(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.01.23 2014구합862

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.01.23 2014구합862

관세등경정부과처분취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s respective disposition of rectification of customs duties as stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of distributing agricultural and fishery products in China, filed an import declaration with the Defendant of USD 498.2 through USD 51.9 (hereinafter referred to as “USD”) on the fresh river 120 tons (hereinafter referred to as “the instant goods”) imported from TIN JIN CHEG CHD IMO IMOCO, and Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant exporting company”), and obtained approval from the head of customs office before the import declaration on the remainder of 101.04 tons.

As a result of the planning and examination conducted by the Plaintiff on January 24, 2013, the Defendant denied the reported price by the Plaintiff, and determined the dutiable value from 582 USD to 603 USD based on the transaction price of similar goods pursuant to Article 32 of the Customs Act, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 38,408,470 for the instant goods on July 11, 2013 and July 12, 2013 as indicated in the attached list.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on August 16, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 14 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff’s declared price cannot be deemed to have a significant difference from the transaction price of the goods of the same kind and quality or similar goods. Thus, the instant disposition denying the Plaintiff’s declared price is unlawful. 2) The instant disposition is unlawful since it determined the dutiable value based on the price not meeting the requirements of Article 31(1)2 of the Customs Act, namely, “the transaction phase, the volume of transaction, the distance of transport, the mode of transport, etc., are the same as the pertinent goods, and where there is a difference between the two goods, the price adjusted

B. The Plaintiff’s reported price by Defendant 1 is recognized as a dutiable value.

참조조문

-관세법 제31조 제1항 제2호

-관세법 제32조

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2015.10.28 2015누20664

-전주지방법원 2015.04.29 2014구합202

-부산지방법원 2020.01.16 2019구합22850

-전주지방법원 2016.08.18 2015구합49