The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Article 30 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “the dutiable value of imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the following amounts to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer for the goods sold to be exported to Korea, such as commission and brokerage fees, which the buyer owes to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer,” and Paragraph (5) of the same Article provides that “the head of the customs office shall determine the dutiable value by the methods provided in Articles 31 through 35, instead of determining the dutiable value by the method provided in paragraph (1), where a person liable for duty payment fails to submit the requested data or where data submitted by the person liable for duty payment fails to meet the generally accepted accounting principles, or it is difficult to recognize

In addition, Article 24(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22816, Apr. 1, 2011) provides that “Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the accuracy or truth of the declared value, such as where a taxpayer is unable to verify the factual relations with data submitted by him/her as a dutiable value,” one of the cases where it is difficult to recognize the declared value as a dutiable value.

Recognizing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court: (a) reported the import price to USD 270-384 per ton US dollars while importing bean (hereinafter “instant goods”) from a Chinese DALIN GOD FOD LLC from November 13, 2006 to June 20, 208; (b) reported the import price to USD 270-384, each of which was returned and paid by the Plaintiff; and (c) thereafter, the actual import price of the instant goods was USD 220 to 240 per ton.