The case holding that the country of origin can be seen as North Korea on the ground that, in case where it was made as a complete product by sending the saved save to North Korea the saved saved saved saved saves produced in China, the complete saved saves were not the minimum processing compared with the previous saved s

If two or more countries are involved in the production, manufacturing, and processing process of imported goods, the country in which the final and substantial transformation was performed is the origin of the goods in question, and the "Substantial transformation" refers to the production of the goods in tariff classification different from that of raw materials through the manufacturing and processing process in the country concerned, and according to the new International Unification Tariff Classification System (the HS, the Haron), the test of HS tariff classification in the new International Unification Tariff Classification System, etc., the defendants were not found guilty on the ground that the original kind of goods manufactured in China and sent to North Korea fall under HS 5802, and fall under HS 5802, and fall under the finished tariff classification in North Korea, and the defendants were not found guilty on the ground that the change in tariff classification was made in the tariff classification of the goods in question through the manufacturing and processing process in the country concerned, and that there was no substantial change in tariff classification in the tariff classification of the goods in North Korea, and that the defendants were not found to fall under the minimum tariff classification of the above goods in North Korea 6302.

Article 26(1) and (2) of the Inter-Korea Exchange and Cooperation Act; Article 24 of the Foreign Trade Act; Article 55(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act; Article 95-65 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy’s Notice No. 95-65 ( July 10, 95) of the Regulations on External Trade Management; Article 3-7-6(2) of the Notice of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy’s Notice No. 1998-90 ( September 10, 98) of the Regulations on External Trade Management

Defendant 1 and one other

A co-inspector;

Attorney Kim Jong-il

Seoul High Court Decision 2001No177 delivered on July 18, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the facts charged in this case that Defendants were not guilty of the origin of the goods in question in North Korea and were exempted from customs duties pursuant to Article 26 (2) of the Inter-Korea Exchange and Cooperation Act, the court below recognized that the Defendants’ understanding of the origin was not completed at a different range of time, without considering the following facts: (a) the Defendants’ understanding of the origin of the goods in question in question constitutes a de facto change of tariff classification No. 1 in North Korea; (b) the Defendants’ understanding of the origin of the goods in question constitutes a de facto change of tariff classification No. 6 in North Korea; (c) the Defendants’ understanding of the origin of the goods in question constitutes a de facto change of tariff classification No. 1 in North Korea; and (d) the Defendants’ understanding of the origin of the goods in question constitutes a de facto change of tariff classification No. 2 in North Korea; (d) the Defendants’ understanding of the origin of the goods in question in accordance with Article 26 (2) of the Decree of the Foreign Trade Act; (e.g. 9-No. 26.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)