관세법상 중복조사금지원칙의 적용과 한계

Abstract

Under the self-assessment scheme, customs audits are indispensable ​to verify the adequacy of the customs declaration. Since customs audits can infringe taxpayers’ fundamental rights, they should be subject to procedural control, which confirms the compliance of the due process. The prohibition of duplicate customs audits principle is one of the procedural controls. Unlike tax audits, customs audits aim to ensure the proper customs clearance in addition to the collection of tax materials from taxpayers. Accordingly, various types of customs audits are conducted to examine the legality of customs clearance. Although the purpose and scope of customs audits is different from that of tax audits, the discussion on the prohibition of duplicate tax audits principle has developed around tax audits, and studies on customs audits have been insufficient. Based on this reflection, this paper deals with the scope of application of the prohibition of duplicate customs audits principle under the Customs Act and the problems of the current regulations. Customs audits refer to investigations into the adequacy of customs duties declared and paid as well as the customs clearance legality. Leading to abuse of customs investigation rights, duplicate customs audits of a person who has already been investigated for the relevant matter should be prohibited. The Customs Act uses “the relevant matter” as the criteria for determining redundancy, and “the relevant matter” shall be judged based on “the import declaration.” However, when an importer imports several types of imported goods at the same opportunity and files an import declaration in one case, “the same type of imported goods declared at the same time” shall be used as the standard for determining redundancy. Indirect compulsory investigations, in which taxpayers are obliged to comply with customs officers' inquiry and request for audit materials, are prohibited from being duplicated. On the other hand, voluntary investigations based on taxpayers' voluntary cooperation are permitted for re-audits. The current provisions on the prohibition of duplicate customs audits have the following problems. First of all, the exception to the integrated audit is set very wide, while reinvestigation of the remaining parts, which are not included in the partial audit, is not allowed. In some cases, investigations of origin and foreign exchange transaction inspections need to be separately conducted, as partial audits, in consideration of the efficiency of customs audits and the convenience of taxpayers. However, presently, if the adequacy of customs duties declared and paid is investigated after the investigation of origin or the foreign exchange transaction inspection, there is a possibility of violating the prohibition of duplicate customs audits principle. Thus, in this paper, a legislative proposal is to tightly restrict the exception to the integrated audit and to add the investigation of the remaining parts after the partial audit as the reason for the re-audit. Next, “the existence of obvious evidence to admit the charge of customs fraud(hereinafter ‘the Provision’)”, the reason for the re-audit, means that a considerable degree of probability of confirming customs fraud prescribed in Article 270 of the Customs Act is recognized by objective and rational evidence. However, the prohibition of duplicate customs audits principle does not apply to customs crime inspections because criminal investigations are not prohibited from being duplicated. Therefore, there is no need to stipulate the Provision as the reason for the re-audit. Rather, “the existence of obvious evidence to recognize tax evasion” should be defined as the reason for the re-audit. Currently, even if obvious evidence of customs evasion is found after the customs audit, re-audit is not allowed unless customs fraud is established.