Korea Trade Review (무역학회지)

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Penalty Tax under the Korean Customs Act-Focusing on the Unconstitutionality of the Adminstrative Penalty Imposed together and Heavy Penalty Tax

한국 관세법상 가산세에 관한 연구 - 행정형벌 병과와 중가산세 조항의 위헌 여부 등을 중심으로

  • Min-Gyu Park (Department of International Trade, Inha University)
  • 박민규 (인하대학교 국제통상학과 )
  • Received : 2021.06.06
  • Accepted : 2021.06.24
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper analyzes the penalty tax system under the Customs Act of Korea and examines whether the penalty tax provision violate the constitutional principle of proportionality when imposed on a person who does not made import declaration intentionally or travelers who has not been made an import declaration of their carry-on items. It examines the provisions that adopt a penalty tax as a means to secure the effectiveness of the customs law. In relation to penalty tax, the case studies of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court of Korea are analyzed by major issues such as the legal nature of the penalty tax, whether the penalty tax is unconstitutional, and the reasons for exemption from the penalty tax. There is no reasonable basis for the high penalty tax imposed on travelers' carry-on items for which import declaration has not been made. It is necessary to unify the penalty tax imposed when an import declaration is not made and the penalty tax on traveler's carry-on items. It is necessary to establish a limit on penalty tax and to create new regulations to exempt or reduce penalty tax when punished by administrative punishment to avoid double jeopardy. It is necessary to effectively secure the effectiveness of the Customs Act by converting the penalty tax into civil penalty that does not presuppose the faithful and accurate performance of tax obligations by the taxpayer. The government revised the penalty tax system in the Customs Act in 2019, but there are still many types of penalty tax and there are elements that are unconstitutional. It seems that the Korean government should lower the burden on the people by improving the system for the penalty tax system.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant.(2021)

References

  1. Baek Je-Hum (2006), "Reasons for exemption from penalty tax and interpretation of tax law : Focusing on precedents, comparison and analysis in the United States and Japan", Supreme Court Special Litigation Practice Study Group, Special Law Study 8, 33-69.
  2. Han Sang-Hyun (2013), "A case study on the propriety of additional tax about the mistake of import clearance declaration by customs broker's assistants", Journal of International Trade & Commerce, 9(3), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.16980/jitc.9.3.201306.1
  3. Hong, Jung-Sun (2021), New Administrative Law(20th ed.), Seoul: Bak Young Sa, 436.
  4. Kang Heong-Jung and Shin Min-Ho (2007), "A Legal Study on the Application of Smuggling based on the Customs Act through the Analysis of Import Cases without declaration", Korea Trade Review, 32(4), 267-287.
  5. Kim, Nam-Chul (2019), Administrative Law(5th ed.), Seoul: Bak Young Sa, 494.
  6. Kim, Oung-Hee (2010), "Legal Nature and Legislative Limit of the Additional Tax System", Korean Journal of Taxation Research, 27(4), 185-226.
  7. Han Sang-Hyun and Kim Tae-In (2007), "The Legal Problem and Improvements for Applications of International VMI in Korea", Korea Trade Review, 32(6), 45-64.
  8. Chung Jae-Wan (2007), "Study on Customs Valuation of Buying Commissions Paid by Importers", Korea Trade Review, 32(2), 287-309.
  9. Park, Kyun-Sung (2021), Administrative Law(18th ed.), Seoul: Bak Young Sa, 423.
  10. National Law Information Center https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/main.html
  11. US Internal Revenue Service https://www.irs.gov/about-irs
  12. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 85nu229 February 24, 1987.
  13. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 88nu5280 October 10, 1990.
  14. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 91nu9848 April 28, 1992.
  15. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 95nu92 November 7, 1995.
  16. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 98du2379 March 09, 1999.
  17. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 2000du3788 November 13, 2001.
  18. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 2001du403 September 05, 2003.
  19. Constitutional Court of Korea Decision, 2003Hun-Ba16 September 25, 2003.
  20. Constitutional Court of Korea Decision, 2004Hun-Ba26 February 24, 2005.
  21. Constitutional Court of Korea Decision, 2005Hun-Ba54, April 4, 2006.
  22. Constitutional Court of Korea Decision, 2003Hun-Ba79 April 27, 2006.
  23. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 2010du12347 October 18, 2012.
  24. Constitutional Court of Korea Decision, 2011Hun-Ga27 August 29, 2013.
  25. Constitutional Court of Korea Decision, 2012Hun-Ba28 May 29, 2014.
  26. Constitutional Court of Korea Decision, 2012Hun-Ba355 February 26, 2015.
  27. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 2013du27128, April 24, 2014.
  28. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 2016du53180, November 29, 2018.
  29. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 2017du36885 July 11, 2017.
  30. Korean Supreme Court Decision, 2018du34848, May 16, 2019.
  31. Seoul High Court Decision, 2008nu25090, February 4, 2009.
  32. US House of Representatives (2021), US CODE Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code. Available from https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section6721&num=0&edition=prelim(accessed June 21, 2021)
  33. US Internal Revenue Service (2021), Penalties. Available from https://www.irs.gov/payments/penalties(accessed June 21, 2021)