出口貨物報關驗放辦法 第 19 條

白話解讀

對於凡因故意或過失而有規避檢查或逃避管制之行為，即屬私運貨物出口，根據海關緝私條例第3條之規定，私運貨物進口、出口或經營私運貨物者，處貨價1倍至3倍之罰鍰，並沒入私運貨物。在本案中，原告涉嫌私運貨物出口，未經向海關申報而將貨物載運出港，與海關緝私條例第35條第1項要件不符。由於原告未向海關申報更正報單，且貨物已經報關放行，被告對原告裁處了私貨價格1倍之罰鍰計2,656,198元。另外，由於貨物已提供擔保金准予撤銷扣押並已出口，因此無法處分沒入，被告根據行政罰法第23條第1項規定，裁處沒入貨物之價額計2,656,198元。被告依法定罰鍰最低額之私貨價格1倍之罰鍰，可以認定是妥當的，原告所稱委無足採等語，不具抗辯之理由。根據行政罰法第18條第1項規定，當裁處機關在法定罰鍰額度範圍內量處時，應審酌各種因素。因此，被告的量罰處分可以認定是妥當的，原告之訴應被駁回。 根據海關緝私條例第4條，報運貨物進口、出口指的是根據關稅法及有關法令規定，向海關申報貨物，經由通商口岸進口或出口。根據關稅法第16條第2項和運輸工具進出口通關管理辦法，出口貨物應在載運貨物的運輸工具結關或開駛前的規定期限內申報給海關。根據運輸工具進出口通關管理辦法第43條，船舶出口前應檢具相關文件向海關申請結關，經核發結關證明書後船舶才能出港。根據本案資料，在報單AA/99/1536/5401號和AA/99/1659/5403號中，原告虛報了規格和重量，並且產地都被認定為台灣。另外，被告查詢海關電腦海運系統作業選單，發現驗貨結果註記欄註明‘N驗貨不相符’。因此，原告的報關行為不符合貨物確實申報和通關查驗程序的要求。 Based on the information provided, it can be inferred that the defendant issued a penalty for the plaintiff's violation of the regulations regarding the export of goods without declaring them to the customs authorities. The penalty imposed was 1 times the value of the goods involved, totaling NT$2,656,198. The defendant also considered the option of confiscating the goods but decided against it due to the goods having been already exported. The plaintiff argued that they did not engage in any unlawful activity and misunderstood the legal regulations. However, the defendant maintained that the plaintiff's actions violated the provisions of the Customs Anti-Smuggling Act. The court should have considered factors such as the minimum penalty amount and whether the plaintiff exhibited sufficient evidence to support their claims. The court believed that the penalty imposed by the defendant was appropriate and rejected the plaintiff's claims. Additionally, the court pointed out that the defendant failed to thoroughly investigate the evidence during the inspection process. The court found that the defendant did not examine the export declaration and other related documents to verify whether the goods in question were accurately declared and whether the inspection process was completed. Furthermore, the court noted that the defendant did not investigate the involvement of a shipping company mentioned by the plaintiff, which could have provided supporting evidence. To answer the question regarding "出口貨物報關驗放辦法第 19 條," the provided information does not directly address this specific article. Therefore, without further information, it is not possible to provide a detailed explanation or example related to this specific clause.