• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.239-258
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to examine the legal standards of agreements on the origin of liability and the relevant laws in Korea, to suggest implications for custom authorities and traders wishing to benefit from preferential tariff via FTA, citing the excluded cases of related FTA preferences (court cases and administrative judgments). In order to examine the provisions related to supporting evidence of the origin of liability in FTA, we examined FTAs agreed between Korea and EU, EFTA, ASEAN, U.S., and India relevant to FTA Special Customs Act, court cases and administrative judgements. If verifying the origin to protect the fair trade order impedes to promote utilizing FTA, solutions will need to be suggested. If FTA preference is exempted due to verifying the origin by the import customs authorities, the importer shall pay the income tax calculated in accordance with the general tax rate. This is because the certificate of origin confirmed during verification process is different from the actual origin. In most agreements, the exporter (the producer) shall issue the certificate of origin and since the importer has no other option than obtaining the certificate of origin from the exporter, it may face consequences such as declined credibility from the custom authorities in addition to being disqualified for FTA preferential, if the certificate of origin received from the exporter has flaws. On the other hand, the exporter cannot help but being punished by the customs authorities due to issuing defective origin certificates, but it doesn't have conventionary liabilities for damages incurred to the importer. As a result, importers are forced to pursue legal proceedings to claim damages to exporters or to give up FTA preference. As FTA is increasingly utilized, the number and amount of origin verification in Korea has continuously been increasing while administrative judgements indicates other FTA exporters doesn't seem to gain any support in utilizing FTA like Korea does. It has been 8 years since full-scale supports in FTA launched and now is the time to introduce more efficient and intensive FTA support system In this regard, it is desirable to conduct comprehensive verification on export Next, an institutions that assures FTA-based exports should be established in order to compensate the importer's damages that may occur from disqualified certificate of origin issued by the exporter.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.517-541
• /
• 2012

Since the Korea-Chile FTA in 2003, eight FTAs are now in force including Korea-EU and Korea-US FTA. The government anticipate that FTAs increase the GDP of Korea. Government-related research institutes officially reports the positive economic impact in Korea. However, the report does not show that how much Busan economy is affected by the FTAs. For this reason, we study the economic effects of FTAs in Busan. We compare the trade statistics before and after the time each FTA is in force. The resulting figures show that the exports and trades of Busan with the FTA nations increased significantly after the enforcement. For example, the exports to Chile increased by 273% when we compare the three-year average trade. We also construct an econometrics model to estimate the price elasticity. The estimated elasticity of exports for manufactured goods is 1.38 while that of imports is 0.83. Among the manufacturing industry, machinery has the highest price elasticity, 1.8. The average tariff for manufactured goods is 3.9% for FTA nations, while that is 5.8% for Busan. This higher price fall in Busan is offset by the lower price elasticity to make Busan's export increase be greater than Busan's import increase. Busan's export increases by 4.8% while import increases by 3.7%. So, it is expected to be added to the annual trade surplus of approximately $107million.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.67-95
• /
• 2014

Some Contracting States of the Chicago Convention issue FAOC(Foreign Air Operator Certificate) and conduct various safety assessments for the safety of the foreign operators which operate to their state. These FAOC and safety audits on the foreign operators are being expanded to other parts of the world. While this trend is the strengthening measure of aviation safety resulting in the reduction of aircraft accident. FAOC also burdens the other contracting States to the Chicago Convention due to additional requirements and late permission. EASA(European Aviation Safety Agency) is a body governed by European Basic Regulation. EASA was set up in 2003 and conduct specific regulatory and executive tasks in the field of civil aviation safety and environmental protection. EASA's mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation. The task of the EASA has been expanded from airworthiness to air operations and currently includes the rulemaking and standardization of airworthiness, air crew, air operations, TCO, ATM/ANS safety oversight, aerodromes, etc. According to Implementing Rule, Commission Regulation(EU) No 452/2014, EASA has the mandate to issue safety authorizations to commercial air carriers from outside the EU as from 26 May 2014. Third country operators (TCO) flying to any of the 28 EU Member States and/or to 4 EFTA States (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland) must apply to EASA for a so called TCO authorization. EASA will only take over the safety-related part of foreign operator assessment. Operating permits will continue to be issued by the national authorities. A 30-month transition period ensures smooth implementation without interrupting international air operations of foreign air carriers to the EU/EASA. Operators who are currently flying to Europe can continue to do so, but must submit an application for a TCO authorization before 26 November 2014. After the transition period, which lasts until 26 November 2016, a valid TCO authorization will be a mandatory prerequisite, in the absence of which an operating permit cannot be issued by a Member State. The European TCO authorization regime does not differentiate between scheduled and non-scheduled commercial air transport operations in principle. All TCO with commercial air transport need to apply for a TCO authorization. Operators with a potential need of operating to the EU at some time in the near future are advised to apply for a TCO authorization in due course, even when the date of operations is unknown. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the function of EASA and EU Regulation including TCO Implementing Rule newly introduced, and suggested some proposals. I hope that this paper is 1) to help preparation of TCO authorization, 2) to help understanding about the international issue, 3) to help the improvement of korean aviation regulations and government organizations, 4) to help compliance with international standards and to contribute to the promotion of aviation safety, in addition.