(a) The case holding that the method of Article 9-8 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993) should be applied in calculating the dutiable value of a print machine among the models imported for the first time;

(b) The case where the part of the judgment of the court below concerning additional collection is reversed and self-printed on the ground that there was an error in determining the domestic wholesale price of a second and second printing machine as the basis

(a) The case holding that the method of Article 9-8 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993) should be applied in calculating the dutiable value of a second and second printing machine, which is a model imported for the first time

(b) The case where the part of the judgment of the court below relating to additional collection is reversed and self-printed on the ground that there was an error in determining the domestic wholesale price of the mid- and long-term printing machine

Articles 9-8 and 2(5) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993) (amended by Act No. 4286 of Dec. 31, 1990)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Yoon-Gyeong

Supreme Court Decision 91Do1141 delivered on October 11, 1991

Busan High Court Decision 91No1343 delivered on October 29, 1992

The part of the judgment below concerning collection shall be reversed.

41,127,208 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on the records, that the defendant is a non-indicted 1 company in Japan for which the representative director is the defendant and the actual importer is the defendant, and each of the above printing machines was imported for the first time by the defendant, without finding an import case of the same kind, similar, or similar printing machines, and the above printing machines were sold in Korea and 45,000,000 won and 50,000 won for each of the above printing machines determined according to the method ordinarily applicable to the pricing of the printing machines. In determining the dutiable value of each of the above printing machines, the method prescribed in Article 9-3 of the Customs Act can not be employed because there is a special relationship between the exporter and the importer under Article 3-3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, and the method prescribed in Articles 9-4 and 9-5 of the Customs Act cannot be found to be the basis of each transaction set forth in Article 9-20-60 of the Customs Act, and it is reasonable to determine the domestic sale price set in Article 900-50-60 of the above.

B. Examining the record, it is justifiable to view that the lower court’s fact-finding and the determination of the dutiable value of each of the instant print machines cannot be based on the methods under Articles 9-3 through 9-5 of the Customs Act.

However, Article 9-6 (1) of the Customs Act provides that if the customs value cannot be determined by the method under the provisions of Articles 9-3 through 9-5 of the same Act, the price of the goods in question, the same kind and quality or similar goods shall be the same as the imported goods in question, and at the same time as the import declaration date or the import declaration date of the goods in question, the price calculated by subtracting the amount of the following subparagraphs from the unit price of goods sold in Korea in the greatest quantity to an unrelated person at the same time as the imported goods in question: Provided, That upon the request of the person liable for duty payment, the price may be computed by the method of Article 9-7 of the same Act, which shall be deducted from one which shall be normally paid or payable in connection with the domestic sale of the goods in question, the price of the goods in question shall be 00,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,00,00 won or more than the imported goods in Korea.

Therefore, the court below's determination of the dutiable value of each of the medium and medium printing machines of this case by the method prescribed in Article 9-6 of the Customs Act is illegal.

However, if the customs value cannot be determined even by the method prescribed in Article 9-6 of the Customs Act for each of the instant medium printing machines, the method prescribed in Article 9-7 of the Customs Act is the method of determining the customs value based on the input expenses from the production of the relevant goods to the arrival of the port of importation. As such, each of the above medium printing machines cannot be determined by the method prescribed in Article 9-7 of the Customs Act because there is no data that can determine the customs value by the said method, and ultimately, the customs value should be determined by the method prescribed in Article 9-8 of

The method of Article 9-8 of the Customs Act refers to the method of determining the dutiable value on the basis of data that can be used in accordance with reasonable criteria consistent with the principles set forth in Articles 9-3 through 9-7 of the Customs Act, and when determining the dutiable value for each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the instant of the instant of the instant of the instant of the printing machines by applying the aforementioned method, it is reasonable to compute the amount set forth in each of the subparagraphs of Article 9-6 (1) of the Customs Act from each of the above prices, even though each of the above prices was not determined for the multiple of the instant of the printing machines, inasmuch as the said prices are determined by the method ordinarily applicable to the pricing of the printing machines, it is reasonable to compute the amount set forth in each of the above subparagraphs of Article 9-

Therefore, the dutiable value for each of the instant medium printing machines shall be calculated by deducting the same expenses as the original judgment from the above amount of KRW 45,000,000 and KRW 50,000,00. Therefore, even if the lower court considers the above amount of KRW 45,00,000 and KRW 50,000 as the unit price for domestic sales in large quantities under Article 9-6(1) of the Customs Act as the unit price for each of the instant medium printing machines in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 9-6(1) of the Customs Act, it is erroneous for the lower court to calculate the dutiable value for each of the instant medium printing machines in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 9-6(1) of the Customs Act, the dutiable value calculated by the lower court is justifiable, and such error cannot be said to affect the

C. The issue is that the customs value of each of the above medium printing machines shall be determined by the method of Article 9-3 of the Customs Act. The customs value of the above medium printing machines shall be the price of the pertinent goods sold in the open market of the exporting country between independent buyers and sellers at the time of export of the pertinent goods. In other words, in this case, the price calculated by the defendant from the non-indicted 1,100,000 and 2,300,000, which is the price purchased from the non-indicted 1,100,000, which is the price of each of the above printing machines purchased from the non-indicted 2,30,000, shall be the customs value added to the freight charges and other transportation expenses to the import port. However, the customs value of each of the above medium printing machines of this case shall not be determined by the method of Article 9-3 of the Customs Act, and the price of the above old printing machines of this case from the above company shall not be accepted.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The purport of the remanded judgment of this case is to determine the dutiable value by examining and deducting the import recommendation and trade agency fees, customs procedure expenses, warehouse fees, etc., which were not deducted by the court below prior to the remanding of 45,000,000 won and 50,000,000 won, which are the above domestic sales proceeds. After the remanding of this case, the court below determined the dutiable value by deducting both the import recommendation and trade agency fees, customs procedure expenses, and warehouse fees from the above sales proceeds. Accordingly, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment of the remanded case.

In addition, insurance premiums and appointment fees claimed in novels do not constitute expenses to be included in the arrival price of the port of entry, and they are not of the nature to be deducted from each of the above sales proceeds. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence by misapprehending the legal principles as to the testimony of Kim Sung-sung's witness, which seems to have been paid in excess of 1,650,000 won, and 1,50,000 won, in addition to the above expenses, there is no evidence that additional expenses have been paid in transportation expenses of 1,50,000 won, and 5,700,000 won in the machinery repair expenses of the printing machine of this case does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 9-6 of the Customs Act, and only 5,60,000 won in the installation and trial operation expenses of the printing machine of this case were paid in excess of 7,450,000 won, and there is no other reason to believe that there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the above amount of KRW 45,00,000 and KRW 50,000,000 as well as the above amount of KRW 45,000 as well as KRW 50,000 as well as KRW 45,00 as well as 50,000 as well as KRW 10,00 as well as 45,000,00 as well as the domestic wholesale price of each of the above printing machines, which is the basis of collection, on the ground that

According to Article 2(5) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4286 of Dec. 31, 1990), the domestic wholesale price, which is the basis of the collection, means the price at which a wholesaler purchases imported goods from a trader and openly sells them at a domestic wholesale market in a normal transaction manner. The price shall be determined by the method of ordinary application to a medium-sized and medium-printed goods sold in Korea. However, as determined by the court below, each of the above prices shall be the transportation cost of up to the place of arrival (up to KRW 1,650,00 and KRW 1,150,000, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 5000, KRW 500, KRW 5000, KRW 5005, KRW 500, KRW 5000, KRW 5000, KRW 5005, KRW 5005, KRW 5000, KRW 5005, and KRW 500505,000.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in determining the domestic wholesale price of each of the above medium printing machines, which serve as the basis for the collection of additional collection, and since the grounds for the argument pointing this out, the part concerning the collection of additional collection among the judgment below shall not be reversed

4. Therefore, according to Articles 391 and 396(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding additional collection is reversed, and it is sufficient to render judgment as a member's judgment based on the records of the instant case. As seen earlier, the domestic wholesale price of each of the above printing machines, which serves as the basis for additional collection, is KRW 40,850,000 and KRW 43,250,000, and the amount to be collected from the defendant based on this domestic wholesale price is calculated as KRW 41,127,208 as shown in the calculation table of additional collection amount. Thus, in calculating the amount to be collected from the defendant based on this domestic wholesale price, KRW 41,127,208 shall be collected from the defendant. The remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant are without merit. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)