(a)in the case of importation. In the case of sale, the calculation of the transaction price which is the dutiable value for the purchase and import;

B. The meaning of the domestic wholesale price in Articles 198(3) and 2(5) of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4286 of Dec. 31, 1990)

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that in calculating the arrival price of an import port, which is the basis for calculating the domestic wholesale price, for a crime of evading customs duties, there was an error of law in failing to deduct the import recommendation and trade agency fees paid by the defendant from the purchase price,

A. In the event that the defendant imported and sold second-hand printing machines on the condition that customs clearance procedures, taxes and buyers' factories should be transported after arrival of the port of entry and that they should be installed and run in a trial, the transaction price at which the above import is taxable shall be the amount calculated by deducting, from the purchase price, the customs clearance procedures, customs duties and other expenses incurred in transporting second-hand printing machines to factories, security deposit money for lease on a deposit basis, such as customs duties, and trial operation expenses.

B. The domestic wholesale price as prescribed in Articles 198(3) and 2(5) of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4286 of Dec. 31, 1990) refers to the price at which the domestic wholesale price of the goods is the market price, including taxes such as customs duties, customs procedure expenses and appropriate profits of the company, at the cost of arrival.

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law in calculating the price at the port of arrival, which is the basis for calculating the domestic wholesale price, for a crime of evading customs duties, on the grounds that the defendant did not deduct the import recommendation, trade agency fees, customs procedure expenses, warehouse

A. Articles 9 and 9-3(b) of the Customs Act; Article 198 of the Customs Act; Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 2(5) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4286, Dec. 31, 1990);

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Do2837 delivered on October 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 14509) 84Do553 delivered on November 13, 1984 (Gong1985,48)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Kim Yoon-Gyeong et al.

Busan High Court Decision 90No829 delivered on April 10, 1991

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

1. Article 9 of the Customs Act provides that the tax base of customs duties shall be the price or quantity of the imported goods. Article 9-3 (1) and (2) of the same Act provides that the customs value of the imported goods shall be the transaction price adjusted by adding the amount under subparagraphs 1 through 6 of paragraph (1) to the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for the goods exported to Korea. Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides that the customs value of the imported goods shall be the price which is actually paid or payable by a buyer as the price for the relevant imported goods under Article 9-3 (1) of the Customs Act shall be the total amount paid or payable by a buyer to a seller: Provided, That the customs value shall be the price which is made after the import from the price (Article 9-3 (1) 1), freight, insurance premium and other expenses related to transportation of the relevant imported goods after the arrival of the import port (Article 2) and Article 9-3 (3) 4 of the Customs Act provides that the customs value of the relevant imported goods shall be deducted in order from the customs value of the relevant imported goods under Article 9-3 of the Customs Act;

According to the records, while purchasing from the defendant the first printing machine of this case from the defendant 50 million won, the first printing machine of this case was purchased from the defendant 50 million won, and the second printing machine was purchased from the non-indicted 45 million won, (the ground of appeal is premised on the fact that the price purchased from the non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd. by the non-indicted 20 million won constitutes the selling price, but this is different from the defendant's assertion up to the judgment of the court below) that the defendant, after arrival of the import port, transported the customs clearance procedure, the rent-bearing charge, and the factory of the above non-indicted 200. Thus, the transaction price at which the second printing machine was taxable for the import of the second printing machine of this case should be determined by requesting the non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd. to take measures such as the procedure for customs clearance after arrival of the import port, and the cost for installation and operation of customs clearance after the customs clearance and the cost for trial operation of the non-indicted 200 million won. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this case's charges.

2. Article 198(3) of the Customs Act provides that when the whole or part of the goods subject to forfeiture cannot be forfeited, an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price of the goods subject to forfeiture at the time of offense shall be collected from an offender. Article 2(5) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4286 of Dec. 31, 190) provides that with respect to the domestic wholesale price, the domestic wholesale price means the price at which a wholesaler purchases imported goods from a trader and sells them openly through normal transaction methods at the domestic wholesale market. Such domestic wholesale price means the price at which the domestic wholesale price includes taxes such as customs duties, customs procedures, expenses for customs clearance and appropriate profits of the company at the time of arrival of the goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do553, Nov. 13, 1984).

According to the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, with respect to the printing machines of this case imported by the non-indicted Down and Park hee, the price for arrival at port by deducting transportation expenses and taxes and public charges from the purchase price shall be calculated, and the domestic wholesale price, which is, the market price, namely, the domestic wholesale price, by calculating the price for goods evaded from customs duties, by multiplying the price for goods equivalent to customs duties, and the domestic wholesale price for the printing machines shall be assessed by multiplying the price for arrival at port of Busan, which is the import port of which the defendant filed an import declaration, and the domestic wholesale price for

However, according to the records, in calculating the price of Busan Port, which is the basis for calculating the amount of collection for the crime of evading customs duties, the defendant's import recommendation, trade agency fees, customs procedure expenses, warehouse fees, etc., should be deliberated and determined and deducted.

Nevertheless, the court below adopted the appraisal report that calculated the domestic wholesale price by calculating the arrival price of the port without such measures and multiplying it by the reverse rate as seen earlier and recognized the additional collection amount, which is illegal. It can be seen that the above defects were pointed out.

Therefore, the appeal on the Defendant’s evasion of customs duties is with merit, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed along with the crime of violation of Article 181 subparag. 2 of the Customs Act, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho