(a) The physical effect of a license for the export, import or return of goods by the head of any customhouse under Article 137 (1) of the former Customs Act;

(b) Criteria for classification of mixtures prescribed in Chapter 9, No. 0910 of the attached Schedules of Tariff Rates in Article 7(1) of the former Customs Act;

(c) The case holding that, in order to avoid import restrictions, goods made by mixing 95% of the red powder powder with 5% of the growth powder powder, constitute a mixture of goods listed in Category 9, 0910 of the attached Schedules of Tariff Rates of Article 7(1) of the former Customs Act;

D. Legal nature of the prior return under Article 7-2 of the former Customs Act

A. A license for export, import, or return under Article 137(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993) is a disposition having the nature of a general license for import and export prohibition against goods brought into a bonded area by the customs collector in the event of an import and export declaration, and its effect is not limited to the goods entered in the export declaration or the goods of the same nature. Thus, if the imported goods are the goods entered in the export declaration or the goods of the same nature, it does not constitute an unauthorized export or import declaration under Article 181 of the former Customs Act.

B. In full view of the provisions of Section 1 of Chapter 9 of the attached Schedules of Tariff Schedule of Article 7(1) of the former Customs Act, which is the Annex to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and its corresponding specifications, a mixture of goods falling under the other subparagraphs of Chapter 9 shall be classified as a mixture of goods under subparagraph 0910 (No. No. No. 30910), regardless of whether the combination of goods falling under the other subparagraphs of subparagraph 9 maintains the principal characteristics of the goods concerned. However, if the one party is not deemed to have been mixed, it shall not be regarded as a mixture of goods. As to whether the two or more kinds of goods falling under the other subparagraphs of Chapter 9 can be classified as a mixture of goods under subparagraph 0910 when the combination of goods falling under the other subparagraphs of the above Chapter 9 is not provided for in the above Convention or the former Customs Act, it shall be determined according to whether the mixture of each goods can be seen as a mixture of goods under social norms in light of their ratio, quantity, nature

C. The case holding that, in order to avoid import restrictions, goods made by mixing 95% of the powder powder with 5% of the powder powder, shall be deemed as mixtures of the powder powder (No. 0904) and the powder powder (No. 0910) in terms of social norms in light of the combination ratio, quantity, nature, etc. of the powder powder and the powder powder mixed with 95% of the powder powder, and therefore, it is reasonable to view them as mixtures of the powder powder (No. 0904) and the powder powder (No. 0910) in accordance with the provisions of Section 1-b of Chapter 9 of the attached Table of Article 7(1) of the former Customs Act.

D. The prior time system set out in Article 7-2 of the Customs Act allows a person who intends to export and import to get the prior time from the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service in order to prevent the problem of customs procedures arising from export and import which may cause confusion in tariff classification, and the prior time is not an administrative disposition that allows the person to obtain the right of public law or to bear the obligation directly to the applicant for the prior time in the tariff classification in the customs procedure.

A. Articles 137(1) and 181 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993), and Article 6(4)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Article 7(1) [Attachment Schedules] of the former Customs Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Do2193 Decided December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 219) 86Do148 Decided March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 736) (Gong1988, 1359) (Gong1359 Decided September 27, 198). Supreme Court Decision 83Nu485 Decided May 22, 1984 (Gong1984, 1141)

Defendant

Attorney Doh-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 93No1613 delivered on February 8, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are examined.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

원심판결 이유에 의하면 이 사건 공소사실의 요지는, 피고인이 공소외 1 및 2와 공모공동하여 그 판시 일시경 중국 신흥공사 청도공사로부터 고춧가루 95%에 생강가루 5%의 혼합한 물품 45톤(이하 이 사건 수입물품이라 한다)을 반입한 후, 동래세관 양산출장소에 수입자동승인품목인 세번 0910.91.0000의 혼합양념 45톤을 수입하는 것처럼 수입신고를 하여 혼합양념에 대한 수입면허를 받아 통관함으로써 수입제한승인품목인 중국산 고춧가루 45톤 시가 금 160,752,360원(물품원가 금 78,929,400원) 상당을 수입면허 없이 수입하였다고 함에 있는바, 이에 대하여 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여 피고인 등이 고춧가루는 농수산물유통공사(농림수산부장관의 오기로 보인다)의 수입추천을 받아야만 수입할 수 있는 수입제한승인품목이지만, 거기에다 역시 수입제한승인품목인 생강가루를 섞어 만든 혼합물은 수입자유승인품목으로 된다고 판단하고, 이 사건 수입물품을 반입한 후, 동래세관 양산출장소에 세번 0910.91.0000의 혼합양념을 수입하는 것처럼 수입신고를 하여 이를 통관시킨 후, 위 공소외 1로 하여금 출고케 하여 그 전량을 김치제조용 고춧가루로 처분한 사실을 인정한 후, 구 관세법(1993.12.31. 법률 제4674호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제7조 제1항 은 관세의 세율은 별표 관세율표에 의하도록 규정하고 있으며, 그 품목분류방식에 관하여 우리 나라는 관세협력이사회가 1983.6. 채택한 통일상품명및부호체계에관한국제협약(이하 H.S.협약이라 한다)에 가입함으로써 1988년경 부터 이 H.S.품목분류방식을 채택하고 있는데, 위 협약 및 그에 기한 위 관세율표상의 품목분류상 제9류 커피, 차, 마태 및 향신료의 부문에서 품목번호(Heading Number)를 제0901호에서 제0910호까지 분류하고 있고, 그 중 고추는 제0904호(세번은 0904.20이며, 나아가 분쇄한 고추의 세번은 0904.20.2000임)란에 생강은 제0910호(세번은 0910.10임)란에 각 분류하고 있으나, 한편 같은 유의 제0190.91호란에 “혼합물(이 유의 주1. 나에 규정한 것)”을 규정하고 있고, 이에 관한 주에서는 “1. 제0904 내지 제0910호의 물품의 혼합물에 대하여는 다음에 정하는 바에 의한다”고 규정한 뒤, “가. 같은 호에 해당하는 물품의 2종 이상의 혼합물은 당해 호에 분류한다. 나. 다른 호에 해당하는 물품의 2종 이상의 혼합물은 제0910호에 분류한다. 제0904호 내지 제0910호의 물품(또는 가 또는 나에 규정한 혼합물)에 다른 물품을 첨가한 것은 그 결과로서 생긴 혼합물이 당해 호에 해당하는 물품의 주요한 특성을 유지하는 한 그 분류에 영향을 미치지 아니하며, 그러하지 아니한 기타의 혼합물은 이 유에 분류하지 아니하고, 혼합조미료로서 사용되는 것은 제2103호에 분류한다고 규정하고 있어, 위 관세율표 제9류 주1의 나 규정에 따라 일응 이 사건 고춧가루와 생강가루의 혼합물은 제0910호에 분류하는 것이 타당하나, H.S.분류체계가 구 관세법 제7조 에 의하여 관세율산정을 위한 관세율표로 채택된 이상 그 적용을 위한 1차적인 해석 권한은 우리 나라 정부에 있으며, 관세청이 고춧가루와 생강가루의 혼합물을 고춧가루로 사전회시한 바 있으므로, 위 관세율표 해석에 있어서는 수입자의 의사와 수입 이후의 판매과정까지를 종합적으로 고려하여 그 품목을 분류하여야 한다고 전제한 다음, 이 사건에서와 같이 피고인등이 고춧가루와 생강가루가 수입제한승인품목인데 반해 그 둘을 섞은 혼합물은 이러한 수입규제가 미치지 아니함을 이용하여 고춧가루를 수입할 의사로서 위 제한을 회피할 목적으로 적은 양의 생강가루(5%)를 혼합함으로써 고춧가루로서의 주된 특성이 유지되고 있었을 뿐만 아니라, 수입후에도 이를 전량 고춧가루로 판매하였다면 이는 위 주에서 다른 호의 물품을 혼합한 것이 아니라 고춧가루에 희석제등과 다를 바 없는 이물질인 생강가루를 섞은 것으로 보아 위 관세율표상 제0910호에 해당하는 혼합물이 아닌 제0904호에 해당하는 고춧가루로 분류함이 상당하고, 따라서 고춧가루에 해당하는 위 물품을 수입하면서도 수입신고서에 혼합물이라 기재하여 이를 반입한 피고인의 행위는 무면허수입죄에 해당한다는 이유로 이 부분에 관하여 무죄를 선고한 원심판결을 파기하고, 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제6조 제4항 제2호 , 구 관세법 제181조 제1호 를 적용하여 처단하였다.

2. Judgment of party members

A license for export, import, or return of goods under Article 137 (1) of the former Customs Act is a disposition having the character of a general permit for export and import prohibition against goods brought in to a bonded area by the customs collector in the event of an export and import declaration, and its effect is not imposed on the goods entered in the export declaration or the goods of similar nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Do2193, Dec. 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 86Do148, Mar. 25, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 88Do249, Sept. 27, 198); and if the imported goods are goods entered in the export declaration or identical to those entered in the export declaration, it does not constitute an offense of non-licensed export and import under Article 181 of the former Customs Act.

On the other hand, in full view of the provisions of Section 1 of Chapter 9 of the attached Schedules of Tariff Rates No. 9, which are the Annex to H.S. Convention, the H.S. Schedules and the subsequent provisions of Section 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the former Customs Act, a mixture of goods falling under the other subparagraphs of Chapter 9 shall be classified as a mixture of goods under No. 0910 (No. 30910.91), regardless of whether the combination of goods falling under the other subparagraphs of subparagraph 9 maintains the principal characteristics of the goods concerned. However, if the one is so small that it can not be seen as a mixture of goods, it shall not be regarded as a mixture of goods under subparagraph 0910, and as to whether the two or more kinds of goods falling under the other subparagraphs of Chapter 9 can be classified as a mixture of goods under subparagraph 10, it shall be determined according to whether they can be viewed as a mixture of goods under social norms in light of the combination ratio, quantity, nature, etc. of each mixed goods.

As seen in this case, an importer who intends to import a product subject to import restrictions falling under Chapter 9 of the above Tariff Schedules may abuse the provisions of Chapter 1 of the above Chapter 9, such as the import of a mixture of products falling under the above Chapter 9, which is an importer and an approved product manufactured by mixing the products falling under the above Chapter 9 with other products falling under the above Chapter 9, in order to avoid import restrictions on the said product. However, an interpretation of the concept of mixture under Article 0910 under the principle of the principle of the principle of no punishment without law, which cannot be interpreted by analogical interpretation or expanded interpretation, cannot supplement the lack of legislation that is not publicly notified as an item subject to import restrictions for the mixture under Article 0910 of the above Tariff Schedules, which is due to the lack of legislation.

However, in full view of the statements made by Nonindicted 3 and the statement made by Nonindicted 3 of the statement made by the senior judicial police officer on credit and the records attached to the investigation (15 pages) of the HS comprehensive manual attached to the above statement statement, the Defendant et al., upon the public notice of export and import by the chief of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy at the time of the import declaration of this case, publicly notified the trends classified in No. 0904 and the courses classified in No. 0910 as items subject to import restriction. However, the Defendant et al., upon the notice of the import declaration of this case, were known as being the item subject to import restriction as being the item subject to import restriction. However, the Defendant et al., upon the receipt of the notice of the import declaration of this case, attempted to purchase and sell the item to Nonindicted 3 and to purchase the item subject to import restriction, and submitted the same article to the lower court for sale of the item subject to import restriction as stated in the item column of the import declaration of this case to the lower court.

Considering the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view the imported goods of this case as a mixture of molds (No. 0904) and vegetable powder (No. 0910) in light of the combination ratio, quantity, nature, etc. of molds and vegetable powder which are mixed with them. Thus, the imported goods of this case should be classified as a mixture of the item number No. 0910 (No. 910, Sept. 1, 091) in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-B of the above Tariff Schedules.

Therefore, since the imported goods of this case are or are identical to those stated in the import declaration, such import acts by the defendant, etc. do not constitute the crime of non-licensed import.

In addition, the prior time system, stipulated in Article 7-2 of the Customs Act, allows a person who intends to export and import to receive prior time from the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service in order to prevent the problem of customs clearance due to export and import which may cause confusion in the tariff classification. The prior time is not an administrative disposition that only binds the head of the customs office in the tariff classification of the customs clearance procedure, but does not require the applicant to obtain the right of public law or to bear the obligation directly to the applicant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu485, May 2, 1984). The defendant et al. applied for prior time with respect to the imported goods of this case to the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service for the prior time and received a reply from the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service that the imported goods of this case are classified as the white paper of No. 09Ra.20, as provided in the tariff schedule.

Nevertheless, while it is reasonable for the court below to classify the imported goods of this case as a mixture of red powder and galulous powder, it is reasonable to classify them as a product number No. 0910, the defendant's act of importing them as a crime of non-licensed import on the ground that it is reasonable to classify them as the red powder powder under Article 0904, shall not be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the tariff classification method under the Customs Act, nor in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the customs classification method under the Customs Act, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the argument that points this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be maintained as it is, and the part concerning the preparation and uttering of false public documents which the court below found guilty should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety and the case

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)