The Supreme Administrative Court rendered the 103-Pan-614 Decision of November 20, 2014 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), in which the following interpretation was provided. When tariffs vary when they are assessed based on different price data obtained from various methods, a reasonable method is to choose a lower price from methods close to the actual trading price.
According to the facts underlying the Decision, the Appellee retained the broker to declare the car at issue the customs. With respect to the original price declared, the Appellee was allowed to pay a deposit to have the car examined and released before the price was subsequently reviewed. The Appellant assessed the payable tariff at NT$1,569,681 according to its price investigation outcome. After the deposit was offset against the tariff, a tariff payment notice for the supplemental tariff of NT$543,681 was issued. Dissatisfied, the Appellee applied for re-assessment and the application was ultimately rejected. The Appellee brought administrative action pursuant to the required procedures. As a result, the original decision was rendered to set aside the decision on administrative appeal and the original disposition. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed this appeal.
In the Decision, Article 19 of the Enforcement Rules of the Customs Law was interpreted to require that when a duty-paid value is assessed based on a reasonable method, it is necessary to use a price closest to the actual trading price of the buyer and seller as much as possible. The so-called "actual trading price" refers to the trading price potentially set by both the buyer and seller in a normal trading condition and is also known as the market price. If prices obtained by such methods are different, a relatively lower price should be selected from methods closer to the actual trading price so that the duty-paid value can be assessed as low as possible in order to qualify as a reasonable method under Article 35 of the Customs Law.
According to the Decision, the original decision selected such method which resulted in a lower assessed value to serve as the basis of the duty-paid value based on such lower value, and this obviously failed to comply with the gist of "assessment closest to the actual trading price as much as possible" under Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Customs Law and violate Article 35 of the Customs Law and Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Customs Law. Therefore, the original decision was reversed and remanded.