beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
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. 1
A. Article 30 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 12027, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that the dutiable value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the amount prescribed in each of the following subparagraphs to the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for the goods sold for export to Korea. Article 30 of the former Customs Act provides that the dutiable value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the amount prescribed in each of the following subparagraphs, such as commission and brokerage, to the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for the goods sold for export to Korea. Article 30(3)4 provides that “Where a special relationship between a buyer and a seller exists prescribed by Presidential Decree and such special relationship affects the price of the relevant goods, the transaction price prescribed in paragraph
B. In order to apply Article 30(3)4 of the former Customs Act, the lower court: (a) premised on the legal doctrine that, in addition to the fact that there is a special relationship between the purchaser and the seller, the tax authority must prove that the transaction price was affected by the special relationship; and (b) based on the domestic sale price of each of the instant goods under Articles 30(3)4 and 33(1) of the former Customs Act, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s determination of the dutiable value based on the domestic sale price of each of the instant goods was lawful on the ground that the special relationship between the Plaintiff and D,
C. Examining the records in accordance with the above provision and related legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of customs statutes
2...