The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 5

A. As to the principle of determining dutiable value, Article 30 of the Customs Act provides, “The dutiable value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding up the following amounts to the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for the goods sold to be exported to Korea.” The main sentence of Article 30 of the Customs Act provides, “If a person liable for duty payment falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of a customs office shall determine the dutiable value by the methods provided for in Articles 31 through 35 instead of determining the dutiable value by the methods provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2).” Article 24(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides, “Where it is difficult to recognize the dutiable value as the dutiable value because the person liable for duty payment falls under other reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 24(5)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides, “

B. Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) the Plaintiff loaded the rise (only 1.00 U.S. dollars, hereinafter “the rise”) and the dyney (hereinafter “the instant goods”) imported from the Chinese Grand Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U.S.”) which is an exporter of China on May 31, 201, into Korea on May 31, 201; (b) the Plaintiff filed an import declaration of the instant goods on eight occasions from June 21, 201 to August 12, 201, and reported the transaction price to USD 303 per ton; and (c) the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s import declaration price of the instant goods as a result of a prior tax examination and filed a dutiable value pursuant to Article 32 of the Customs Act.