. Whether the examination of the import declaration by the customs collector constitutes a practical examination (affirmative), and whether the issuance of the declaration constitutes a taxation disposition subject to administrative litigation (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that since the royalty is deemed to be paid according to the terms and conditions of imported goods transaction in light of the content of the license agreement and the substance of the transaction, it should be determined in addition to the tax amount;

A. According to Article 17 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4286, Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when an import declaration is filed, a person liable for duty payment shall report to the head of a customs office the tax base, tax rate, and payable amount as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the head of a customs office shall, upon receipt of a declaration, deliver the declaration to the person liable for duty payment after examining the declaration. The examination of the declaration by the head of a customs office is related to the tax base, tax rate, and payable amount, and if any error is found in the reported amount, the declaration is corrected by the head of a customs office. Thus, it is not a formal examination, but a substantive examination. Since the declaration is accompanied by the declaration of import, the delivery of the declaration of duty payment by the head of a customs office is justifiable, since the duty payment obligation becomes specifically fixed by the declaration of a person liable for duty payment and delivery of the declaration of duty payment by the head of a customs office.

(b) The case holding that since the royalty is deemed to be paid according to the terms and conditions of imported goods transaction in light of the content of the license agreement and the substance of the transaction, it should be determined in addition to the customs value.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 17 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4286 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13204 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 9-3(1)4 of the Customs Act, Articles 3 and 3-5 of the former Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13806 of Dec. 31, 1992), Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Articles 1 and 8(1)(c) of the Convention on the Implementation of Article 7 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1070 delivered on May 10, 198 (Gong1988,961). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10763 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong192,2443)

Daily Oil Business Corporation

Head of Suwon Customs Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu1520 delivered on July 9, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the legality of the instant lawsuit

According to Article 17 of the former Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4286 of Dec. 31, 190), and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person liable to pay customs duties shall file a return on tax base, tax rate and amount of customs duties at the time of filing an import declaration, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the head of a customs office shall, upon receipt of such declaration, deliver a return on tax base, tax rate and amount of customs duties to the person liable to pay duties after examining the declaration. The examination of the above declaration by the head of a customs office is related to the tax base, tax rate and amount of customs duties, and if any error is found in the reported amount of customs duties, it shall be deemed a substantial examination, not a formal examination, as it is attached to the import declaration, and the delivery of a return on tax amount by the head of a customs office shall be deemed justifiable by confirming the contents of the declaration and the issuance of a return on tax amount by the head of a customs office. Accordingly, since the duty liability to pay customs duties is specifically determined by delivery of a return on tax basis for administrative disposition.

It is not different because the taxpayer voluntarily stated the import declaration and the tax authority did not adjust the contents thereof.

The court below is just in holding that the defendant's taxation disposition, such as the customs duty of this case, exists in such opinion, and there is no reason to assert the dissenting opinion.

2. As to the merits:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, through macroscopic evidence, the Madry Industries Co., Ltd., the actual user of the Madry Industries Co., Ltd., the imported goods, purchased it from the U.S. Madryde, the parent company, and that the exporting company of Hong Kong was only one trade company which does not have any investment relation with the manufacturing company of the goods or the above Madryde, and that the above Madry Industries Co., Ltd., was a kind of raw and secondary material used by the above Madry Industries Co., Ltd. to manufacture and sell Madry, etc., and its supply line is diversified to various domestic and foreign companies, and the above Madry Industries Co., Ltd. did not specifically designate or limit the supply line of raw and secondary material at the time of license agreement with the above Madry Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the import price of the above Madry Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd., the above sales price of the above Mad'scop was changed each year.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 6-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence No. 9, which was not rejected by the court below, and the testimony of the non-party witness to the court below, the above beer Industrial Company, an end user of the No. 6-1, 3, and Eul evidence No. 9, imported goods, entered into a license agreement with the United States be paid an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of total sales in its license agreement, on September 11, 1986, on condition that, in handling and selling food, it shall be limited to the food materials that meet the specifications and quality standards of the beer system designated from time to time by beer, and only use the food handling and cooking method designated by beer, or that it does not meet the specifications of the beer system, or that it is recognized that the above beer Industrial Company, which purchased food not cooked in accordance with the prescribed methods, constitutes a joint venture for the purpose of selling the above beer Industrial Company and the above imported beer Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., Ltd.

The fact that the above beer Industrial Company purchases raw materials from the above beer and entered other supply lines in the license agreement of this case constitutes unfair trade practices under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, which were enforced at the time of the import of this case, and thus, it is understood that such entry was not possible because it constitutes unfair trade practices under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

The fact that the supply line is diversified with respect to the raw and secondary materials for the manufacture of other hamba, which is not the imported goods of this case, or that the supply line has been changed by the above Madan Industrial Company, is not directly related to whether the above usage fee is related to the imported goods of this case and satisfies the terms and conditions of transaction.

On the other hand, as seen above, in handling and selling food under the license agreement, only food beverages that meet the specifications and quality standards of the beer system designated by beer and can be terminated in the event of a violation. Moreover, the above beerer's error does not stipulate international officially approved standards like the case of industrial products. Moreover, in light of the fact that the above beer's fertilizer was purchased from the above beer's company until the import of this case, and that it is exclusively used for the production of beer's, it is reasonable to deem that the above beer's error is related to the above usage fee paid by the above beer's company to beer's, and that the above beer's company as the actual user was not entitled to purchase the above beer's stock company.

It is difficult to view otherwise solely on the ground that the above Madco Co., Ltd., which was recognized by the lower court, is not a trade company that has no investment relationship with the manufacturing company or beer of the Mad Co., Ltd., or that the above Mad Co., Ltd. was supplied by another domestic company with the Mad Co., Ltd. after the instant case.

The court below determined that the above license agreement, the actual user of the imported goods of this case, did not state the content of the license agreement or the substance of the transaction, and that the payment of the royalty does not constitute a condition for the purchase transaction of the sewage. The court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation of Article 9-3 (1) of the Customs Act or by violating the rules of evidence in recognizing the premise facts, and there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)