Zhaoqing Foreign Trade Corp. v. Zhaoqing Customs
(Administrative Dispute over Customs Valuation)@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
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.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
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.@#
．．．．．．

肇庆外贸公司诉肇庆海关海关估价行政纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
进口货物买方与境外卖方存在分公司与总公司、共同经营、利润分成等特殊关系，进口货物的申报价格又明显低于同型号产品的实际成交可比价格，甚至低于生产成本，申报方不能证明买卖双方的特殊关系未影响成交价格的，根据海关法第五十五条、《海关审价办法》第三十四条的规定，海关可以不接受申报价格，并按照《海关审价办法》第七条至第十一条的规定估定完税价格。@#
@#
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》。@#
．．．．．．