[1] The meaning of "price" of goods as one of the declaration items under Article 241 (1) of the former Customs Act (=purchase price) and whether the fare and insurance premium to be added and adjusted are included in determining the dutiable value (negative)

[2] Whether a person may be punished for committing a false declaration in accordance with Article 276(1)4 of the former Customs Act in a case where the import declaration reveals the true purchase price of imported goods, but there is a false declaration on the freight, etc., which is an element for adding and adjusting the determination of the dutiable value (negative)

[1] According to the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “Act”), when a person intends to export, import, or return goods, he/she shall file a declaration with the head of a customs office on the name, standard, quantity, price, etc. of the relevant goods (Article 241(1) of the Act). This declaration must be equally applied in cases where an export declaration, import declaration, and return declaration are filed under the systematic structure of the provision, and there is no difference between the imposition of customs duties and the imposition of customs duties. Considering that the two purposes of Article 1(1) of the Act, namely, “security of customs revenues” through “the imposition and collection of customs duties,” and “reasonable customs clearance of exported or imported goods,” a declaration on the importation of goods as one of the above declaration items should be deemed not only an export declaration or return declaration, but also a declaration on the importation of goods should be deemed a dutiable value (Article 30(1) of the Act).

[2] A person who intends to import goods shall file a duty return (Article 38 of the Act) in addition to an import declaration under Article 241(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “the Act”). Any duty return is required to state matters concerning the payment of customs duties along with an import declaration (Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act). A duty return and an import declaration are made at the same time in one document. However, the purpose of the duty return is different as they are for securing customs revenues. Furthermore, if an import declaration is filed falsely, the duty return is to be imposed on “the cost of the goods or a fine not exceeding 20,000 won,” whereas the duty return is to be imposed on “the fact that the duty return was filed or the dutiable value of the imported goods is determined differently from the fact that the duty return was filed in accordance with Article 276(1)4 of the Act, and thus, the determination of whether the duty return constitutes “the statutory penalty for customs value not exceeding three years” can be determined.

[1] Articles 1, 30, and 241(1) of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010); / [2] Articles 1, 30, 38, 241(1), 270(1)1, and 276(1)4 (see current Article 276(2)4); Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Law Firm Dongbuk Asia, Attorney Lee Jae-soo

Jeonju District Court Decision 2012No1109 decided June 28, 2013

The conviction part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “Act”), when a person intends to export, import, or return goods, he/she shall file a declaration with the head of the relevant customs office on the name, standard, quantity, and price of the relevant goods (Article 241(1) of the Act). This declaration shall be equally applied when an export declaration, import declaration, and return declaration are filed in the same manner as an export declaration, import declaration, and return declaration are filed in accordance with the system of the provision. Considering the fact that there is no relation with the imposition of customs duties, an export declaration or return declaration shall be deemed to be aimed at ensuring customs revenues through “the imposition and collection of customs duties” and “an adequate customs clearance clearance for imported or exported goods,” and therefore, “price” as one of the above declaration items shall not be deemed as a customs value at the time of determining the import declaration or return declaration, but shall not be deemed as a customs value at the time of adding or adjusting the price (hereinafter “price”).

Meanwhile, a person who intends to import goods shall file a duty return (Article 38 of the Act) in addition to the above import declaration. A duty return is required to state matters concerning the payment of customs duties together (Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act). A duty return and an import declaration are to be filed in a lump sum, but the purpose of the duty return is different from that of the import declaration inasmuch as the duty return is to secure customs revenues. Furthermore, in a case where the import declaration is filed falsely, the duty return is to be imposed on “the cost of goods or a fine not exceeding 20 million won,” as a crime of false declaration (Article 276(1)4 of the Act). However, where a duty return is filed to exercise influence on the determination of the amount of customs duties, the duty return is imposed on “five times the amount of customs duties evaded or evaded or a fine not exceeding the higher amount of the cost of the goods, which is the statutory penalty for such declaration.” Thus, if the duty return is deemed to have been filed differently from the fact that the import declaration was filed, it cannot be deemed to constitute a false declaration.

2. Of the judgment below, the summary of the facts charged against the Defendants is as follows.

Although the name, standard, quantity, and price of the goods in question are accurately reported, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, the actual operator of Co-Defendant 4, the representative director of Co-Defendant 4, and Defendant 4, who worked for Co-Defendant 4 (hereinafter “Defendant 4”) on behalf of Co-Defendant 4, who reported the import clearance of domestic products among Co-Defendant 4, which were imported by Co-Defendant 4, Co-Defendant 4, the original instance court, as a director of the lower court (hereinafter “Co-Defendant 4”), and Defendant 3, who reported the import clearance of domestic products at the place for the purpose of export and import of agricultural, fishery, and livestock products. Defendant 4 and Co-Defendant 4, who were working for Co-Defendant 4, who reported the import clearance of the imported goods at the place for the purpose of 37.3% high rate of customs duty in China, and it is anticipated that it would have difficulty taking time for the import declaration of the imported goods at the time of the import declaration to prevent low price from filing the import declaration.

3. In full view of the purpose of the former Customs Act, the provisions related to the import declaration, and the attitude of the practice thereof, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the above facts charged, on the ground that it is reasonable to interpret that the import declaration price to be reported by a person liable for an import declaration pursuant to Article 241(1) of the former Customs Act does not mean “purchase price” but it means “value” including freight and insurance premium, etc., and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants filed a false declaration on the import declaration price by filing

However, the lower court’s determination is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the meaning of “price” of goods subject to import declaration, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the guilty portion against the Defendants cannot be maintained without any further review of the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants, and this part of the case is reversed, and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)