The meaning of the supply of services to be added to the dutiable value of imported goods

The supply of goods and services added to the customs value of imported goods in accordance with relevant provisions, such as Article VIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Article IX:3(1) of the Customs Act, refers to the case where an importer conducts on behalf of the importer in an import transaction, and provides the importer with the result thereof free of charge or at a reduced price, and reduces the customs value of imported goods.

Article 9-3(1) of the Customs Act, Article VIII of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorneys Song Jae-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Head of Ulsan Customs Office

Busan High Court Decision 90Gu3133 delivered on March 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

It is reasonable for the court below to interpret that the supply of goods and services added to the customs value of imported goods in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 8 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Article 9-3(1) of the Customs Act, etc. shall be interpreted as a case where an importer conducts on behalf of the importer the work to be done by the exporter in import transaction, and provides the result to the producer free of charge or at a reduced price, thereby reducing the customs value of imported goods. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the price paid in return for the grant of technical license to manufacture, use, and sell CTPP, PTPP, and DMT from foreign companies in its holding cannot be considered as the price for the introduction of technology provided directly or indirectly for the production and export of the import equipment in this case. Thus, there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit.

The reasoning of the court below on the issue of whether the above payment made by the plaintiff was made as an import condition of the import equipment of this case cannot be said to affect the conclusion of this case. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the third ground for appeal

The court below held that the cost of the introduction of technology in the (f) part of the judgment below is only the price for the service for which the plaintiff received the purchase of equipment from a foreign company in connection with the introduction of technology, and it is not about the technical service introduced for the production and export transaction of the import equipment of this case, and therefore, it cannot be added to the dutiable value. In light of the records, the court below'

The cost of pointing out that the land price should be added to the dutiable value is paid in return for the Plaintiff to receive support for the purchase of equipment and materials related thereto or for the Plaintiff to receive inspection, examination, etc. as to whether the goods are suitable for the purchase of equipment and materials. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have provided services to the machinery and equipment production company on the ground that the Plaintiff received such services. The argument is without merit.

On the fourth ground

The Plaintiff’s purchase specifications presented to foreign companies, etc. in its holding for the purpose of purchasing the import equipment of this case are related to the equipment to be used in the use and implementation of technical information introduced by the Plaintiff, or to the production of equipment and materials suitable for the implementation of the said technology. Thus, it cannot be said that the technical information or technical services introduced by the Plaintiff have been provided in the production, etc. of the import equipment and materials, and it is difficult to view otherwise to prove that such circumstance has been proven.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the incomplete hearing such as the theory of lawsuit.

On the fifth ground

According to Article 8(3) of the General Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of the Customs and Trade Agreement, an amount to be added to the price actually paid or to be paid shall be based only on objective and quantitative data, and according to paragraph (4) of the same Article, the amount to be paid or to be paid shall not be added to the price actually paid or to be paid except as otherwise provided for in this Article in determining the dutiable value.

The court below held that the contents of the technology of this case introduced by the plaintiff are related to the manufacture of CTS, PTPP, and DM itself and the construction and implementation of factories therefor, and they are not related to patent process or technical information related to the production of individual equipment and materials required for the construction of the above factory, and the preparation of a letter of intent to purchase the imported goods of this case constitutes a portion of service performed in the Republic of Korea, such as the plaintiff and the non-party Gyeong Construction Co., Ltd., on the ground that only the amount based on the materials that can be objectively and numericalized is added to the dutiable value. In light of the purport of the relevant provisions, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)