1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 23, 2012 to April 24, 2012 (the date of entry: from March 15, 2012 to April 3, 2012), the Plaintiff purchased a total of 456 tons of the Domestic Stoxis (hereinafter “instant goods”) from a limited liability company (hereinafter “sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-

B. On March 21, 2013, the Defendant requested the Gwangju Customs Office to conduct a customs investigation as to whether the declared price of the instant case is appropriate, and around March 21, 2013, the head of Gwangju Customs Office denied the declared price of the instant case pursuant to Article 30(5)3 of the Customs Act and Article 24(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, on the grounds that “(i) the declared price of the instant case is 64% to 65% of the base price for security, and it is difficult to recognize it as the dutiable value because there is a substantial difference between the transaction price of the goods of the same kind and quality or similar goods, etc. and thus, it is difficult to objectively prove the duty data submitted at the time of customs clearance. However, the Plaintiff failed to present any reasonable explanation on the basis of the basic data submitted at the time of import declaration.

② In accordance with Article 32 of the Customs Act, the customs value was examined based on the price of similar goods with similar characteristics and components similar to those that perform the same function and can be used as a substitute, although it is not identical to the instant goods in all respects. Furthermore, within 30 days before and after the date of shipment of the instant goods, the lowest price among the goods similar to the instant goods.