beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff imported 30km snives from Hong Kong (hereinafter “instant product”). On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff reported that the instant product fell under the tariff schedule No. 0301.92-1000 (which is less than 0.3g per Mari, and is limited to aquaculture) and is exempt from customs duties (hereinafter “instant declaration”).
B. On March 5, 2014, the Defendant inspected the instant goods and notified the Plaintiff that the weight per marina was 0.56 g of 0.56 g (hereinafter “the first measurement”), and that the instant goods constituted the item number No. 0301.92-2000 of the Tariff Schedules, which is 3% of the quota tariff (hereinafter “the first measurement”).
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested a reinspection to the Defendant. On March 6, 2014, the Defendant again conducted a reinspection on the weight of the instant product, which was measured at 0.06g (hereinafter “second measurement”), but the Defendant did not recognize the result of the second measurement on the ground that the Plaintiff refused the Defendant’s request for the collection of samples without permission and measured the result of the second measurement by the Plaintiff’s pre-determined sampling in the course of the second measurement.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested a verification company (hereinafter “verification company”) that committed on March 8, 2014 to measure the weight of the instant goods, and as a result, the weight per mari was measured at 0.104g (hereinafter “third measurement”), and submitted the third measurement result to the Defendant on March 11, 2014, but the Defendant did not accept the third measurement result on the ground that the fairness and objectivity of the selection of goods subject to inspection, method of inspection, inspection equipment, etc. are lacking.
E. According to the result of the first measurement on March 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) applied 3% of the quota tariff to the instant goods; and (b) imposed customs duties of KRW 7,514,130 on the Plaintiff; and (c) rendered the instant disposition.
. . ....