beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s import and import declaration of the New River 1) The Plaintiff in China is the Plaintiff’s Riza International Tala Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “China exporter”).
From the perspective of determining and importing 480 tons of seeds as US$ 510 per ton, and from the Chinese exporter on April 11, 2016, 48 tons of the New Life Drille Code [one of the 4,800C Packaging Code, hereinafter referred to as “other repairs, c.” means one of the 4,800C Packaging Code.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant lecture”) imported a new bonded warehouse (hereinafter referred to as “new bonded warehouse”) in Pyeongtaek-si Port.
(2) On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the instant lecture imported to the head of Pyeongtaek-si, the Defendant’s head of Pyeongtaek-si, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph 1, and calculated the total dutiable value of the instant lecture as indicated in the foregoing paragraph 28,447,718 won (i.e., USD 48 tons x USD 510 x transaction base rate 1,162 won), calculated the calculated tax amount as KRW 107,33,240 (hereinafter “the instant import declaration”).
(B) The Plaintiff paid KRW 107,33,240 for customs duties. B. The instant lecture was subject to prior tax examination under the proviso to Article 38(2) of the Customs Act and Article 8(1)5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. The Plaintiff provided security to the Defendant for the prior examination of the amount of customs duties on the instant lecture, and filed a return of KRW 1,454C from April 20, 2016 to May 9, 2016, which was 1,454C of the instant lecture to the new bonded warehouse for four times from April 20, 2016 to May 9, 2016, on the ground that it is inappropriate to use it for seeds of the instant lecture, but instead, the Plaintiff returned 1,170CT to the new bonded warehouse for the reason that it is inappropriate to use it for seeds. (3) The Plaintiff’s export declaration and rejection of the export declaration of the instant lecture was 1) the Plaintiff did not return it to the customs broker affiliated with the A.