| |
肇庆外贸公司诉肇庆海关海关估价行政纠纷案
2005-11-24 |
| |
肇庆外贸公司诉肇庆海关海关估价行政纠纷案
原告：广东省肇庆市外贸开发公司。住所地：肇庆市江滨西路。
法定代表人：徐伟标，该公司总经理。
被告：中华人民共和国肇庆海关。住所地：肇庆市端州七路。
法定代表人：黄健玲，该海关关长。
第三人：广东省肇庆市翱思科技有限责任公司。住所地：肇庆市工农新村。
法定代表人：冯炜恒，该公司经理。
原告广东省肇庆市外贸开发公司(以下简称肇庆外贸公司)不服被告中华人民共和国肇庆海关(以下简称肇庆海关)2003年5月20日作出的
517720021772499587／ L04号、517720021772499588／L03号、5177
20021772499589／L03号《海关代征增值税专用缴款书》(以下简称三份《代征缴款书》)和同年5月28日作出的5177200217
72499587-1号、517720021772499587-2号、517720021772499588-1号、517720021
772499589-1号《海关估价告知书》(以下简称四份《估价告知书》)，向广东省肇庆市中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。因肇庆市翱思科技有限责任公司
(以下简称翱思科技公司)与本案被诉具体行政行为有法律上的利害关系，肇庆市中级人民法院依法追加其为第三人参加诉讼。
原告肇庆外贸公司诉称：被告肇庆海关向原告发出三份《代征缴款书》，却不说明其征税的价格基础是怎样形成，剥夺了原告的知情权。经原告申请，被告才制作四份《估价告知书》，说明由于原告申报的货物价格低于“价格风险参数”、境内实际买方与境外卖方存在特殊关系，因此怀疑原告的申报价格不真实、不合理，就按照《中华人民共和国海关审定进出口货物完税价格办法》(以下简称《海关审价办法》)的规定估算出价格来。“价格风险参数”只是同类产品的平均价格，申报价格低于这个参数，不能说明不真实、不合理；就算买方与卖方存在特殊关系，但如果特殊关系未对成交价格产生影响，凭什么怀疑原告申报的价格?为说明申报价格是真实、合理的，原告已经向被告提供过大量价格资料。被告不能指出这些价格资料有哪些问题，却拒不采纳，仍坚持估价，且还不按《海关审价办法》第七条第一款规定的顺序执行几种估定完税价格方法，而是直接适用所谓的“合理方法”，是错误的，所估出的价格是武断、虚构的。在错误估价的基础上制作的三份《代征缴款书》，当然也错误。请求判令：1．撤销被告的三份《代征缴款书》和四份《估价告知书》；2．责令被告依法重新定价和作出《代征缴款书》，并返还多收的税款；3．被告负担本案全部诉讼费用。
原告提交了第三人翱思科技公司与境内其他数家公司签订的合同书、订货单、进口货物报关单、增值税专用发票、海关专用缴款书等证据。
被告肇庆海关辩称：作为国家的进出口监督管理机关，海关掌握着大量基于国际贸易实际产生的同类进口货物价格资料。通过收集商品价格权威网站的资料，被告发现原告肇庆外贸公司的申报价格明显低于海关设定的价格风险参数，于是在
2002年11月27日、2003年4月28日，两次向原告发出《价格质疑通知书》，要求其作出书面说明，并提供相关资料。原告与本案第三人、境内实际买方翱思科技公司虽然提供了说明及相关资料，但经审核，被告发现这些资料存在多处矛盾和瑕疵，主要表现在：1．部分增值税发票存在买价高于卖价的价格倒挂现象，有违常理；2．部分订单上载明的含税价格，与增值税发票上的不含税价格相同，不符合逻辑；3．有的资料是由曾因走私、价格瞒骗等行为受过海关查处，存在企业诚信问题，并且是与第三人有过交易关系的一些公司提供，不足为据。在价格质疑过程中，原告和第三人曾经多次承认，第三人与香港翱思公司存在特殊关系。而对这个特殊关系是否影响了双方之间的成交价格，原告和第三人却未说明。至于能直接反映国际贸易价格的对外付汇情况，或者集成电路行业的国际贸易价格等资料，原告和第三人始终未提供。据此被告认为，原告和第三人提供的资料，不足以证明申报价格是真实、准确的，遂依照《海关审价办法》第七条和第十一条的规定，在无法适用其他价格方法的情况下，根据海关的价格资料，使用合理方法估定了完税价格，并制发三份《代征缴款书》。鉴于作为证据的价格资料是海关的保密资料，不能直接向原告和第三人提供，故在原告的要求下，向其发出四份《估价告知书》。《估价告知书》虽然在《代征缴款书》之后发出，但整个估价过程，被告已经在此前通过质疑、磋商程序通知了原告，依法履行了告知义务。原告诉称被告估出的价格武断、虚构，其被剥夺了知情权，与事实不符。被告制发的三份《代征缴款书》和四份《估价告知书》，事实清楚，证据确凿，适用法律正确，程序合法，法院应当维持这一具体行政行为。
被告提交据以作出被诉具体行政行为的采购订单、询价单、合同书、报关单、附随发票、装箱单、成交确认书、技术说明、增值税发票、调查笔录、价格质疑通知书、价格磋商记录表、审价信息收集表、进口货物价格情况说明和保密的海关内部函件等证据，以及《中华人民共和国海关法》(以下简称海关法)、《海关审价办法》等执法依据。
第三人翱思科技公司述称：自2002年
11月25日至2003年6月，第三人向被告肇庆海关提供过长达153页的详细价格资料，用以证明原告肇庆外贸公司代第三人申报的进口货物价格是真实的。但对这些资料，被告不积极主动去调查真伪，仅以“采信度不高，不足以证明申报价格真实性、准确性”为由，一律不予采纳，漠视行政相对人的权利。验资报告证明，香港翱思公司不是第三人的股东；被告认定第三人与香港翱思公司存在特殊关系，并且影响成交价格，不符合客观事实。被告的审价行为偏离了《海关审价办法》确定的原则，违反了《海关审价办法》确定的审价程序，所估定的完税价格没有事实根据，是武断的、虚构的价格。被告以涉及国家秘密和商业秘密为由，拒绝提交其估价依据，剥夺了第三人的知情权。请求判令撤销被告的估价行政行为。
第三人提交肇庆天元信展会计师事务所出具的验资报告、翱思科技公司销售情况对照表等证据。
经质证、认证，肇庆市中级人民法院查明：
2002年11月27日，原告肇庆外贸公司以一般贸易方式，向被告肇庆海关申报
3票进口货物，其中有墨西哥产RC4558DR型集成电路10万个、RC4558P型集成电路
9．5万个、泰国产SN74HCU04DR型集成电路2．75万个、马来西亚产SN74HCU04DR型集成电路1．25万个，申报的货物单价均为每个
0．05美元。
经审核报关单及附随单证，被告肇庆海关认为，原告肇庆外贸公司申报的价格明显低于海关设定的价格风险参数，遂于
2002年11月27日向肇庆外贸公司发出《价格质疑通知书》，要求其作出书面说明，并提供证明申报价格真实、准确的相关资料。11月28日和29日，肇庆外贸公司向肇庆海关提交了境外供货商香港翱思公司与境内实际收货单位、本案第三人翱思科技公司之间业务往来的说明、肇庆外贸公司代理进口电子元件协议、肇庆外贸公司代理进口的说明、肇庆外贸公司与香港翱思公司签订的成交确认书、《中华人民共和国海关进口货物价格申报单》、进口货物装箱单、发票、提单、肇庆外贸公司开给翱思科技公司同型号集成电路销售增值税发票、国内数家公司开给翱思科技公司或跃马(翱思)的采购订单、翱思科技公司开给国内数家公司同型号集成电路的销售增值税发票、有关集成电路代理商的集成电路价格行情信息等资料。同年12月至2003年4月，肇庆海关通过询问、磋商、谈话等方式，向肇庆外贸公司进一步了解进口货物申报价格信息，并向海关总署广州商品价格信息办公室(以下简称海关价格办公室)了解了同型号集成电路价格行情和信息。据此肇庆海关认为，进口货物的买卖双方(境内实际收货人与境外供货人)之间存在特殊关系，且该特殊关系可能影响成交价格，遂根据《海关审价办法》第三十四条的规定，决定不接受进口货物申报价格。
为确定完税价格，2003年3月3日，被告肇庆海关与原告肇庆外贸公司进行价格磋商。3月17日，肇庆海关主持了与肇庆外贸公司和第三人翱思科技公司的审价谈话。4月28日，肇庆海关再次向肇庆外贸公司发出《价格质疑通知书》，对买卖双方存在特殊关系，且可能影响成交价格提出质疑。5月12日，肇庆外贸公司向肇庆海关提交了《关于肇庆市翱思科技有限责任公司申报价格的补充说明》等11份资料。肇庆海关在审核这些资料后认为，这些资料的采信度不高，仍然不能有效证明进口申报价格真实、合理并可以作为确定完税价格的基础。5月15日，肇庆海关又与肇庆外贸公司进行价格磋商，肇庆外贸公司始终不同意对进口货物重新估价。由于肇庆外贸公司没有提供使用相同货物成交价格方法、类似货物成交价格方法、倒扣价格方法和计算价格方法确定完税价格所需的资料，同时肇庆海关也没有掌握上述价格资料，5月20日，肇庆海关经询价后，使用合理方法进行估价，作出三份《代征缴款书》，决定对肇庆外贸公司申报的三批集成电路征收增值税13
172．08元。应肇庆外贸公司申请，肇庆海关又于5月28日发出四份《估价告知书》，向肇庆外贸公司告知：对
RC4558DR型、RC4558P型集成电路，肇庆海关决定按每个0．0898美元估价；对
SN74HCU04DR型集成电路，肇庆海关决定按每个0．09美元估价。四份《估价告知书》上，均说明肇庆海关是按《海关审价办法》第三十四条、第七条第一款第(五)项的规定估价，并告知于不服估价行为的权利救济途径。肇庆外贸公司不服三份《代征缴款书》和四份《估价告知书》的决定，向广州海关申请复议。11月25日，广州海关复议后，决定维持肇庆海关的三份《代征缴款书》和四份《估价告知书》。
又查明，原告肇庆外贸公司申报进口的集成电路，境外销售人是香港翱思公司，境内实际收货人是第三人翱思科技公司。肇庆外贸公司与翱思科技公司之间存在委托代理进口货物关系，代理翱思科技公司进口有关电子元件，负责对外签约、报关等工作。翱思科技公司由香港翱思公司的注册人李兆汉和翱思科技公司的法定代表人冯炜恒共同经营，该公司的部分流动资金由香港翱思公司提供，与香港翱思公司保持着分公司与总公司的关系。双方口头约定，对翱思科技公司的销售利润，由翱思科技公司分三成，香港翱思公司分七成。
肇庆市中级人民法院认为：
一、《海关审价办法》第四十二条第一款第(三)项规定，当一方直接或间接地受另一方控制时，应当认定买卖双方有特殊关系。2002年11月28日，第三人翱思科技公司在其出具的《关于翱思科技公司与香港翱思公司的业务说明》中，承认其与卖方香港翱思公司是分公司与总公司的关系；同年12月3日、12月
10日，在被告肇庆海关制作的询问笔录和翱思科技公司出具的《关于翱思科技公司购销集成电路的说明》中，翱思科技公司还承认，其与香港翱思公司存在着共同经营、利润分成的事实。根据这些证据，肇庆海关认定买方翱思科技公司与卖方香港翱思公司存在特殊关系，是正确的。
二、2003年3月17日，在被告肇庆海关主持的海关审价谈话会上，原告肇庆外贸公司和第三人翱思科技公司承认，涉案货物的申报价格实际是由香港翱思公司确定的。肇庆外贸公司和翱思科技公司虽然想用销售合同、订单、询价单、增值税发票等资料来证明这个申报价格是真实、合理的，但这些资料不同程度地存在矛盾和瑕疵，无法说明其自身真实、合理，因此也就不具有证明申报价格真实、合理的作用。海关价格办公室出具的意见称：涉案货物申报价格低于海关掌握的同型号集成电路实际成交可比价格，低于国际集成电路权威网站的报价，低于集成电路生产成本价格。作为海关进口货物商品价格信息的专业管理部门，海关价格办公室掌握了大量的价格信息资料。与肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司提供的资料相比，海关价格办公室出具的价格意见更具可信性，应当采纳。肇庆海关据此认定涉案货物买方与卖方之间的特殊关系影响了成交价格，是正确的。
三、海关法第五十五条第一款规定：“进出口货物的完税价格，由海关以该货物的成交价格为基础审查确定。成交价格不能确定时，完税价格由海关依法估定。”《海关审价办法》第三十四条规定：“海关有理由认为买卖双方之间的特殊关系影响成交价格时，应当书面将理由告知进口货物的收货人，要求其以书面形式作进一步说明，提供相关资料或其他证据，证明双方之间的关系未影响成交价格。自海关书面通知发出之日起15日内，进口货物的收货人未能提供进一步说明，或海关审核所提供的资料或证据后仍有理由认为买卖双方之间的关系影响成交价格时，海关可以不接受其申报价格，并按照本办法第七条至第十一条的规定估定完税价格。”依照上述规定，被告肇庆海关有审查、确定进口货物完税价格和估定完税价格的职权。肇庆海关在认为进口货物买卖双方之间的特殊关系影响成交价格后，已将这一理由书面告知进口货物的收货人、原告肇庆外贸公司。在法定期限内，肇庆外贸公司提供的证据不能证明买卖双方之间特殊关系未影响成交价格。肇庆海关据此不接受进口货物的申报价格，并依法估定完税价格，执法有据。
四、在海关审价过程中，原告肇庆外贸公司和第三人翱思科技公司虽然提供了包括国内销售合同、订单、询价单、增值税发票在内的各种资料，但这些资料存在着矛盾与瑕疵，采信度不高。对能直接反映国际贸易价格的对外付汇情况或者集成电路行业的国际贸易价格资料，肇庆外贸公司和翱思科技公司始终不向被告肇庆海关提供。同时由于肇庆外贸公司和翱思科技公司提供的证据，不能证明其主张的价格是在境内销售合计总量最大、是向境内无特殊关系方进行销售的价格，其中也没有应扣减费用的客观可量化资料，因此无法作为适用类似货物成交价格方法、倒扣价格方法和计算价格方法固定完税价格的基础。在此情形下，肇庆海关在依次排除了《海关审价办法》第七条规定的各种估价方法后，参考其他口岸同型号集成电路的进口价格，从充分考虑肇庆外贸公司利益出发，以相同规格型号产品的实际成交价格资料作为基础，采用合理方法估定完税价格，其估价的程序合法，且并未超出行政机关的自由裁量权范围。
第三人翱思科技公司认为，在被告肇庆海关审价过程中，其已通过原告肇庆外贸公司向肇庆海关提供了大量资料，这些资料都是真实的，但肇庆海关既不积极主动去调查这些资料的真伪，又对这些资料不予采纳，是漠视行政相对人的权利。前已述及，在买卖双方存在特殊关系且这种特殊关系影响成交价格的情形下，海关对进口货物申报价格予以调整，是海关法第五十五条、《海关审价办法》第七条、第三十四条赋予海关的职权。肇庆外贸公司和翱思科技公司提供的资料无论是否真实，只要不能证明成交价格未受买卖双方之间特殊关系的影响，肇庆海关即可依法对进口货物的申报价格进行调整。在此前提下，海关还有无必要核查这些资料的真伪，则属于行政机关具体行政行为的合理性问题，不属行政诉讼审查范围。
综上所述，被告肇庆海关所作的三份《代征缴款书》和四份《估价告知书》，适用法律、法规正确，符合法定程序，应当维持。据此，肇庆市中级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十四条第(一)项的规定，于2005年6月22日判决：
一、维持被告肇庆海关于2003年5月 20日作出的三份《代征缴款书》和同年5月28日作出的四份《估价告知书》；
二、驳回原告肇庆外贸公司的其他诉讼请求。
本案受理费100元，由原告肇庆外贸公司负担。
一审宣判后，肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司不服，向广东省高级人民法院提出上诉。理由是：一、翱思科技公司提交的验资报告证明，香港翱思公司不是翱思科技公司的股东，他们之间不存在控制关系。被上诉人肇庆海关认定申报价格低于相同或类似货物成交价格或者国际市场价格行情，以及认定买卖双方存在特殊关系且影响了成交价格，都没有证据证明。也就是说，被上诉人虽然质疑上诉人的申报价格，但没有证据证明其质疑的理由。在这种情况下，一审判决也认定翱思科技公司与香港翱思公司存在特殊关系且影响成交价格，是认定事实错误。二、《海关审价办法》第六条规定，买卖双方虽有特殊关系，但只要收货人能够证明申报价格与同时或大约同时发生的卖方向境内无特殊关系的买方出售相同或类似货物的成交价格相近，海关应当接受申报价格。上诉人在收到被上诉人发来的《价格质疑通知书》当天，就向被上诉人提供了相关证据，然而被上诉人没有审查这些证据和接受成交价格，违反了这一条规定。三、本案买卖双方是翱思科技公司与香港翱思公司，肇庆外贸公司只是翱思科技公司的进口货物代理人。在海关审价过程中，被上诉人没有将与具体行政行为有直接利害关系的翱思科技公司列为行政相对人，没有向翱思科技公司发出《价格质疑通知书》，而是把该通知书发给肇庆外贸公司，是错误的。四、被上诉人发出《价格质疑通知书》后，没有按照《海关审价办法》第三十四条的规定给予15天时间，以至肇庆外贸公司与翱思科技公司未能提供充分的证据。五、《海关审价办法》第七条规定了四种估定完税价格方法，而且规定必须依次使用这四种方法。在审定完税价格过程中，被上诉人没有依照法定次序，而是直接采用合理方法估价，严重违反法律。在这种情况下估出来的完税价格，依据不足，实是主观臆断。六、被上诉人宣称其是根据海关掌握的价格资料，使用合理方法估定完税价格。但是被上诉人却以价格资料是海关秘密为由，不向上诉人出示其估价依靠的证据。一审也以这部分证据涉及商业秘密为由，不公开质证，违反了法定程序。请求撤销一审判决，将案件发回重审，或在查清事实后判决撤销被上诉人制作的四份《估价告知书》及相应的三份《代征缴款书》。
被上诉人肇庆海关答辩称：被上诉人对上诉人制发的三份《代征缴款书》和四份《估价告知书》，事实清楚，证据确凿，适用法律正确，程序合法。上诉人的上诉没有事实根据与法律依据，应当驳回上诉，维持原判。
广东省高级人民法院经审理，确认了一审查明的事实。
二审应解决的争议焦点是：1．能否认定香港翱思公司与翱思科技公司之间存在特殊关系且特殊关系影响成交价格?2．肇庆海关在收到肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司提供的相关证据后，应否接受其申报的价格?3．肇庆海关不向翱思科技公司发出《价格质疑通知书》，是否错误?4．肇庆海关发出《价格质疑通知书》后，是否未给当事人留出15天提供证据与说明的时间?5．肇庆海关使用合理方法估价，是否违反《海关审价办法》第七条的规定?6．一审以海关的价格资料涉密为由不公开质证，是否违反法定程序?
广东省高级人民法院认为：
一、关于上诉人翱思科技公司与香港翱思公司之间存在特殊关系一事，一审已经列明作出这个认定所依靠的证据。《海关审价办法》第四十二条第一款规定了应当认定买卖双方有特殊关系的八种情形，“一方直接或间接地拥有、控制或持有对方5％或以上公开发行的有表决权的股票或股份”只是其中一种。验资报告虽然证明香港翱思公司不是翱思科技公司的股东，但这只反映了翱思科技公司的注册资本情况，不代表实际经营过程中两个公司之间不存在任何关系。上诉人肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司以不是股东为由，否认香港翱思公司与翱思科技公司之间存在特殊关系，该理由不能成立。
二、《海关审价办法》第六条第一款规定：“买卖双方之间有特殊关系的，经海关审定其特殊关系未对成交价格产生影响，或进口货物的收货人能证明其成交价格与同时或大约同时产生的下列任一价格相近，该成交价格海关应当接受：(一)向境内无特殊关系的买方出售的相同或类似货物的成交价格；(二)按照本办法第九条的规定所确定的相同或类似货物的完税价格；
(三)按照本办法第十条的规定所确定的相同或类似货物的完税价格。”在上诉人翱思科技公司与香港翱思公司之间的特殊关系被认定后，上诉人肇庆外贸公司和翱思科技公司只有证明成交价格符合《海关审价办法》第六条第一款规定的条件，成交价格才应当被海关接受。肇庆外贸公司和翱思科技公司虽然提供了大量价格资料，但这些资料存在着不同程度的矛盾和瑕疵，无法证明成交价格符合《海关审价办法》第六条第一款规定的条件，因此肇庆海关不接受肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司主张的成交价格，于法有据。
三、海关法第五十四条规定：“进口货物的收货人、出口货物的发货人、进出境物品的所有人，是关税的纳税义务人。”《海关审价办法》第三十一条规定：“进出口货物的收发货人应当向海关如实申报进出口货物的成交价格，提供包括发票、合同、装箱清单及其他证明申报价格真实、完整的单证、书面资料和电子数据。海关认为必要时，进出口货物的收发货人还应当向海关补充申报反映买卖双方关系和成交活动的情况，以及其他与成交价格有关的资料。”上诉人肇庆外贸公司是本案所涉进口货物报关单上明确记载的收货人，被上诉人肇庆海关据此只将肇庆外贸公司作为行政管理相对人，向该公司发出《价格质疑通知书》，符合法律规定，不存在程序错误。
四、被上诉人肇庆海关两次向上诉人肇庆外贸公司发出《价格质疑通知书》，第一次是在 2002年11月27日，第二次是在
2003年4月28日。而三份《代征缴款书》是于2003年5月20日作出，四份《估价告知书》是于同年5月28日作出。仅以第二次《价格质疑通知书》的发出时间计算，至具体行政行为作出时，均超出15天的期限。肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司上诉认为，肇庆海关发出《价格质疑通知书》后没有给予15天的时间，违反了《海关审价办法》第三十四条规定的期限，没有事实根据。
五、《海关审价办法》第七条第一款规定：“海关应当依次使用下列方法估定完税价格：(一)相同货物成交价格方法；(二)类似货物成交价格方法；(三)倒扣价格方法；
(四)计算价格方法；(五)合理方法。”《海关审价办法》第八条至第十一条，分别规定了各种价格方法的适用条件。相同或类似货物成交价格方法，应当“以与被估的进口货物同时或大约同时进口的相同或类似货物的成交价格为基础”，“应当首先使用同一生产商生产的相同或类似货物的成交价格，只有在没有同一生产商生产的相同或类似货物的成交价格的情况下，才可以使用同一生产国或地区生产的相同或类似货物的成交价格”。而在上诉人肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司提供的价格资料中，没有同一生产商生产的相同或类似货物的成交价格，同时，被上诉人肇庆海关虽然掌握同型号集成电路的价格资料，但与被估货物不是同时或大约同时，也不是同一生产国，不能满足这两种价格方法的适用条件。倒扣价格方法，“应当以被估的进口货物、相同或类似进口货物在境内销售的价格为基础”估价，应当同时符合“在被估货物进口时或大约同时销售”、“按照进口时的状态销售”、“在境内第一环节销售”、“合计的货物销售总量最大”、“向境内无特殊关系方销售”等条件，还应当扣除“该货物的同等级或同种类货物在境内销售时的利润和一般费用及通常支付的佣金”、“货物运抵境内输入地点之后的运费、保险费、装卸费及其他相关费用”、“进口关税、进口环节税和其他与进口或销售上述货物有关的国内税”。肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司虽然提供了同型号集成电路的增值税发票，但这些发票经审核，存在多处矛盾。肇庆海关认为，这些发票难以反映贸易实际，且不能证明其主张的价格是在境内销售合计总量最大的、是向境内无特殊关系方销售的，也没，有提供应扣减费用的客观可量化资料。肇庆海关虽然掌握同型号进口集成电路的销售价格，但这个价格不是在境内第一环节按照进口时状态销售的、合计货物销售总量最大的、在被估货物进口时或大约同时销售的价格，因而无法适用倒扣价格方法。计算价格方法，是以“生产该货物所使用的原材料价值和进行装配或其他加工的费用”、“与向境内出口销售同等级或同种类货物的利润和一般费用相符的利润和一般费用”、“货物运抵境内输入地点起卸前的运输及相关费用、保险费”的总和估定进口货物完税价格。适用这种价格方法，同样需要掌握境外生产商成本、利润、费用等方面的客观可量化资料。由于肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司提供的资料难以反映贸易实际，同时由于海关也不掌握这方面资料，缺乏适用计算价格方法的条件。《海关审价办法》第十一条规定：海关在使用合理方法时，应当根据本办法的估价原则，以在境内获得的数据资料为基础估定进口货物的完税价格，但不得使用“境内生产的货物在境内的销售价格”、“可供选择的价格中较高的价格”、“货物在出口地市场的销售价格”、“以本办法第十条第一款规定之外的价值或费用计算的价格”、“出口到第三国或地区的货物的销售价格”以及“最低限价或武断、虚构的价格”。在依次排除了前四种估价方法后，肇庆海关以海关掌握的国内其他口岸相同型号规格产品的实际进口成交价格资料为基础，采用合理方法进行估价，符合《海关审价办法》第七条第一款规定的程序，也符合《海关审价办法》第十一条规定的估价原则，且未超出行政机关自由裁量权的行使范围。
六、被上诉人肇庆海关据以提出价格质疑和确定估价所引用的相同型号规格集成电路的价格资料，来源于其他企业的进口价格，事涉其他企业商业秘密。《海关审价办法》第三十八条规定：“海关对于买方、卖方或贸易相关方提供的属于商业秘密的资料予以保密。”最高人民法院《关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》第三十七条规定：“涉及国家秘密、商业秘密和个人隐秘或者法律规定的其他应当保密的证据，不得在开庭时公开质证。”一审对肇庆海关提交的这部分海关负有保密义务的证据不公开质证，处理正确。上诉人肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司认为此举违反法定程序，理由不能成立。
综上所述，一审判决认定事实清楚，证据充分，判处适当。上诉人肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司的上诉理由不能成立，依法应当驳回。广东省高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第六十一条第
(一)项规定，于2005年11月24日判决：
驳回上诉，维持原判。
二审案件受理费100元，由上诉人肇庆外贸公司、翱思科技公司各负担50元。
本判决为终审判决。 |
|
|
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. v. Zhaoqing
Customs
(Administrative Dispute over Customs Valuation)
Plaintiff: Guangdong Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Development Corp.,
domiciled at Jiangbin West Road, Zhaoqing City.
Legal Representative: Xu Weibiao, general manager of the Company.
Defendant: Zhaoqing Customs of the People’s Republic of China,
domiciled at Ruizhou 7th Road, Zhaoqing City.
Legal Representative: Huang Jianling, Commissioner of the Customs.
The Third Person: Guangdong Zhaoqing Aosi Technology Limited
Liability Company, domiciled at Gongnong New Village, Zhaoqing City.
Legal Representative: Feng Weiheng, manager of the Company.
Guangdong Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Development Corp. (the plaintiff,
hereinafter referred to as Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.), was
dissatisfied with the No. 517720021772499587/L04, No.
517720021772499588/L03, and No. 5177 20021772499589/L03 “Special
Certificates on Payment of Customs-levied VAT” made by Zhaoqing
Customs of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to
as Zhaoqing Customs) on May 20, 2003, as well as the No. 5177200217
72499587-1, No. 517720021772499587-2, No. 517720021772499588-1, and
No. 517720021772499589-1 “Customs Notices on Valuation” (hereinafter
referred to as four “Notices on Valuation”) made by it on May 28,
and brought an administrative lawsuit to the Intermediate People’s
Court of Zhaoqing Municipality, Guangdong Province (hereinafter
referred to as Zhaoqing Intermediate Court). Since Zhaoqing Aosi
Technology Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as
Aosi Technology Company) had a legal interest relationship with the
specific administrative act in question, Zhaoqing Intermediate Court
added it as a third person according to law to participate in the
proceedings.
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. alleged: Zhaoqing Customs sent to it
three “Special Certificates on Payment of Customs-levied VAT”, but
did not specify how the price basis for levy of the VAT was formed,
and thus deprived of Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.’s right to
knowledge. It was not until Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. filed an
application that Zhaoqing Customs made four “Notices on Valuation”
which state that, because the goods value declared by Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. was lower than the “price risk parameter” and
there existed a special relationship between the actual domestic
buyer and the overseas seller, Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. was
suspected to have declared an untrue and unreasonable value, so the
value was estimated according to the “Measures of the Customs of the
People’s Republic of China for the Assessment and Determination of
Duty-paid Value of Import and Export Goods” (hereinafter referred to
as the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and Determination
of Duty-paid Value”). Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. alleged that, the
“price risk parameter” was merely the average price of the same
category of products, and the fact that the declared value was lower
than this parameter did not mean the price was untrue and
unreasonable; even if there existed a special relationship between
the buyer and the seller, if the special relationship did not affect
the transaction price, how could the price declared by Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. be doubted? In order to explain that the
declared value was authentic and reasonable, Zhaoqing Foreign Trade
Corp. provided Zhaoqing Customs with a lot of price documents.
Zhaoqing Customs could not point out what problems the price
documents had, but refused to adopt Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.’s
price documents and insisted on valuation. It did not employ the
several methods of estimating duty-paid value pursuant to the order
prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the “Measures of the
Customs for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value”,
but directly adopted the so-called “rational method”. This behavior
was wrongful, and the value so estimated was opinionated and
fictive. Certainly, the three “Special Certificates on Payment of
Customs-levied VAT” made on the basis of wrongful valuation were
consequently wrongful. Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. pleaded the
court to: 1. revoke Zhaoqing Customs’ three “Special Certificates on
Payment of Customs-levied VAT” and four “Notices on Valuation”; 2.
order Zhaoqing Customs to make re-valuation and to re-issue a
“Special Certificate on Payment of Customs-levied VAT” according to
law, and refund the over-levied tariffs; and 3. order Zhaoqing
Customs to bear all the litigation costs for the present case.
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. submitted the contracts concluded
between Aosi Technology Company and several other domestic
companies, the orders, the declaration form on the imported goods,
the special VAT invoices, the customs duty payment form, and other
evidence.
Zhaoqing Customs argued that: as an import and export supervisory
and administrative authority of the state, it had a lot of price
documents on the same category of imported goods which arose out of
the international trade facts. Through collecting the information on
authoritative web sites about commodity prices, Zhaoqing Customs
found that the value declared by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. was
obviously lower than the price risk parameter set by the customs,
hence sent two “Notices on the Challenge of Price” to Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. separately on November 27, 2002 and April 28,
2003, demanding it to make a written statement and to provide
relevant documents. Although Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi
Technology Company (the third person in the present case, and the
actual domestic buyer) provided the statement and relevant
documents, Zhaoqing Customs found from verification that these
documents contained several contradictions and flaws, which were
mainly manifested in the following aspects: 1. The purchase prices
on some VAT invoices were higher than the sales price, which
violated the common sense; 2. The tax-included prices indicated on
some orders were different from the tax-excluded prices indicated on
VAT invoices, which was not logical; 3. Some documents were
investigated by the customs because of involvement in smuggling,
price fraud, etc., thus there was the problem of enterprise
credibility, and meanwhile they were provided by some companies that
had a transaction relationship with Aosi Technology Company, hence
they should not be used as evidence. In the process of price
challenge, Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company
acknowledged for many times that there existed a special
relationship between Aosi Technology Company and Hong Kong Aosi
Company. However, Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology
Company made no statement on whether the special relationship
affected the transaction price between both parties. As for the
documents on payment of foreign exchange to foreign parties, which
may directly reflect the international trade prices, or the
international trade price on the documents on integrated circuits
industry, etc., Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology
Company never provided them. Therefore, Zhaoqing Customs believed
that the documents provided by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi
Technology Company were insufficient to prove the declared value was
authentic and accurate, so it adopted a rational method to estimate
the duty-paid value, and made and issued three “Special Certificates
on Payment of Customs-levied VAT” in accordance with Article 7 and
Article 11 of the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and
Determination of Duty-paid Value” and on the basis of the Customs’
price documents under the circumstance of being unable to adopt
other price methods. Whereas the price documents which were used as
evidence were confidential documents of Zhaoqing Customs, and could
not be directly provided to Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. or Aosi
Technology Company, Zhaoqing Customs sent four “Notices on
Valuation” upon the request of Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. Although
the “Notices on Valuation” were sent after the “Special Certificates
on Payment of Customs-levied VAT”, Zhaoqing Customs had, all through
the valuation process, notified Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. in
advance through challenge and negotiation procedures, and performed
the informing obligation according to law. Zhaoqing Foreign Trade
Corp.’s allegation that the value estimated by Zhaoqing Customs was
opinionated and fictive and that its right to knowledge was deprived
of was not true. In the three “Special Certificates on Payment of
Customs-levied VAT” and four “Notices on Valuation” made and issued
by Zhaoqing Customs, the facts were clear, the evidence was
conclusive, the application of laws was correct, and the procedures
were lawful, hence the court should sustain this specific
administrative act.
Zhaoqing Customs submitted the evidence for making the specific
administrative act sued, including purchase orders, price inquiry
lists, contracts, declaration form, attached invoices, packing
lists, letter of sales confirmation, technical statements, VAT
invoices, investigation transcripts, price challenge notices, price
negotiation records, price assessment information gathering forms,
statement on the price of the imported goods, and its confidential
internal letters, etc., as well as the basis for law enforcement
such as the “Customs Law of the People’s Republic of China”
(hereinafter referred to as the Customs Law), the “Measures of the
Customs for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value”,
etc.
Aosi Technology Company alleged that: from November 25, 2002 to June
2003, Aosi Technology Company provided Zhaoqing Customs with 153
pages of detailed price documents, which prove that the value of
imported goods as declared by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. on behalf
of Aosi Technology Company was true. However, Zhaoqing Customs did
not actively investigate the authenticity of these documents,
instead, it merely refused to adopt them and ignored the rights of
the administered party on the ground that “they are not very
reliable, and are not sufficient to prove the authenticity and
accuracy of the declared value”. The capital verification report
proves that Hong Kong Aosi Company was not a shareholder of Aosi
Technology Company; Zhaoqing Customs’ ascertainment that there was a
special relationship between Aosi Technology Company and Hong Kong
Aosi Company, which affected the transaction price, was not true.
Zhaoqing Customs’ price assessment deviated from the principle
determined in the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and
Determination of Duty-paid Value”, and violated the price assessment
procedures determined in the “Measures of the Customs for the
Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value”. The estimated
duty-paid value had no factual basis, and was opinionated and
fictive. Zhaoqing Customs refused to submit its basis for valuation
on the ground that it involved state secrets and commercial secrets,
but such refusal deprived Aosi Technology Company’s of its right to
knowledge. Aosi Technology Company pleaded the court to revoke the
valuation administrative act of Zhaoqing Customs.
Aosi Technology Company submitted the capital verification report
issued by Zhaoqing Tianyuan Xinzhan Accounting Firm, comparison
table of Aosi Technology Company’s sales information, and other
evidence.
After cross-examination and certification of evidence, Zhaoqing
Intermediate Court verified that:
On November 27, 2002, Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. declared imported
goods under 3 invoices to Zhaoqing Customs by way of general trade,
including 100,000 RC4558DR integrated circuit chips and 95,000
RC4558P integrated circuit chips manufactured in Mexico, 27,500
SN74HCU04DR integrated circuit chips manufactured in Thailand, and
12,500 SN74HCU04DR integrated circuit chips manufactured in
Malaysia, with the unit price of each circuit at USD 0.05.
After checking the declaration form and the attached documents,
Zhaoqing Customs held that, the prices declared by Zhaoqing Foreign
Trade Corp. were obviously lower than the price risk parameter set
by the customs, and thus sent a “Notice on the Challenge of Price”
to Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. on November 27, 2002, requiring it
to make a written statement, and to provide relevant documents
proving the authenticity and accuracy of the declared value. On
November 28 and 29, Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. submitted to
Zhaoqing Customs statements on the business transactions between
Hong Kong Aosi Company (the overseas supplier) and the domestic
actual domestic consignee, the agreement between Aosi Technology
Company and Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. on commissioned import of
electronic elements, the statement of Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.
on commissioned import, the letter of sales confirmation concluded
between Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Hong Kong Aosi Company, the
“Form of the Customs of the People’s Republic of China on the
Declaration of the Price of Import Goods”, the packing list the
imported goods, the invoices, the bills of lading, the VAT invoices
issued by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. to Aosi Technology Company on
the sale of the same type of integrated circuit chips, the purchase
orders issued by several domestic companies to Aosi Technology
Company or Yuema (Aosi) Company, the VAT invoices issued by Aosi
Technology Company to several domestic companies on the sale of the
same type of integrated circuit chips, the price information on
integrated circuit chips as provided by the relevant integrated
circuits agent, and other relevant documents. From December 2002 to
April 2003, Zhaoqing Customs further learned from Zhaoqing Foreign
Trade Corp. about the information on the declared value of the
imported goods by way of inquiries, negotiations, and conversations,
etc., and learned from Guangzhou Commodity Price Office of the
General Administration of Customs (hereinafter referred to as the
Price Office of the Customs) the price and other information of the
same type of integrated circuit chips. Therefore, Zhaoqing Customs
held that, there existed a special relationship between the buyer
and the seller of the imported goods (the actual domestic consignee
and the overseas supplier), and the special relationship might
affect the transaction price, hence it decided to refuse to accept
the declared value of the imported goods in accordance with Article
34 of the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and
Determination of Duty-paid Value”.
In order to determine the duty-paid value, Zhaoqing Customs and
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. made a price negotiation on March 3,
2003. On March 17, Zhaoqing Customs presided over the price
assessment talk with Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi
Technology Company. On April 28, Zhaoqing Customs sent again a
“Notice on the Challenge of Price” to Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.,
proposing its challenge regarding the special relationship between
the buyer and the seller, and the possibly affected transaction
price, as well. On May 12, Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. submitted 11
documents including the “Supplementary Statement on the Declared
Price of Zhaoqing Aosi Technology Limited Liability Company” to
Zhaoqing Customs. Zhaoqing Customs held after checking these
documents that, these documents were not very reliable, and could
not effectively prove the authenticity and reasonableness of the
declared value for import or be used as the basis for determining
the duty-paid value. On May 15, Zhaoqing Customs again negotiated
with Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. on the price, and Zhaoqing Foreign
Trade Corp. all along disagreed on re-valuation of the imported
goods. Since Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. did not provide the
documents needed in determining the duty-paid value in the method of
transaction price of identical goods, the method of transaction
price of similar goods, the subtractive method or the computed
method, and meanwhile Zhaoqing Customs did not grasp the
above-mentioned price documents, Zhaoqing Customs made valuation in
a rational method on May 20 after inquiring the price, and decided
by making the three “Special Certificates on Payment of
Customs-levied VAT” to levy CNY 13,172.08 of VAT on the three
batches of integrated circuit chips declared by Zhaoqing Foreign
Trade Corp. Upon application of Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.,
Zhaoqing Customs sent four “Notices on Valuation” in addition on May
28, informing Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp: Zhaoqing Customs hereby
decides to value the RC4558DR and RC4558P integrated circuit chips
at the unit price of USD 0.0898; and the SN74HCU04DR integrated
circuit chips at the unit price of USD 0.09. All the four “Notices
on Valuation” indicate that Zhaoqing Customs made the valuation in
accordance with Article 34 and Item (5) of Paragraph 1 of Article 7
of the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and Determination
of Duty-paid Value”, and informed the remedial measures in case of
dissatisfaction with the valuation. Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. was
dissatisfied with the decision on the three “Special Certificates on
Payment of Customs-levied VAT” and four “Notices on Valuation”, and
applied to Guangzhou Customs for reconsideration. On November 25,
Guangzhou Customs decided after the reconsideration to sustain
Zhaoqing Customs’ three “Special Certificates on Payment of
Customs-levied VAT” and four “Notices on Valuation”.
It was further verified that the overseas seller of the integrated
circuit chips declared by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. for import
was Hong Kong Aosi Company, and the actual domestic consignee was
Aosi Technology Company. There existed an entrustment and agency
relationship for import of goods between Zhaoqing Foreign Trade
Corp. and Aosi Technology Company. Specifically, Zhaoqing Foreign
Trade Corp. represented Aosi Technology Company in importing
relevant electronic elements, and in taking charge of concluding
contracts with foreign parties as well as making declarations to the
customs, etc. Aosi Technology Company was jointly run by Li Zhaohan,
who registered Hong Kong Aosi Company, and Feng Weiheng, legal
representative of Aosi Technology Company, with partial current
funds of Aosi Technology Company being provided by Hong Kong Aosi
Company, and the two companies maintained a relationship of branch
and head company. Both parties agreed orally that Aosi Technology
Company should be entitled to share 30% of Aosi Technology Company’s
sales profits, and Hong Kong Aosi Company 70%.
Zhaoqing Intermediate Court held:
I. Item (3) of Paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the “Measures of the
Customs for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value”
prescribes that, when either party is directly or indirectly
controlled by another party, it shall be ascertained that there is a
special relationship between the buyer and the seller. On November
28, 2002, Aosi Technology Company acknowledged in its “Statement on
the Business between Aosi Technology Company and Hong Kong Aosi
Company” that it had a relationship of branch and headquarters with
Hong Kong Aosi Company, the seller; Aosi Technology Company also
acknowledged on December 3 and December 10 in the inquiry records
made by Zhaoqing Customs and the “Statement of Aosi Technology
Company on the Purchase of Integrated Circuit Chips” issued by Aosi
Technology Company that, it ran the company jointly with Hong Kong
Aosi Company and shared profits with it. In conclusion, it was
correct for Zhaoqing Customs to, on the basis of such evidence,
ascertain that there existed a special relationship between Aosi
Technology Company and Hong Kong Aosi Company.
II. On March 17, 2003, at the price assessment talk meeting presided
over by Zhaoqing Customs, Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi
Technology Company acknowledged that the declared value of the goods
in question was actually determined by Hong Kong Aosi Company.
Although Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company
wanted to prove with the documents, including the sales contract,
the orders, the price inquiry lists and the VAT invoices, etc. that
the declared value was authentic and reasonable, yet these documents
contained contradictions and flaws in different extents, and were
unable to prove that they themselves were authentic and reasonable,
hence they did not have the force of proving the authenticity and
reasonableness of the declared value. The opinions issued by the
Price Office of the Customs say: the declared value of the goods in
question is lower than the actual comparable transaction price of
the same type of integrated circuit chips that the Customs knew, is
lower than the price quoted on the authoritative websites of
international integrated circuit chips, and is lower than the
production cost price of integrated circuit chips. As a professional
administrative department of the Customs for imported commodity
price information, the Price Office of the Customs had a lot of
price information documents. Compared with the documents provided by
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company, the
opinions issued by the Price Office of the Customs on the prices
were more credible, and should be adopted. It was correct for
Zhaoqing Customs to ascertain that the special relationship between
the buyer and the seller of the goods in question affected the
transaction price.
III. Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Customs Law prescribes: “The
duty-paid value of imported or exported goods shall be determined by
the customs on the basis of its transaction price. If the
transaction price cannot be determined, the customs shall assess the
duty-paid value in accordance with law.” Article 34 of the “Measures
of the Customs for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid
Value” prescribes: “Where the customs has good reasons to believe
that the special relations between the buyer and the seller have
affected the transaction price, it shall, in written form, notify
the consigner of the imported goods to ask him to make further
explanation in written form and provide the relevant materials or
other evidence that can prove that the relations between the two
parties haven’t affected the transaction price. If the consigner of
imported goods fails to make a further explanation within 15 days
from the day when the customs sends out the written notice, or the
customs still has good reasons to believe that the relations between
the two parties have affected the transaction price, the customs may
refuse to accept the declared value, and assess the duty-paid value
according to Articles 7 through 11.” In accordance with the
foregoing provisions, Zhaoqing Customs shall have the powers to
examine, determine and estimate the duty-paid value of the imported
goods. After considering that the special relationship between the
buyer and the seller of the imported goods have affected the
transaction prices, Zhaoqing Customs informed Zhaoqing Foreign Trade
Corp., consignee of the imported goods, of the ground in writing.
However, within the statutory time limit, the evidence provided by
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. could not prove that the special
relationship between the buyer and the seller had not affected the
transaction prices. Therefore, Zhaoqing Customs had the legal basis
to refuse to accept the declared value of the imported goods, and to
estimate the duty-paid value according to law.
IV. Although, in the process of the Customs’ price assessment,
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company provided
various documents, including the domestic sales contracts, the
orders, the price inquiry lists and the VAT invoices, these
documents contained contradictions and flaws, and were not very
reliable. Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company
never provided Zhaoqing Customs with the documents which may
directly reflect the payment of foreign exchange to foreign parties
at international trade prices or the international trade prices in
the integrated circuits industry. Meanwhile, since the evidence
provided by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company
cannot prove that the price they alleged was the price with the
largest total sales volume within China and was for the goods sold
to the domestic parties with whom they had no special relationship,
nor were there any objective quantifiable documents on the
deductible expenses, such evidence was unable to serve as the basis
for adopting the method of transaction price of similar goods, the
subtractive method and the computed method to estimate the duty-paid
value. Under such a circumstance, Zhaoqing Customs used the
documents on the actual transaction prices of the products of the
same specifications and the same type as the basis by taking
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.’s interests into full consideration
with reference to the import price of the same type of integrated
circuit chips at other ports after excluding in sequence the various
methods of valuation as prescribed in Article 7 of the “Measures of
the Customs for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid
Value”, and adopted the rational method to estimate the duty-paid
value. The valuation procedures were lawful, and did not go beyond
the scope of the administrative authority’s power of discretion.
Aosi Technology Company held that, in the process of Zhaoqing
Customs’ price assessment, it had provided Zhaoqing Customs with a
lot of documents via Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp., and all the
contents in those documents were true, but Zhaoqing Customs neither
actively checked the authenticity of those documents, nor adopted
them. Zhaoqing Customs actually turned a blind eye to the
administered party’s right. As mentioned above, under the
circumstance that there was a special relationship between the buyer
and the seller and such a special relationship affected the
transaction prices, the Customs had the power to, in accordance with
Article 55 of the Customs Law, Article 7 and Article 34 of the
“Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and Determination of
Duty-paid Value”, adjust the declared value of the imported goods.
No matter whether the documents provided by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade
Corp. and Aosi Technology Company were true, once they could not
prove that the transaction price was not affected by the special
relationship between the buyer and the seller, Zhaoqing Customs
should be entitled to adjust the declared value of the imported
goods according to law. On this premise, whether the Customs is
necessary to check the authenticity of these documents is an issue
concerning the rationality of the administrative authority’s
specific administrative act, instead of the scope of examination in
administrative litigation.
To sum up, in the three “Special Certificates on Payment of
Customs-levied VAT” and four “Notices on Valuation” made by Zhaoqing
Customs, the application of law was correct, and they conformed to
the statutory procedures, hence should be sustained. Therefore,
Zhaoqing Intermediate Court adjudicated as follows in accordance
with Item (1) of Article 54 of the “Administrative Litigation Law of
the People’s Republic of China” on June 22, 2005:
1. The three “Special Certificates on Payment of Customs-levied VAT”
made by Zhaoqing Customs on May 20, 2003 and the four “Notices on
Valuation” made thereby on May 28, 2003 shall be sustained;
2. Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.’s other litigation claims shall be
rejected.
The CNY 100 of case acceptance fee shall be borne by Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp.
After the judgment of the first instance was announced, Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company were dissatisfied
and appealed to the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province
(hereinafter referred to as Guangdong Higher Court), with their
grounds as follows: I. The capital verification report submitted by
Aosi Technology Company proves that Hong Kong Aosi Company was not a
shareholder of Aosi Technology Company, and there was no
relationship of control between them. Zhaoqing Customs had no
evidence to prove its ascertainment that the declared value was
lower than the transaction price of identical or similar goods or
the international market price, and that there was a special
relationship between the buyer and the seller, which affected the
transaction price. That is to say, although Zhaoqing Customs
challenged the price declared by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp., there
was no evidence to prove the ground for such a challenge. Under such
a circumstance, the judgment of the first instance also ascertained
that there was a special relationship between Aosi Technology
Company and Hong Kong Aosi Company, which affected the transaction
price. It was wrong ascertainment of facts. II. Article 6 of the
“Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and Determination of
Duty-paid Value” prescribes that, where there is a special
relationship between the buyer and the seller, but the consignee can
prove the declared value is close to the price of the simultaneous
or approximately simultaneous transactions of the identical or
similar goods sold by the seller to the domestic buyer with whom it
has no special relationship, the Customs shall accept the declared
value. On the day when Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. received the
“Notice on the Challenge of Price” from Zhaoqing Customs, it
provided Zhaoqing Customs with relevant evidence. However, Zhaoqing
Customs did not examine such evidence or accept the transaction
price, and thus violated the said provision. III. In the present
case, the buyer and the seller are separately Aosi Technology
Company and Hong Kong Aosi Company, while Zhaoqing Foreign Trade
Corp. was merely an agent of Aosi Technology Company for the import
of goods. In the process of the Customs’ price assessment, Zhaoqing
Customs did not list Aosi Technology Company, which had a direct
interest relationship in the specific administrative act, as the
administered party, nor did it send Aosi Technology Company a
“Notice on the Challenge of Price”, instead it wrongfully sent a
notice to Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.. IV. After Zhaoqing Customs
sent a “Notice on the Challenge of Price”, it did not follow Article
34 of the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and
Determination of Duty-paid Value” to offer 15 days of time, and thus
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company failed to
provide sufficient evidence. V. Article 7 of the “Measures of the
Customs for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value”
prescribes four methods of estimating the duty-paid value, but
requires that the four methods must be adopted in sequence. However,
in the process of determining the duty-paid value, Zhaoqing Customs
did not follow the statutory sequence, but directly adopted the
rational method to make the valuation, which violated the law
seriously. The duty-paid value estimated under such a circumstance
was short of sufficient basis, and was actually an arbitrary
conclusion. VI. Zhaoqing Customs alleged that it estimated the
duty-paid value in a rational method on the basis of the price
documents it grasped. But Zhaoqing Customs refused to show Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. the evidence for valuation on the ground that
price documents were secrets of the Customs. Neither did Zhaoqing
Intermediate Court hold a public cross-examination to evidence
because it also claimed that the part of evidence involved
commercial secrets, but such behavior violated statutory procedures.
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company pleaded
Guangdong Higher Court to overrule the judgment of the first
instance, and to remand the case for retrial, or, on the basis of
verifying the facts, to adjudicate the revocation of the four
“Notices on Valuation” and the corresponding three “Special
Certificates on Payment of Customs-levied VAT” made by Zhaoqing
Customs.
Zhaoqing Customs argued: in the three “Special Certificates on
Payment of Customs-levied VAT” and the four “Notices on Valuation”
which Zhaoqing Customs sent to Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp., the
facts were clear, the evidence was conclusive, the application of
laws was correct, and the procedures were lawful. Zhaoqing Foreign
Trade Corp.’s appeal had no factual or legal basis, the appeal shall
be rejected, and the judgment of the first instance shall be
sustained.
After the trial, Guangdong Higher Court confirmed the facts verified
in the first instance.
The focuses in dispute which shall be settled in the second instance
include: 1. Can it be ascertained that there was a special
relationship between Hong Kong Aosi Company and Aosi Technology
Company and the special relationship affected the transaction price?
2. Should Zhaoqing Customs accept the value declared by Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company after receiving the
relevant evidence they provided? 3. Was it wrong for Zhaoqing
Customs to fail to send a “Notice on the Challenge of Price” to Aosi
Technology Company? 4. Did Zhaoqing Customs fail to offer 15 days to
the party concerned for provision of evidence and explanation after
sending the “Notice on the Challenge of Price”? 5. Did Zhaoqing
Customs violate Article 7 of the “Measures of the Customs for the
Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value” by adopting the
rational method to make the valuation? 6. Did Zhaoqing Intermediate
Court violate statutory procedures by failing to hold
cross-examination of evidence in public on the ground that the
Customs’ price documents involved secret?
Guangdong Higher Court holds that:
I. With respect to the special relationship between Aosi Technology
Company and Hong Kong Aosi Company, Zhaoqing Intermediate Court
already listed the evidence for making such ascertainment. Paragraph
1 of Article 42 of the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment
and Determination of Duty-paid Value” prescribes eight circumstances
under which it shall be ascertained that a special relationship
exists between the buyer and the seller, and the circumstance that
“one party directly or indirectly possesses, controls or holds 5% or
more of the voting stocks or shares publicly issued by the other” is
only one of them. Although the capital verification report proves
that Hong Kong Aosi Company was not a shareholder of Aosi Technology
Company, it only reflects Aosi Technology Company’s registered
capital, and does not mean that there did exist any relationship
between the two companies in the actual business operations. The
ground that Hong Kong Aosi Company was not a shareholder, on which
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company denied
there was a special relationship between Hong Kong Aosi Company and
Aosi Technology Company, cannot be tenable.
II. Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the “Measures of the Customs for the
Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value” prescribes: “Where
there is any special relationship between the buyer and the seller,
if such a relationship is determined by the customs as having no
impact on the transaction price, or the consignee of the imported
goods can prove that the transaction price is close to any of the
following prices occurring at the same time or at about the same
time, the customs shall accept such transaction price: (1) The
transaction price of the identical or similar goods sold to a buyer
within China with which it has no special relationship; (2)
Duty-paid value of the identical or similar goods determined
according to Article 9 of the present Measures; (3) Duty-paid value
of the identical or similar goods determined according to Article 10
of the present Measures.” After the special relationship between
Aosi Technology Company and Hong Kong Aosi Company was ascertained,
only if Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company
proved that the transaction price met the conditions prescribed in
Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the “Measures of the Customs for the
Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value” should the
transaction price be accepted by the Customs. Although Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company provided a lot of
price documents, those documents contained contradictions and flaws
in different extents, and were unable to prove that the transaction
price met the conditions prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of
the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and Determination of
Duty-paid Value”. Therefore, Zhaoqing Customs had legal basis to
refuse to accept the transaction price asserted by Zhaoqing Foreign
Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company.
III. Article 54 of the Customs Law: “The consignee of imported
goods, the consignor of exported goods and the owner of inward and
outward articles shall be the obligatory customs duty payer.”
Article 31 of the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and
Determination of Duty-paid Value” prescribes: “The consignee of
import or consigner of exported goods shall faithfully declare the
purchase price of the goods to the customs, provide the invoices,
contracts and encasement lists and other documents, written
materials and electronic data that can prove the declared value to
be true and complete. When the customs believes it necessary, the
consignee of imported or consigner of exported goods shall also
supplement the information about the relationship between the buyer
and seller and the transaction activities, and the materials related
to the purchase price.” Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. was the
consignee clearly recorded on the declaration form for the imported
goods in question, and Zhaoqing Customs just treated Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. as an administered party and sent it a “Notice
on the Challenge of Price”, which conformed to legal provisions and
had no procedural error.
IV. Zhaoqing Customs sent Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. the “Notices
on the Challenge of Price” for twice. The first time was on November
27, 2002, and the second time was on April 28, 2003. All the three
“Special Certificates on Payment of Customs-levied VAT” were made on
May 20, 2003, and the four “Notices on Valuation” on May 28. Even if
counting as of the time when the second “Notice on the Challenge of
Price” was sent, up to the time when the specific administrative act
was made, the period was longer than the 15 days time limit.
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company held in the
appeal that Zhaoqing Customs did not offer 15 days of time after
sending the “Notice on the Challenge of Price”, and violated Article
34 of the “Measures of the Customs for the Assessment and
Determination of Duty-paid Value”. This allegation is without any
factual basis.
V. Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the “Measures of the Customs for the
Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value” prescribes: “The
customs shall adopt the following methods to assess the duty-paid
value as follows successively: (1) the method of using the
transaction price of identical goods; (2) the method of using
transaction price of similar goods; (3) the method of subtraction;
(4) the method of calculation; and (5) the method of rational
assessment.” Articles 8 through 11 of the “Measures of the Customs
for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value” separately
prescribe the conditions for adopting the different price methods.
The method of transaction price of identical or similar goods shall
“be on the basis of the transaction price of the identical or
similar goods imported at or at about the same time as the imported
goods assessed”, and “the transaction price of the identical or
similar goods manufactured by the same manufacturer shall be adopted
in priority, and only in the absence of such price may the customs
adopt the transaction price of the identical or similar goods
manufactured in the same manufacturing country or region”. However,
in the price documents provided by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and
Aosi Technology Company, there was no transaction price of identical
or similar goods manufactured by the same manufacturer, and
meanwhile, although Zhaoqing Customs produced the price documents on
the same type of integrated circuit chips, such prices were not for
goods made simultaneously or approximately simultaneously with the
goods under estimation of value, nor were they from the same country
of origin, hence they did not meet the conditions for adopting the
two price methods. The subtractive method shall be “on the basis of
the price at which the assessed imported goods, and when the
identical or similar goods are sold within China”, and shall
meanwhile meet the following conditions: “sold at the same time or
at about the same time as the import of the assessed goods;” “sold
in the status as they are imported;” “sold at the first stage within
China;” “the accumulated sales volume of the goods is the largest;”
“sold to parties without special relations within China”, etc., and
in addition, the “profits and general expenses, as well as the
commission generally paid, of the goods of the same grade or same
kind as those goods when they are sold within China;” “freight,
insurance premiums, loading fee and other relevant expenses
occurring after the goods are transported to the entry spot within
China;” “import duty, import linkage tax and other domestic taxes
related to the import and selling of the foregoing goods” shall be
deducted. Although Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology
Company provided VAT invoices on the same type of integrated circuit
chips, these invoices were found to contain several contradictions.
Zhaoqing Customs held that, these invoices were hard to reflect the
trade facts, and were unable to prove that the price they alleged
was the price with the largest total sales volume within China and
was for the goods sold to the domestic parties with whom they had no
special relationship, nor did they provide the objective
quantifiable documents on the deductible expenses. Although Zhaoqing
Customs found the sales price of the same type of imported
integrated circuit chips, such a price was not a price for the sale
in an import state at the first stage within China, for the maximum
total sales volume of goods, and for the simultaneous or
approximately simultaneous sale when the valued goods were imported,
hence the subtractive method could in no way be adopted. The
computed method shall be used to estimate the duty-paid value of
imported goods on the basis of the sum of the “price of the raw
materials used in the manufacturing of those goods and the expenses
for assembling or other processing”, the “profits and general
expenses consistent with those arising from the exporting of the
goods of the same grade or kind to China”, and the “freight and the
relevant expenses and insurance premiums occurring before the goods
are transported to and unloaded at the entry spot within China”.
This price method also requires the objective quantifiable documents
in respect of the overseas manufacturer’s costs, profits, expenses,
etc. Since the documents provided by Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp.
and Aosi Technology Company are hard to reflect the actual trade
situation, and meanwhile, because the Customs did not have the
documents in this aspect, either, hence the conditions for adopting
the computed method did not exist. Article 11 of the “Measures of
the Customs for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value”
prescribes: “When using the method of rational assessment, the
customs shall, in accordance with the assessment principles of these
Measures, assess the duty-paid value of imported goods on the basis
of the data acquired within China, but may not use the following
prices: (1) domestic sales price of the goods manufactured within
China; (2) the higher prices among the available prices; (3) sales
price of the goods on the market of the export country; (4) price
calculated on the basis of the prices or expenses other than those
specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of these Measures; (5) sales
price of the goods exported to a third country or region; and (6)
the lowest fixed price, or arbitrary or fictive prices.” After
excluding the previous four methods of valuation in sequence,
Zhaoqing Customs made the valuation in a rational method on the
basis of the documents it collected on the actual import transaction
price of the products of the same type and specifications at other
domestic ports, which conformed to the procedures prescribed in
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the “Measures of the Customs for the
Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value”, and the valuation
principles prescribed in Article 11 of the “Measures of the Customs
for the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value”, and did
not exceed the scope of the administrative authority’s power of
discretion.
VI. The price documents on integrated circuit chips of the same type
and specifications, which were cited by Zhaoqing Customs to propose
the price challenge and to determine the value, come from the import
price of another enterprise, and involve in the commercial secret of
another enterprise. Article 38 of the “Measures of the Customs for
the Assessment and Determination of Duty-paid Value” prescribes:
“The customs shall keep confidential for the materials that are
commercial secrets provided by the buyer, seller or the relevant
transacting parties.” Article 37 of the “Provisions of the Supreme
People’s Court on Some Issues concerning Evidence in Administrative
Litigation” prescribes: “The evidence involving any state secret,
commercial secret or personal privacy, or other evidence which
should be kept confidential as required by law shall not be
cross-examined publicly in court.” It was correct for Zhaoqing
Intermediate Court to refuse to hold a public cross-examination of
such evidence submitted by Zhaoqing Customs, for which the Customs
shall bear the confidentiality obligation. The grounds of Zhaoqing
Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company for holding that the
behavior violated statutory procedures cannot be tenable.
To sum up, in the judgment of the first instance, the ascertainment
of facts is clear, the evidence is sufficient, and the adjudication
is appropriate. The grounds of Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi
Technology Company for appeal cannot be tenable, and shall be
rejected according to law. Guangdong Higher Court adjudicated as
follows on November 24, 2005 in accordance with Item (1) of Article
61 of the “Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of
China”:
The appeal shall be rejected, and the judgment of the first instance
shall be sustained.
As for the CNY 100 of case acceptance fee in the second instance,
Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. and Aosi Technology Company shall bear
CNY 50 respectively.
The present judgment shall be final. |
|
