Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
An FTA origin declaration not issued by the certified exporter
Supreme Court, Feb. 27, 2020, 2016Du63408 (judgment)
Case name: 관세등부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an importer of goods from a UK producer through a Singapore seller applied the conventional tariff rate of 0% under the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the European Union and its member states but submitted, first, a declaration issued by the seller with the producer's certified exporter number wrongly stated and then a corrected declaration in the producer's name, could the customs authority exclude the conventional rate and assess duty at 8% on the ground that neither declaration had been issued by the certified exporter?
Holding
It could. Because the customs authority had a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of both origin declarations, asked the UK customs authority to verify them and was told that neither had been issued by the certified exporter, the conventional tariff under the Free Trade Agreement could not be applied, and this did not change because the producer drafted origin-certification documents for the importer more than two years after the import declaration. The court below misapprehended the law on the conditions for applying the conventional tariff when it treated the defects in the declarations as formal and held the assessment unlawful.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
관할 세관장이 원산지신고서의 진정성에 대하여 합리적인 의심을 갖게 되어 영국 관세당국에 검증을 요청하였고, 이에 대하여 영국 관세당국이 위 원산지신고서는 모두 인증수출자인 을 회사가 작성한 것이 아니라는 이유로 위 수입물품이 자유무역협정의 특혜관세 적용요건을 충족하지 못하여 특혜관세대우의 자격이 없다고 회신하였으므로, 위와 같은 원산지신고서에 따라 자유무역협정의 협정관세를 적용받을 수는 없고
Unofficial English translation
The competent Commissioner of Customs developed a reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the certificates of origin and requested verification from the customs authorities of the United Kingdom; the customs authorities of the United Kingdom replied that, because none of the said certificates of origin was prepared by Company B, the approved exporter, the said imported goods failed to meet the requirements for the application of preferential customs duties under the Free Trade Agreement and were not eligible for preferential customs duty treatment; therefore, preferential customs duties under the Free Trade Agreement could not be applied on the basis of such certificates of origin, and
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
자유무역협정 부속 ‘원산지제품’의 정의 및 행정협력의 방법에 관한 의정서 제15조 내지 제17조, 제27조 제6항, 제7항의 체계·내용과 자유무역협정에서 6,000유로 초과 수입물품에 대해서 오직 유효한 인증수출자가 작성한 원산지신고서에 근거해서만 협정관세를 적용받을 수 있도록 한 취지 등을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
In light of the structure and content of Articles 15 through 17, Article 27 (6) and (7) of the Protocol on the Definition of 'Originating Products' and Methods of Administrative Cooperation annexed to the Free Trade Agreement, and the intent of the Free Trade Agreement to allow preferential customs duties to be applied to imported goods exceeding 6,000 euros only on the basis of a certificate of origin prepared by a valid approved exporter, and other such considerations
Factors
- 관할 세관장이 원산지신고서의 진정성에 대하여 합리적인 의심을 갖게 되어 영국 관세당국에 검증을 요청하였고
- 영국 관세당국이 위 원산지신고서는 모두 인증수출자인 을 회사가 작성한 것이 아니라는 이유로
- 자유무역협정 부속 ‘원산지제품’의 정의 및 행정협력의 방법에 관한 의정서 제15조 내지 제17조, 제27조 제6항, 제7항의 체계·내용과
- 6,000유로 초과 수입물품에 대해서 오직 유효한 인증수출자가 작성한 원산지신고서에 근거해서만 협정관세를 적용받을 수 있도록 한 취지
- 을 회사가 위 수입물품에 관한 수입신고일 이후 2년 이상이 지나 갑 회사에 원산지증명과 관련된 서류를 작성해 주었다고 하더라도 달리 볼 수 없는데도
Unofficial English translation
• the competent Commissioner of Customs developed a reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the certificates of origin and requested verification from the customs authorities of the United Kingdom, and
• the customs authorities of the United Kingdom, on the ground that none of the said certificates of origin was prepared by Company B, the approved exporter,
• in light of the structure and content of Articles 15 through 17, Article 27 (6) and (7) of the Protocol on the Definition of 'Originating Products' and Methods of Administrative Cooperation annexed to the Free Trade Agreement, and
• the intent of the Free Trade Agreement to allow preferential customs duties to be applied to imported goods exceeding 6,000 euros only on the basis of a certificate of origin prepared by a valid approved exporter,
• even if Company B prepared and provided Company A with documents related to the proof of origin 2 years or more after the date of the import declaration concerning the said imported goods, no different conclusion is possible
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In what circumstances is the refusal of preferential treatment an exceptional case under Article 27(7) of the Protocol, so that the outcome might differ from the reply the UK customs authority gave here?
The rehearing by the Busan High Court, once it examines whether the origin criteria themselves were met and whether any exceptional circumstance applies, will show how the rule is applied on a full record. An amendment to Article 16(1) of the former Special Act on the Tariff Law, now Article 35(1), or a revision of the Protocol on origin products and administrative cooperation would require 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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Primary reads the holding as weighing several provisions and purposes together (종합 고려), while independent reads it as applying the rules to these facts (사안 적용). The opinion weighs the treaty structure and then applies it to the record, so both readings are possible.
위와 같은 원산지신고서에 따라 자유무역협정의 협정관세를 적용받을 수는 없고Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “In what circumstances is the refusal of preferential treatment an exceptional case under Article 27(7) of the Protocol, so that the outcome might differ from the reply the UK customs authority gave here?” vs Independent “Under what conditions could a timely replacement origin declaration prepared by the approved exporter cure the original defect?”
Primary asks when refusal of preferential treatment is an exceptional case under Article 27(7) of the Protocol. Independent asks when a timely replacement declaration by the approved exporter could cure the defect. These point to different gaps.
관할 세관장이 원산지신고서의 진정성에 대하여 합리적인 의심을 갖게 되어 영국 관세당국에 검증을 요청하였고, 이에 대하여 영국 관세당국이 위 원산지신고서는 모두 인증수출자인 을 회사가 작성한 것이 아니라는 이유로 위 수입물품이 자유무역협정의 특혜관세 적용요건을 충족하지 못하여 특혜관세대우의 자격이 없다고 회신하였으므로, 위와 같은 원산지신고서에 따라 자유무역협정의 협정관세를 적용받을 수는 없고Raw 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 Busan High Court, in its judgment of 23 November 2016 (2016Nu21916), held that sufficient confirmation and verification had been made that the imported goods met the origin criteria laid down in the Free Trade Agreement and its related statutes by the prescribed procedures and means. It therefore held that the customs authority could not exclude the conventional tariff rate because of defects in the formal requirements of the origin declarations, and that the assessment of duty at 8% together with the value-added tax was unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this misapprehended the law on the conditions for applying the conventional tariff and affected the outcome. The customs authority had reasonable grounds to doubt the authenticity of both declarations, sent them to the UK customs authority for verification, and received a reply that the goods did not meet the conditions for preferential treatment because neither declaration had been issued by the certified exporter, so the conventional rate could not be applied. The whole judgment was reversed and the case was sent back to the Busan High Court for a fresh hearing, on the unanimous view of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A consolidated consignment of EUR 6,000 or less, which the Protocol does not require to be covered by an origin declaration issued by a certified exporter.
- A case in which the customs authority has no reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the origin declaration, so that it never asks the foreign customs authority to verify it.
- A case in which the foreign customs authority replies that the declaration was issued by the certified exporter and that the goods meet the origin criteria, so that no ground for refusing preferential treatment arises.
Record verification notes
Set the consignment value against EUR 6,000 and confirm whether it was a consolidated shipment, since the requirement of a certified exporter's declaration turns on that figure. Then read the verification request and the reply in full: which of the origin criteria, the certified-exporter qualification and the authenticity of the documents the foreign authority addressed, and whether its reply was received within the ten months in Article 27(7) of the Protocol. Finally confirm which version of the Special Act on the Tariff Law applies, since the decision applied Article 16(1) of the Act before its full amendment by Act No. 13625 of 29 December 2015.
From the official text
Points at issue
내국법인인 갑 주식회사가 영국 법인인 을 회사가 생산한 물품을 싱가포르 법인인 병 회사를 통해 수입하였고, 갑 회사가 ‘대한민국과 유럽연합 및 그 회원국 간의 자유무역협정’에 따른 협정세율(0%)을 적용하는 내용의 수입신고를 하면서, 판매회사인 병 회사가 생산회사인 을 회사의 인증수출자 번호를 잘못 기재하여 발급한 원산지신고서를 제출하였다가, 이후 갑 회사가 을 회사 명의로 작성되고 인증수출자 번호가 제대로 기재된 원산지신고서를 제출하였는데, 관할 세관장이 위 자유무역협정에 따른 협정세율의 적용을 배제하고, 관세율 8%를 적용하여 산출한 관세 등을 결정·고지하는 처분을 한 사안에서, 위 원산지신고서는 모두 인증수출자인 을 회사가 작성한 것이 아니므로, 위와 같은 원산지신고서에 따라 자유무역협정의 협정관세를 적용받을 수는 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A Co., Ltd., a Korean corporation, imported goods produced by Company B, a British corporation, through Company C, a Singaporean corporation; when A filed an import declaration applying the preferential tariff rate (0%) under the "Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the European Union and its Member States," it submitted a certificate of origin issued by Company C, the selling company, which had mistakenly entered the approved exporter number of Company B, the producing company; and A later submitted a certificate of origin prepared in the name of Company B with the approved exporter number correctly entered, whereupon the competent Commissioner of Customs excluded the application of the preferential tariff rate under the said Free Trade Agreement and decided and notified customs duties, etc., calculated by applying a customs duty rate of 8%; in a case where it was held that, since none of the said certificates of origin was prepared by Company B, the approved exporter, preferential customs duties under the Free Trade Agreement could not be applied on the basis of such certificates of origin
Summary of the holding
내국법인인 갑 주식회사가 영국 법인인 을 회사가 생산한 물품을 싱가포르 법인인 병 회사를 통해 수입하였고, 갑 회사가 ‘대한민국과 유럽연합 및 그 회원국 간의 자유무역협정’(이하 ‘자유무역협정’이라 한다)에 따른 협정세율(0%)을 적용하는 내용의 수입신고를 하면서, 판매회사인 병 회사가 생산회사인 을 회사의 인증수출자 번호를 잘못 기재하여 발급한 원산지신고서를 제출하였다가, 이후 갑 회사가 을 회사 명의로 작성되고 인증수출자 번호가 제대로 기재된 원산지신고서를 제출하였는데, 관할 세관장이 위 자유무역협정에 따른 협정세율의 적용을 배제하고, 관세율 8%를 적용하여 산출한 관세 등을 결정·고지하는 처분을 한 사안에서, 구 자유무역협정의 이행을 위한 관세법의 특례에 관한 법률(2015. 12. 29. 법률 제13625호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제16조 제1항, 자유무역협정 제15.13조, 자유무역협정 부속 ‘원산지제품’의 정의 및 행정협력의 방법에 관한 의정서 제15조 내지 제17조, 제27조 제6항, 제7항의 체계·내용과 자유무역협정에서 6,000유로 초과 수입물품에 대해서 오직 유효한 인증수출자가 작성한 원산지신고서에 근거해서만 협정관세를 적용받을 수 있도록 한 취지 등을 종합하면, 관할 세관장이 원산지신고서의 진정성에 대하여 합리적인 의심을 갖게 되어 영국 관세당국에 검증을 요청하였고, 이에 대하여 영국 관세당국이 위 원산지신고서는 모두 인증수출자인 을 회사가 작성한 것이 아니라는 이유로 위 수입물품이 자유무역협정의 특혜관세 적용요건을 충족하지 못하여 특혜관세대우의 자격이 없다고 회신하였으므로, 위와 같은 원산지신고서에 따라 자유무역협정의 협정관세를 적용받을 수는 없고, 이는 을 회사가 위 수입물품에 관한 수입신고일 이후 2년 이상이 지나 갑 회사에 원산지증명과 관련된 서류를 작성해 주었다고 하더라도 달리 볼 수 없는데도, 위 처분이 위법하다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
구 자유무역협정의 이행을 위한 관세법의 특례에 관한 법률(2015. 12. 29. 법률 제13625호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제16조 제1항(현행 제35조 제1항 참조), 대한민국과 유럽연합 및 그 회원국 간의 자유무역협정 제15.13조, 구 관세법(2016. 12. 20. 법률 제14379호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제38조의3 제4항(현행 제38조의3 제6항 참조), 제39조 제2항
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