beta
Text
1. On June 11, 2014, the Defendant written the same disposition of imposition of the amount of each customs duty collection resolution as indicated in attached Table 1 against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is an enterprise engaged in the manufacture and export of seat parts of automobiles, which is a small and medium business proprietor as defined in the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises until December 31, 201 pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises.
B. From September 14, 2009 to December 31, 2011, the Plaintiff exported motor vehicle trial parts, etc. supplied by a subcontractor (AM, A, B, and Geum River, etc.) and filed an application for refund of customs duties pursuant to the simplified fixed amount refund rate table (hereinafter “Simplified fixed amount refund”) with the Defendant, which is prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export in total 53 occasions (hereinafter “the Act on Special Cases Concerning Customs Refund”).
C. At the time of the application for the above refund, the Plaintiff filed an application for simplified refund, including ① products supplied with processed products, which were completed by the Plaintiff’s direct production of “RECLINER” and “TRACE ASY” with the iron market in the form of a commercial pay-off, ② products supplied to the collaborative company in the form of a commercial pay-off payment, ② products, which are completed by the commission of the processing to the collaborative company in the form of a commercial pay-off payment, ③ products, such as “PPPPER HE HE HE, SUTRTRTRTRTRTRTRTRAL, and ③ products, ③ purely external products, etc. (hereinafter “products, ② products,” ② products, ② products, ③ products, and all of the products,” and “the goods,”
(B) Evidence No. 11 No. 11(2)
The Defendant imposed a total of KRW 167,014,940 on June 11, 2014, pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was unable to file an application for a simplified fixed amount refund, including the instant goods, and was unlawfully refunded, because the Plaintiff was not a manufacturer of the instant goods.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and on August 21, 2014.