[1] Whether the declaration and payment of customs duties under Article 17(2) of the Customs Act can not be contested because they are by the method of filing a declaration (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that since the thickness of the imported glass exceeds the scope subject to the application of the articles of incorporation tax rate, the adjustment tariff rate shall not be extended even if it is within the scope of allowable errors in the Korean Industrial Standards

[1] Unlike the provisions prior to the amendment by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993, Article 17(2) of the Customs Act, when the customs collector receives a duty return under the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, the provision only stipulates that the items on the import declaration form and the confirmation matters under the provisions of the Act shall be examined, etc., and the above amended provisions shall be deemed to have been converted into pure tax payment method after the examination of the items to the taxpayer. Thus, if the taxpayer reports and pays customs duties at the same time as the import declaration was made after January 1, 1994, it cannot be deemed that the period for the disposition of imposition by the customs collector was the same as in the case before the amendment, and it cannot be deemed that the tax office received the amount of tax according to the taxpayer's tax payment method is a factual act, and it cannot be deemed a confirmation disposition.

[2] The case holding that under the provision of Article 12-2 (3) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993), the application of adjusted duties under the provision of Article 12-2 of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13777 of Dec. 24, 1992), the application of adjusted duties under tariff classification No. 7005 of the Tariff Schedules No. 7005 is limited to those between 2m and 3m, and 4m and 8m, and that under the principle of no taxation without law prohibiting extended interpretation or analogical interpretation, the application of adjusted duties is illegal on the premise that the thickness of the two applied duties is 3m in accordance with the Korean Industrial Standards publicly announced by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (KS 2012), 【0.3m of customs duties, 8m of the thickness of the two applied duties, and 38m of the thickness of each of the two applied duties under the premise that the thickness is 38m of the thickness of the thickness of the thickness of 1.

[1] Article 17 (1) and (2) of the Customs Act / [2] Articles 7 and 12-2 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 4 of the Industrial Standardization Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu12066 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1502) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1837 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 806) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu500 delivered on December 31, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 384) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15677 delivered on April 21, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 196)

International Commercial Corporation (Attorney Cho Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Yong-gu Customs Office

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu5557 delivered on June 29, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

Article 17(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that a person liable to pay customs duties shall file a declaration on the payment of customs duties with the head of the relevant customs office as prescribed by the Presidential Decree at the time of filing an import declaration. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the head of the relevant customs office upon receipt of a declaration shall issue a declaration on the payment of customs duties to the person liable to pay customs duties after examining the matters stated in the declaration on the import declaration and the matters verified under the same Act. Therefore, according to the above provision, the duty payment liability is specifically determined by the declaration of the person liable to pay customs duties and the delivery of the declaration on the payment of customs duties by the head of the relevant customs office. Thus, the delivery of the declaration on payment by the head of the relevant customs office constitutes a taxation disposition subject to administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu500, Dec. 7, 1993).

However, unlike the above provision prior to the amendment, Article 17(2) of the Customs Act, which was amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993, only provides that when the head of a customs office receives a duty return under the provisions of paragraph (1) only examines the matters entered in the import declaration form and the confirmation matters under this Act, etc., and deleted the part that the duty payer issues a duty return after the examination of the matters entered. Therefore, the above amendment provision should be deemed to be converted into a pure tax payment method for the imposition and collection of customs duties, and thus, if a duty payer files a duty return and pays a duty on his own at the same time as the import declaration was made after January 1, 1994, it cannot be deemed that the head of a customs office imposed a duty prior to the amendment.

As such, the Supreme Court’s established view that the tax authority’s receipt of the amount of tax according to the taxpayer’s declaration is merely an act of fact and cannot be viewed as a confirmative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1837, Feb. 27, 1990). Therefore, the court below’s decision on the same purport that the lawsuit seeking revocation is unlawful on the premise that the Defendant’s imposition of the customs duties of this case declared and paid by the Plaintiff on January 5, 1994 cannot be deemed to have existed, and thus, the court below’s decision that the lawsuit seeking revocation was unlawful on the premise that the disposition of imposition was in existence. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 17 of the Customs Act, nor by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 17 of the Customs Act

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the application of adjusted duties under the provision of Article 12-2 (3) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that the scope of adjusted duties under tariff classification No. 7005 of the Tariff Schedules Regulation No. 7005 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13777 of Dec. 24, 1992) shall be more than 2 meters, but more than 3 meters and less than 4m and not more than 8m in length under the principle of no taxation without law prohibiting extended interpretation or analogical interpretation, the court below held that in the case of 3m thick under the principle of no taxation without law, the error is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff’s thickness is 0.3m, 8m thickness of each of the imported products under the premise that the Plaintiff’s thickness is 38m thickness of 19m of the thickness of each of the two taxes imposed by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy.

In light of the records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15677 delivered on April 21, 1995), and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)