Whether customs duties paid may be refunded in full where imported raw materials falling under Article 12 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by Act No. 3747 of Aug. 7, 1984) are exported as they are (affirmative)

Article 12(1)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by Act No. 3747 of Aug. 7, 1984) limits individual refund of customs duties on certain goods for the purpose of facilitating the use of domestic raw materials. It does not include export of imported goods in the scope of raw materials for export as they are exported, but it should be interpreted to limit total refund of customs duties, etc. only when the goods are manufactured, processed and exported using imported

Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (Amended by Act No. 3747, Aug. 7, 1984); Article 12(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Head of Seoul Customs Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1160 decided May 12, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the purport of Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by Act No. 3747 of Aug. 7, 1984), and Article 12(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act stipulating individual refund, Article 12(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act limits individual refund of customs duties on certain goods (goods designated by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service) for the purpose of facilitating the use of domestic raw materials. This does not include cases where imported goods are exported in the scope of raw materials for export as it is, but it does not include cases where imported goods are manufactured or processed and exported with the raw materials for export, and it is irrelevant to the promotion of the use of domestic raw materials, so it is reasonable and reasonable to interpret that the above provision does not constitute a restriction on individual refund of customs duties and that the above provision should be paid in full in accordance with Article 12(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)