• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.203-222
• /
• 2015

Papers in FTA research have mostly focused on the legal interpretation of the FTA treaties. In this research, more focus was put on the customs laws and related cases delivered in the U.S. federal courts, by which we can analyze the Korea-U.S. FTA in more practical manner to derive the enterprises' solutions to cope with the disputes of FTA preferential duty. The Tariff Act of 1930 is the U.S. customs law to govern FTA preferential duties. The administrative practices with customs duties are coordinated with the FTA rules. The most controversial issue in the U.S. customs law lies in the classification of imported goods for imposition of the customs duties, based on Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. It was found that the U.S. federal courts had been quite favorable to the CBP(U.S. Customs and Border Protections) in litigation with the private importers and exporters. The reason seems to be that the CBP has been dealing with the customs cases so many times, accumulating much experience in execution of the U.S. customs laws, which is likely to make their decisions on customs duties almost free of errors. Therefore, the Korean exporters need to collect the CBP's past cases on the denial of preferential treatment on imported goods and be fully informed of the CBP's policies on the FTA preferential duty treatment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.3-18
• /
• 2017

International legal reviews on ISD, a procedure for resolving disputes under the Korea-US FTA, are examined from the perspective of law. If the ISD system does not exist, even if the investor suffers damage due to the illegal act of the host country, he or she must file a lawsuit through the court of the host country, which is unreasonable from the investor's point of view and makes it difficult to guarantee fairness and transparency. Some of the Koreans pointed out that there are some problems with the KORUS FTA dispute settlement regulations, and that the United States federal courts are taking a friendly attitude to the decisions made by the US Customs in determining the dispute by the KORUS FTA Agreement and the US Customs Act. In cases where the State does not violate international law but results in harmful consequences, the responsibility of one country is borne by the treaty. Foreign investment always comes with many challenges and risks. Therefore, the ISD system is a fair and universal arbitration system, which is considered to be a necessary system even for protecting the Korean companies investing abroad. In the investment treaty, compensation for the nationalization of foreign property and reimbursement under the laws of the host country were dissatisfied with foreign investors. In particular, some Koreans have pointed out that there are some problems in the KORUS FTA dispute resolution regulations and there is a need for further discussion and research. Based on the experiences and wisdoms gained in the course of Korea-US FTA negotiations, the dispute arbitration mechanism is urgently needed to reduce the possibility of disputes and to make amicable directions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.239-258
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to examine the legal standards of agreements on the origin of liability and the relevant laws in Korea, to suggest implications for custom authorities and traders wishing to benefit from preferential tariff via FTA, citing the excluded cases of related FTA preferences (court cases and administrative judgments). In order to examine the provisions related to supporting evidence of the origin of liability in FTA, we examined FTAs agreed between Korea and EU, EFTA, ASEAN, U.S., and India relevant to FTA Special Customs Act, court cases and administrative judgements. If verifying the origin to protect the fair trade order impedes to promote utilizing FTA, solutions will need to be suggested. If FTA preference is exempted due to verifying the origin by the import customs authorities, the importer shall pay the income tax calculated in accordance with the general tax rate. This is because the certificate of origin confirmed during verification process is different from the actual origin. In most agreements, the exporter (the producer) shall issue the certificate of origin and since the importer has no other option than obtaining the certificate of origin from the exporter, it may face consequences such as declined credibility from the custom authorities in addition to being disqualified for FTA preferential, if the certificate of origin received from the exporter has flaws. On the other hand, the exporter cannot help but being punished by the customs authorities due to issuing defective origin certificates, but it doesn't have conventionary liabilities for damages incurred to the importer. As a result, importers are forced to pursue legal proceedings to claim damages to exporters or to give up FTA preference. As FTA is increasingly utilized, the number and amount of origin verification in Korea has continuously been increasing while administrative judgements indicates other FTA exporters doesn't seem to gain any support in utilizing FTA like Korea does. It has been 8 years since full-scale supports in FTA launched and now is the time to introduce more efficient and intensive FTA support system In this regard, it is desirable to conduct comprehensive verification on export Next, an institutions that assures FTA-based exports should be established in order to compensate the importer's damages that may occur from disqualified certificate of origin issued by the exporter.