Whether the parts of agricultural machinery are specific imported goods subject to non-taxation under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Provisional Customs Act

According to Article 4 (1) 1 of the Provisional Customs Act, among specific imported goods, those deemed necessary for the national economy shall be exempted from taxation. According to the case of the designation of goods under the same provision (Public Notice No. 4444 of February 28, 1969), although the parts of agricultural machinery, such as this case, among attached Table 2 and industrial machinery, are not subject to special taxation, it is improper for the defendant to impose special duties.

Article 4 of the Provisional Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Nu83 delivered on April 28, 1972

Korea Agriculture Stock Companies

Head of Busan Customs Office

The administrative disposition imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff as of October 16, 1970, which imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 3,247,406, shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be divided into two parts, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the other by the plaintiff.

The administrative disposition imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on October 16, 1970 KRW 2,169,710 and KRW 3,247,406 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On October 16, 1970 under the agreement that the Plaintiff imported the parts of the power saving unit that cannot be produced in Korea in accordance with the plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and sold them to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation as KRW 42,000 per unit designated price with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry after assembling the parts of the power saving unit, which were not produced in Korea in accordance with the plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. On October 16, 1970, the part of the anti-prefabricated (NF 32 Duster andist D D D D Ds) that cannot be produced in Japan among the parts of the said part of the power saving unit to be produced by the Plaintiff by entrusting it to Non-Party 1 Trade Co., Ltd. and the Dong wood Co., Ltd., Ltd. and the Dong wood Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the import price of the imported part is less than 50% of the total parts. Accordingly, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry’s decision to exempt the above anti

1. 6-1514 Nos. 6-1 6

2. 6-1528 No. 2 "

3. 6-2216 6미리 스프링 왓샤 16개

4. 6-2028 〃 NO.2 왓샤 12〃

5. KN 21-220a 8 U.S. 4 〃 1.

6. 6x 12-1279 6 U.S. Round Roddrid Sheet scraps 2.

7. KN 21-219a 8미리 스프링 왓샤 1개

8. NF 32-137 French Pibing Pipe 1 〃 1;

9. NF 31-151a French 1 "1" group;

10.5-1518 5 U.S. N. 1 Improvement 7

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the above taxable object was subject to taxation.

The plaintiff asserts that the above parts of this case, which are subject to tax exemption, are attached to the semi-prefabricated goods confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and therefore, it should be interpreted that they are naturally included in the anti-prefabricated goods confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Therefore, since the parts of this case are illegal and more excluded from the imposition of special duties, the defendant's wife who imposed special duties is not at the length of escape from cancellation due to the illegality of imposition of special duties. Thus, the defendant's wife's disposition of imposing special duties is not at the length of escape from cancellation due to the illegality of imposition of special duties. Thus, according to the attached Table 2, 2, 2, and 5.30 of the Decree on Designation of Goods under Article 28 (1) 1 and 783 of the Customs Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 28, Feb. 28, 1970; Ordinance No. 7830, May 30 of the same year, 200).

However, according to Article 4 (1) 1 of the Provisional Customs Act, among specific imported goods, those deemed necessary for the national economy should be exempted from taxation, and according to the case of the designation of goods under the same provision (Public Notice No. 4444 of February 28, 1969), although parts of agricultural machinery, such as this case, among attached Table 2 and industrial machinery, are not subject to special duties, the head of the household who imposes special duties on them, is not in the way of avoiding revocation due to the illegality of the defendant's imposition of special duties.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of principal lawsuit is justified only to the extent that it seeks the cancellation of the above special taxation disposition, and the remainder is not justified, and the cost of lawsuit shall be borne in accordance with Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)