Decisions

All

TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2014Du5644 Decided August 24, 2016【Affirmation of Invalidity Regarding Disposition of Imposing Tariff, etc.】 [full Text]
Summary
[1] Purport of stipulating the adoption of an indirect method of verifying origin under the former Act on Special Cases of the Customs Act for the Implementation of Free Trade Agreements and the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States (hereinafter “Korea-EFTA Agreement”) Standard for determining whether a non-reply by a customs authority in an exporting country within a set period of time to a request for origin verification by a customs authority in an importing country constitutes “exceptional circumstances” under Annex I. Article 24(7) of the Korea-EFTA Agreement [2] In a case where: (a) a Korean company (“Company A”) submitted an import declaration that applied a 0% conventional tariff set under the Korea-EFTA Agreement for gold bars produced by Swiss companies (“Companies B, C, and D”); (b) upon request for origin verification by a competent customs office, the Swiss customs authority replied that the gold bars produced by Companies B and C were not of Swiss origin, but did not respond within the ten-month period as to the gold bars produced by Company D; (c) the competent customs office subsequently restricted the application of the conventional tariff rate and imposed a basic tariff rate of 3%, as well as value added tax; and (d) following the lapse of the ten-month period, the Swiss customs authority explained in its final reply that Company C’s gold bars were not of Swiss origin but that Company B’s gold bars were and that Company D’s gold bars partially came from Switzerland, the case holding that reasonable grounds constituting “exceptional circumstances” under the Korea-EFTA Agreement did not exist with respect to the Swiss customs authority’s non-compliance with the ten-month response period to the request for origin verification of the instant gold bars or failure to provide sufficient information

TITLE

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du5644 Decided August 24, 2016【Affirmation of Invalidity Regarding Disposition of Imposing Tariff, etc.】 [full Text]

Summary

[1] Purport of stipulating the adoption of an indirect method of verifying origin under the former Act on Special Cases of the Customs Act for the Implementation of Free Trade Agreements and the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States (hereinafter “Korea-EFTA Agreement”)
Standard for determining whether a non-reply by a customs authority in an exporting country within a set period of time to a request for origin verification by a customs authority in an importing country constitutes “exceptional circumstances” under Annex I. Article 24(7) of the Korea-EFTA Agreement
[2] In a case where: (a) a Korean company (“Company A”) submitted an import declaration that applied a 0% conventional tariff set under the Korea-EFTA Agreement for gold bars produced by Swiss companies (“Companies B, C, and D”); (b) upon request for origin verification by a competent customs office, the Swiss customs authority replied that the gold bars produced by Companies B and C were not of Swiss origin, but did not respond within the ten-month period as to the gold bars produced by Company D; (c) the competent customs office subsequently restricted the application of the conventional tariff rate and imposed a basic tariff rate of 3%, as well as value added tax; and (d) following the lapse of the ten-month period, the Swiss customs authority explained in its final reply that Company C’s gold bars were not of Swiss origin but that Company B’s gold bars were and that Company D’s gold bars partially came from Switzerland, the case holding that reasonable grounds constituting “exceptional circumstances” under the Korea-EFTA Agreement did not exist with respect to the Swiss customs authority’s non-compliance with the ten-month response period to the request for origin verification of the instant gold bars or failure to provide sufficient information

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2013Du14610 Decided August 25, 2016【Payment of Childcare Allowance】
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2014Da9212 Decided August 24, 2016【Loan】

list