Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Substitute evidence for the through bill of lading under the APTA rules
Supreme Court, Jan. 17, 2019, 2016Du45813 (judgment)
Case name: 관세등부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 8(3) of the Rules on the Standards for Verification of the Origin of Goods under the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement, where circumstances make the through bill of lading issued in the exporting Participating State hard to obtain, may other reliable evidence prove the deemed-direct-transport requirements, so that the contractual tariff rate cannot be denied merely because that bill of lading was not submitted?
Holding
Yes, but only where circumstances make the bill of lading hard to obtain. Article 8(3) of the Rules lists representative documents that customs authorities generally regard as highly reliable, so that where such circumstances exist, other reliable material may take its place. Where the through bill of lading of item (i) could not be obtained, the importer may prove the deemed-direct-transport requirements under item (iv) of the same paragraph, and the contractual tariff rate cannot be denied on that formal ground alone.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
제1호의 ‘수출참가국에서 발행된 통과 선하증권’을 발급받기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우에는 같은 항 제4호에 따라 다른 신빙성 있는 증명서류를 제출하여 직접운송 간주 요건의 충족을 증명할 수 있고, 단지 위 ‘통과 선하증권’이 제출되지 않았다는 형식적인 이유만으로 아태무역협정의 직접운송의 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 단정하여 협정세율 적용을 부인할 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
In a case where it is difficult to obtain the 'through bill of lading issued in a participating exporting country' prescribed in subparagraph 1, it is possible to prove that the requirements for deemed direct transportation have been satisfied by submitting other credible documentary evidence in accordance with subparagraph 4 of the same paragraph, and the application of the preferential tariff rate under the Agreement cannot be denied by concluding, merely on the formal ground that the above 'through bill of lading' was not submitted, that the requirements for direct transportation under the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement have not been met.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
아시아·태평양 무역협정 원산지 확인 기준 등에 관한 규칙 제8조 제3항의 문언, 체계, 제정 경위, ‘아시아·태평양 경제사회위원회의 개발도상회원국 간 무역협정에 관한 1차 협정(방콕협정)에 대한 개정으로서 아시아·태평양 무역협정’(이하 ‘아태무역협정’이라 한다)과 그 부속서를 비롯한 관련 법령의 직접운송에 관한 규정들의 취지와 목적 등을 모두 종합할 때
Unofficial English translation
when the wording and structure of Article 8, paragraph (3) of the Rules on the Criteria for Verification of Origin, etc. under the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement, the background of its enactment, and the purport and purpose of the provisions on direct transportation in the relevant statutes and regulations, including the 'Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement as an amendment to the First Agreement on Trade Negotiations among Developing Member Countries of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok Agreement)' (hereinafter the 'Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement') and its Annex, are all considered comprehensively,
Factors
- 아태무역협정 부속서에서 정한 직접운송 규정을 원활히 실시·집행하기 위하여 관세당국에 제출할 증명서류에 관하여
- 일반적으로 신빙성을 높게 보는 대표적인 증빙서류들을 정하고 있는 것으로서
- 제1호의 ‘수출참가국에서 발행된 통과 선하증권’을 발급받기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우에는
- 같은 항 제4호에 따라 다른 신빙성 있는 증명서류를 제출하여 직접운송 간주 요건의 충족을 증명할 수 있고
- 단지 위 ‘통과 선하증권’이 제출되지 않았다는 형식적인 이유만으로
Unofficial English translation
• with regard to the documentary evidence to be submitted to the customs authorities in order to smoothly implement and enforce the direct transportation rules provided in the Annex to the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement
• in that it prescribes representative evidentiary documents which are generally regarded as highly credible
• in a case where it is difficult to obtain the 'through bill of lading issued in a participating exporting country' prescribed in subparagraph 1,
• it is possible to prove that the requirements for deemed direct transportation have been satisfied by submitting other credible documentary evidence in accordance with subparagraph 4 of the same paragraph, and
• merely on the formal ground that the above 'through bill of lading' was not submitted,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
제1호에 규정된 ‘수출참가국에서 발행된 통과 선하증권’은 관세당국에서 일반적으로 신빙성을 높게 부여하는 운송에 관한 대표적인 증빙서류로서, 이를 제출하기 어려운 특별한 사정이 있는 때에는 다른 신빙성 있는 대체 자료를 제출하여 전적으로 운송상의 이유로 인한 단순 경유 등의 사실을 증명할 수 있다고 봄이 합리적이고 자연스러운 해석이다.
Unofficial English translation
the 'through bill of lading issued in a participating exporting country' prescribed in subparagraph 1 is a representative document relating to carriage which the customs authorities generally regard as highly credible, and when there are special circumstances making it difficult to submit it, it is a reasonable and natural interpretation that other credible substitute materials may be submitted to prove facts such as mere transit arising solely from reasons of carriage.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What evidence will show circumstances making a through bill of lading hard to obtain, and how reliable must the substitute documents be before the deemed-direct-transport conditions are proved?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, once it examines the substitute documents against the substantive conditions, will show how the rule is applied in practice. Any amendment to Article 8(3) of the Rules on the Standards for Verification of the Origin of Goods under the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement, to Annex II of the APTA, or to Article 229(3) of the former Customs Act would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary applies a holistic weighing of structure, purpose and text (종합 고려), whereas the independent reading lists the conditions for substitution (요건 제시). Both reach the same result.
이를 제출하기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우에는 다른 신빙성 있는 자료로 대체할 수 있다.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary treats the holding as a new standard (새 기준 제시), while the independent reading could not confirm whether the holding departs from prior precedent (확인 불가), since the input gives no precedent references.
제1호에 규정된 ‘수출참가국에서 발행된 통과 선하증권’은 관세당국에서 일반적으로 신빙성을 높게 부여하는 운송에 관한 대표적인 증빙서류로서, 이를 제출하기 어려운 특별한 사정이 있는 때에는 다른 신빙성 있는 대체 자료를 제출하여 전적으로 운송상의 이유로 인한 단순 경유 등의 사실을 증명할 수 있다고 봄이 합리적이고 자연스러운 해석이다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 28 June 2016 (2016Nu30356), held that the defendant's assessment was lawful because the through bill of lading had to be submitted for the contractual tariff rate under the APTA to apply. It reasoned that the Rules were made under the delegation in Article 229(3) of the former Customs Act and therefore had the force of a legal norm, and that the wording requiring the documents in item (i) to item (iv) to be 'all submitted' left no choice but to read them as mandatory.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misunderstood the law on the requirements for deemed direct transport under the APTA and had failed to conduct the necessary examination, and so its judgment was affected by error. Annex II of the APTA sets only substantive conditions, item (iv) of Article 8(3) covers supplementary documents proving compliance, and the individual items do not correspond one by one with the substantive conditions, so the paragraph does not exhaustively list mandatory documents. The court below had to examine whether, in circumstances making the bill of lading hard to obtain, other documents showed that the conditions of Annex II, Article 5(b) and Article 8(2) were met.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which no circumstances making the through bill of lading hard to obtain are shown, so that its non-submission stands alone as a formal gap.
- A case in which other documents do not establish the substantive conditions of Article 5(b) of Annex II or Article 8(2) of the Rules, since substitution proves the conditions, not the form.
- A denial of the tariff rate grounded on something other than the absence of the through bill of lading, such as the absence of the certificate of origin, for which the relevant law separately expressly provides that the tariff rate may not be applied.
Record verification notes
Set out each transport leg of the goods, here Chinese-made shoes carried via Hong Kong, and identify whether the route was by sea, land or air, since the Court stressed that whole-journey bills of lading cannot always be forced. Then gather what shows why a through bill of lading was hard to obtain, and match each substitute document against the three substantive conditions in Article 8(2) of the Rules rather than against item (i). Finally, check which version of the Rules and of the former Customs Act was in force on 17 October 2011 and 8 March 2012.
From the official text
Points at issue
아시아·태평양 무역협정 원산지 확인 기준 등에 관한 규칙 제8조 제3항에서 정한 증빙서류를 제출하기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우, 다른 신빙성 있는 자료로 대체할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 위 조항 제1호에서 정한 ‘수출참가국에서 발행된 통과 선하증권’이 제출되지 않았다는 이유만으로 ‘아시아·태평양 경제사회위원회의 개발도상회원국 간 무역협정에 관한 1차 협정(방콕협정)에 대한 개정으로서 아시아·태평양 무역협정’의 직접운송의 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 단정하여 위 협정에 따른 협정세율 적용을 부인할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in a case where it is difficult to submit the evidentiary documents prescribed in Article 8, paragraph (3) of the Rules on the Criteria for Verification of Origin, etc. under the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement, they may be replaced with other credible materials (affirmative), and whether the preferential tariff rate under the Agreement may be denied on the sole ground that the 'through bill of lading issued in a participating exporting country' prescribed in subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph was not submitted, by concluding that the requirements for direct transportation under the 'Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement as an amendment to the First Agreement on Trade Negotiations among Developing Member Countries of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok Agreement)' have not been met (negative)
Summary of the holding
아시아·태평양 무역협정 원산지 확인 기준 등에 관한 규칙 제8조 제3항의 문언, 체계, 제정 경위, ‘아시아·태평양 경제사회위원회의 개발도상회원국 간 무역협정에 관한 1차 협정(방콕협정)에 대한 개정으로서 아시아·태평양 무역협정’(이하 ‘아태무역협정’이라 한다)과 그 부속서를 비롯한 관련 법령의 직접운송에 관한 규정들의 취지와 목적 등을 모두 종합할 때, 위 조항은 아태무역협정 부속서에서 정한 직접운송 규정을 원활히 실시·집행하기 위하여 관세당국에 제출할 증명서류에 관하여 일반적으로 신빙성을 높게 보는 대표적인 증빙서류들을 정하고 있는 것으로서, 이를 제출하기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우에는 다른 신빙성 있는 자료로 대체할 수 있다. 따라서 제1호의 ‘수출참가국에서 발행된 통과 선하증권’을 발급받기 어려운 사정이 있는 경우에는 같은 항 제4호에 따라 다른 신빙성 있는 증명서류를 제출하여 직접운송 간주 요건의 충족을 증명할 수 있고, 단지 위 ‘통과 선하증권’이 제출되지 않았다는 형식적인 이유만으로 아태무역협정의 직접운송의 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 단정하여 협정세율 적용을 부인할 수는 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
아시아·태평양 경제사회위원회의 개발도상회원국 간 무역협정에 관한 1차 협정(방콕협정)에 대한 개정으로서 아시아·태평양 무역협정 제8조, 아시아·태평양 무역협정 원산지 확인 기준 등에 관한 규칙 제8조 제3항, 아시아·태평양 무역협정의 부속서 II(아시아·태평양 무역협정 원산지 규정) 제1조, 제5조, 아시아·태평양 무역협정에 의한 물품의 원산지 증명 및 검증 운영절차 제9조, 구 관세법(2014. 1. 1. 법률 제12159호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제229조 제3항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger