beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the illegality of the denial of reported prices, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant denied the import declaration price on the grounds that, in full view of the circumstances in its reasoning, the reported prices are significantly different from the transaction prices of similar goods and that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the accuracy or truth of the reported prices, the Defendant’s rejection of the import declaration price is illegal.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for denial of transaction prices under
2. As to whether the determination of dutiable value is illegal
A. As to the determination of the dutiable value of the instant goods except for the “Annex 1-7” among the instant goods, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, based on its stated reasoning, the Defendant deemed it lawful to regard the vegetation harvested from the Chinese Maternity as similar goods and determine the dutiable value pursuant to Article 32 of the Customs Act, which appears to be the production site for the remainder of the instant goods except for the “the lawsuit listed in Appendix 1-7” among the instant goods, as similar goods, and that the import declaration price of AO or G corporation should be considered as the transaction price of similar goods.
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or determined the dutiable value under Article 32 of the Customs Act.